Ohio House General Government Committee - 6-2-2026

Chair Wray.

Vice Chair Wray.

Present.

Here.

Representative John.

Manning.

McLean is excused.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Sittenberg is checked in. We do have a quorum presented and will proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the May 27th committee meeting on your iPads. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. I will now call up House Bill 582 for its fourth hearing. Anybody here that wants to speak to that? No? There was no testimony submitted, in person or written submitted for House Bill 582. I would now like to recognize Vice Chair LeRae.

It's for a motion.

Wait.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Sinnenberg?

Thank you, Chair. Chair Ray, I move to adopt amendment AM 1361760 for House Bill 264.

This amendment creates an exception to the bill that allows school districts' boards of education to disseminate a publication during the 30 days before an election about a school levy or a bond issue or the district's finances if the county auditor certifies that the publication provides only factual information and does not support the ballot issue.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair Leray, Ranking Member Brent, and the members of the House General Government Committee for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 770. As elected officials, we are all familiar with the complexities of campaign finance law. The intent of these rules is to ensure a fair and transparent election process that we can trust. However, some of those rules can create unnecessary confusion and hinder our ability to provide transparency to voters. House Bill 770 fixes one of those rules by granting campaign committees the authority to refund political contributions for any reason and establish clear terms for disclosing those refunds. By doing so, this bill prioritizes transparency for voters and creates clear guidance for candidates. The Election Integrity Commission released an advisory opinion in April of this year that addressed some edge cases for refunds, but also made clear that they do not currently have authority in law and we do not have authority in law for most refunds now. The EIC affirmed that the authority currently exists to return donations if a contribution exceeds limits, if it was made in error, if a donation was done without the contributor's approval, or if it otherwise an unlawful contribution. Current law only explicitly provides for the spending of funds to influence elections for official duties or to make charitable donations. A voluntary refund is technically not considered a permitted expenditure. This restriction is unnecessary and counterproductive. The current lack of flexible mechanisms for refunds encourages campaigns to hold on to surplus funds, even when a candidate is no longer active or no longer actively singing office. We all know of candidates across both sides of the aisle that have held onto funds for years past their last election. House Bill 770 allows funds to be returned directly to people who provide those funds, a change that could be used to benefit everyday small donors who may have more urgent need for those funds. An additional key circumstance for considering refunds is when a candidate may want to refund a contribution. Sometimes, and we've seen instances of that in the news this past year, sometimes a candidate no longer wishes to keep that donation, and under current law, they cannot donate it. They can only donate or return it. They can only donate it to charity. That charitable contribution when it is made is not clearly linked in public records to the donation that the candidate is making a charitable contribution in relation to. This disconnect hides the true intent of that transaction and obscures public records. House Bill 770 solves this circumstance by requiring Campaign Committee to report both the original contribution that was made and the subsequent refund as an expenditure in financial reports. Voters deserve the right to be able to easily look and see if a candidate is claiming to have donated a contribution to charity, the tie-in and how much they returned to charity. The bottom line is that the existing refund law complicates what should be a straightforward process and doesn't serve a public interest. By creating a clear transparent mechanism for contribution refunds we can give campaigns the flexibility they need and give voters the transparency to see what going on Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

This has always perplexed me in our campaign finance laws. Just a quick point of clarification. So in your legislation, the allowed refund amount, does it have to match the original contribution? Can the candidate or elected official or campaign committee decide an amount? So for example, the example that you gave, say someone doesn't win their primary, they've got money left in their campaign account. Do they have to give back to donors in a specified amount? Can they divide it equally? Can you just walk through that scenario and specifically what your... So in that circumstance you describe, you know, campaign ends, say, in an example, you raised $100,000, but you have $5,000 left at the end.

