Relating to authorizing the Office of Technology to promulgate a legislative rule relating to telecommunications payments made by state spending units
Summary
House Bill 2229 authorizes the West Virginia Office of Technology to promulgate a legislative rule governing telecommunications payments made by state spending units. The bill does not itself create a new program or funding source; instead, it gives legal effect to an existing administrative rule that was filed, revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, and refiled for authorization.
In practical terms, the measure confirms the Office of Technology’s authority to set and administer rules for how state agencies and other spending units handle telecommunications-related payments. The bill is limited to approving the rule identified as 163 CSR 05 and is part of the Legislature’s oversight process for agency rulemaking.
Impact
The bill amends and reenacts §64-2-1 of the West Virginia Code to authorize a specific legislative rule from the Office of Technology. Its effect is to validate the rule on telecommunications payments made by state spending units, thereby allowing the rule to take effect and govern state agency payment practices in this area. The bill affects state administrative law and procurement/finance operations for agencies that pay for telecommunications services.
Sentiment
There is little visible controversy or debate around HB2229 in the available record. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, and the bill appears to be a routine rule-authorization measure. The overall sentiment suggested by the text is procedural and neutral, focused on completing the Legislature’s review of an agency rule rather than advancing a contested policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. The only notable issue implied by the bill text is that the rule had to be modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before being refiled, suggesting the committee had concerns about the original version of the rule. However, the nature of those objections is not provided, and no opposing viewpoints are recorded.