Representative Brent

And I'll just speak back in 2019. We had a situation here where everybody named Mama was giving back their donations tied to a particular vote. Has there been anything else that's happened recently that is causing an uproar that people want to see this action done? So I have served as a treasurer for candidate committees for over 20 years now. At the beginning of my career in Cuyahoga County, we had a big scandal, and it led to a change in government. Everybody wanted to return contributions from the people that were convicted in that scandal. They couldn't do it. This has been a persistent issue for decades across the aisle, across public officials, private individuals. Quite frankly, there are instances in which your campaign may raise funds from someone. They seem okay. They've been okay. They've been a member of the community for years. But then something comes out that no one knows about, and you want to do something to demonstrate that you don't want to be associated with that. You want to donate to charity. Well, say you've got three different contributions from that person over years, and that totals $300. dollars you donate to charity someone looks at your campaign finance report they just see a donation to charity They don know that that corresponds to how much you raised over the years or what you donating it for It just says you donated it to charity We're not providing any clarity to folks that if they want to encourage officials to return funds from a source that they think isn't right, the public has no way of knowing. They just can guess and say, oh, well, I see you raised $300 from a questionable person, and I see there's a donation here, but how do I know that they're tied together? Thank you, Chair.

A couple of months ago I received a very odd amount check. It was $122. For somebody who had contributed to me and I knew in the past, we deposited it. But I got to thinking about it. I called her, and she pays her bills online. and unfortunately selected me when she probably should have been selecting the utility bill. So I called her and let her know about that. But would your proposed legislation now allow me to return that check to her out of my campaign committee?

Representative Leray.

I have not had any conversations. I mean, again, usually when people donate to charity, if there's some kind of scandal, it's associated with what that scandal is. So there's not like a funds always go to a certain constituency group that I could talk to. But quite frankly, I think this would help provide more – value is not the right way to say it, but make it more beneficial to return funds to charity in a circumstance where you want to return funds, but maybe the person has done something wrong or illegal. This makes it cleaner for you to do that. Right now, you make that charitable contribution, and it's just out there by itself as an isolated thing that shows up on your report months after you did it because that's just the way that reports work.

Sorry, just one more quick follow-up from my colleague's question. Just to be clear, your legislation doesn't prohibit campaign committees from contributing to charities, so they could choose to do that, or they will now have the additional option to do a direct refund to the contributor.

I see no further questions. Thank you very much, Representative.

This concludes the first hearing on House Bill 770. Call up House Bill 388 for its first hearing and welcome Representative Williams and Jerrolds to the podium. Good morning, gentlemen. The floor is yours.

Chair Leray, Vice Chair Leray, Ranking Member Brent and members of the General Government Committee, thank you for allowing us to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 388. My joint sponsor, Representative Williams, did a great job kind of covering the specifics of the bill, but I want to talk to you about something deeply personal. For a long time in this country and frankly in the state, we have treated obesity as a character flaw instead of what medical professionals have repeatedly told us. It is a chronic disease. We have built culture where people are often judged before they're helped. People are told to simply try harder, have more discipline, or make better choices, while many are battling genetics, trauma, stress, poverty, food insecurity, hormonal disorders, mental health challenges, chronic illness, and medications that contribute to weight gain. Too often they are carrying those burdens in silence. Members of the committee in Ohio was hurting. Nearly 37% of Ohio adults are living with obesity, and millions of Ohioans are living with hypertension, heart disease, sleep apnea, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses connected to obesity and metabolic health. But behind these statistics is a human being, a mother trying to live long enough to see her child graduate, a father trying to lower his blood pressure, public servants quietly battling diabetes while still showing up for work every day. There are people who have tried diet after diet, program after program, only to feel defeated, ashamed, and ultimately invisible. House Bill 388 says to those high-owners they deserve dignity, too. This legislation creates a reimbursement program within a state employee health plan for FDA-approved GLP-1 medications used for chronic weight management. This bill is structured intentionally and responsibly. It limits reimbursement eligibility to help FDA-approved medications, excludes compounded drugs, requires physician verification, establishes reimbursement caps, and creates a time-limited reimbursement period. Let me tell you what this bill is not. It is not about vanity. It's not about celebrity trends or social media conversations. This bill is about public health, about prevention, and about giving people access to medically appropriate treatment before their health declines even further. Because right now, the Ohio, state of Ohio, is paying for the consequences of obesity while refusing to help address the disease itself. We pay for it in diabetes complications, amputations. We pay for it with heart disease. We pay for it in strokes and hospitalizations. And again, many Ohioans are being told that they cannot access tools that may help prevent these outcomes in the first place. Members of the committee I know what it feels like to fight for your health I also was on a GLP I lost over 45 pounds and that was before we were able to get taken off And so I know what it feels like to have this stress on you and I know what it feels like to struggle with weight while balancing public service trauma life itself And I also know that many people never ask for help because they are afraid of being mocked instead of supported. I believe we can build a healthier Ohio if we remove the shame from the public health strategy. And House Bill 38 recognized that health care should meet people where they are. And just want to really see this bill move and have an open and honest conversation about GOP-1 access for everyone. But let's start with our state employees and those who work on behalf of our government. So Chair Leray, Chair Ray, Vice Chair Leray, Ranking Member Brent and members of the House Government Committee, thank you, General Government Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to provide some testimony on House Bill 388. And I'm just excited to have any questions, answer any questions you have at this time.

Thank you, Chairwoman, to our witnesses. I'll just say I guess technically, according to the state standards, we consider as obese. But I've never been on GOP-1. I'm not a diabetic or anything like that. But I know GOP-1, I'm just stating out facts, was originally made for those who are diabetic. And I know within the past year or so, we've had major shortages of GOP-1 products because people want to use it for other things, if it's diet or for whatever reason. When we look at this bill, if you're, according to lines 42 through 44, you said you, if you have a body mass index of 25 to 29 percent, you consider it's overweight. But according to your bill, you have to be at least 30 percent of your body mass index to be able to receive this GLP-1. Why was that put in this bill like that?

I do have a follow-up.

then reimbursement for 24 months. How do we come up with that conclusion? Because obviously you've been on your medication for more than 24 months. So how are we limiting people for 24 months when you've been on yours for more?

Thank you, Sharon. Representative, I think Manning was next.

Through the chair to the member, so I've talked to my constituents about this. One, it's already covered under state health policy right now. So we're just simply saying that we shouldn't have to go through the Virta program, that we should be able to go through a state-regulated program instead of this independent vendor that's making these medical decisions. I can't even go to my primary care physician and him say that I need to be on this medication. My insurance won't cover it if he says it. But if I go to Virta, a nurse can say that I need to be on this medication, and she did. And I went from 2.4 milligrams every two months to now I'm on 0.25 and I have to start all over again. And I may not see my weight come down for six to nine months of being back on GOP-1s because there was a gap. I do believe a lot of the private health insurance carriers are covering GOP-1s now. I know I have family members that are on GOP-1s. They had to go through their eligibility through private care. And I know at the federal level, Medicaid is actually considering putting GOP-1s in the Medicaid program at the federal level. I don't think the state of Ohio is going to have the authority to say that Medicaid needs to cover it. We would have to ask for a waiver. But it is underproposable at the federal level to get GOP-1s covered through the Medicaid program for individuals that are experiencing obesity at high levels. At a certain point, I mean, I was 458 pounds. I was pre-diabetic. I have so many health complications because of six years of being that big of a guy. And now I was at my lowest point at a manageable weight, and my insurance stripped that coverage from me, and instantaneously my health has declined. And it's not just for me. Unlike members in the General Assembly, I'm not going to be back on the health insurance. I'm out of the General Assembly. So I'm going back to my private care. But my wife's health care coverage, when we have open enrollment, I think it's October, they covered GOP-1. And I'm going to transition to her health care coverage. But under state coverage right now, I can't get it unless I go through all of these intrusive measures. When previously for two years we allowed coverage, and we've done it in this bill in a cost-effective way, encouraging people to titrate off, combining it with hopefully lifestyle changes, and seeing if they can maintain their weight loss. That's the goal, and that's the way I talk to my constituents in regards to it.

Chairwoman, may I comment just very briefly?

Representative Russo?

Through the chairwoman to the member, yeah, we're very open to that conversation. We were doing as much cost-saving measures as we could. I mean, the first effort was to make sure that the actual state employees that previously had coverage weren't going to get a lapse in coverage. We were unsuccessful with getting the bill through that fast, so now they would have to go through the current VIRTA program. We are open to the discussion, especially knowing what the cost savings were. When we initially did the fiscal analysis on it, it wasn't based off of just employees. When I did my calculations, it was based off of total number of covered individuals. And that was resulting in million being spent on that coverage And by reducing it just by the coverage the BMI and the cost savings we were already drastically cutting back what the state of Ohio was going to expend for GOP coverage I don't think it would be that much more, and actually I think it would be less now that we've seen the cost actually come down, so the reimbursement can come down. So I would be very open to an amendment that brings down the reimbursement costs. I prefer to have skin in the game as an employee. Hey, you pay this portion, the state pays that portion, You got skin in the game, so people aren't just getting it when they don't need it. But at the same time, I think if you have an obese child or an obese spouse, I think that they should have that coverage as well if they're under a state employee plan.

Through the chair, to the members, I'm not aware of many FDA-approved drugs that our policy doesn't cover that are specifically used for FDA-approved condition. I am aware of FDA-approved drugs that doctors are prescribing off-label that our insurance won't cover because you're using it for an alternative purpose. If there was specific drugs, I would be open to the conversation.

Thank you. Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 779, the Jobs Ohio Transparency Act. We introduced this legislation because we believe economic development works best when it is both aggressive and accountable. Ohio should absolutely compete for jobs and investment but no state entity handing billions of taxpayer resources should operate without meaningful transparency and oversight Over the last three years, I have attempted to work collaboratively with Jobs Ohio on behalf of my district and the broader Appalachian region. I came into office believing Jobs Ohio could be a transformational partner for communities like mine that have spent decades fighting economic decline, population loss, an addiction crisis, and the collapse of legacy industries. Instead, I repeatedly encountered barriers. When Scioto County was at our lowest point trying to rebuild our economic development corporation, we asked for financial help and were told no. When I sought assistance to help preserve a major employer in my district, we were told no. When I proposed broader long-term strategies for Appalachian revitalization, including a regional initiative focused on infrastructure, workforce, and recruitment, I was told no. At some point, after enough conversations lead to nowhere, you begin asking a simple question. Who exactly is JobsOhio accountable to? And that question is what has led to this bill. Ohio's economic development structure is unusual. Let's talk about that. We were effectively a national test case. Few states have delegated this level of economic development authority to a private nonprofit structure tied to public assets and liquor revenues. And several states that experimented with similar models eventually backed away after concerns over transparency and accountability. Even conservative reformers in states like Florida recognize the problem. Governor Ron DeSantis and Republican lawmakers restructured Enterprise Florida after concluding that government-connected entities cannot simply claim to operate, quote, at the speed of business, unquote, while avoiding the level of public scrutiny expected elsewhere in government. Because when public money and infrastructure are blended with private operations without transparency, trust erodes. That is what this legislation is all about. We're trying to restore some trust. House Bill 779 establishes basic expectations for transparency, reporting, and accountability. If Jobs Ohio is truly doing exceptional work across this state, then audits reporting public testimony should reinforce confidence in the organization and not threaten it. One issue that particularly concerned me was reviewing reports claiming significant economic development activity in my district. On paper, it looked great. Some of the numbers looked very impressive. But when you look closer, many of these projects were already happening independently before JobsOhio became involved. In several cases, it appeared that a check was written after the fact, and the project was then counted as a JobsOhio success. That may improve annual reporting, but it doesn't necessarily reflect meaningful economic tragedy or transformational investment. Meanwhile, millions of dollars in liquor profits are generated from communities like mine and flow into this system every year. Yet, Appalachia, Ohio continues to lag behind in major economic development investment. Before Jobs Ohio, those dollars went to our locals to do what was best for them. My constituents are not asking for special treatment. We're just asking to not be forgotten. I was told by Jobs Ohio that all economic development starts locally. If that is the case, why not give the money to the locals? We in Southern Ohio work hard. We pay taxes. We raise families. We deserve to know whether this system is truly serving all regions of Ohio equally or primarily concentrating resources in areas already experiencing growth and momentum. Transparency isn't controversial. It's bipartisan. This bill says that if an entity is connected to public assets, public revenue, and public policy, then the public deserves visibility into how decisions are made, where money is going, and whether promises are being fulfilled. That is a responsible government. At the end of the day, sunlight builds credibility. Accountability builds trust, and trust is necessary if economic development efforts are going to maintain public support long term. If Jobs Ohio succeeds, this bill gives them an opportunity to prove it clearly and publicly. And if improvements are needed, then we owe it to Ohioans to identify them honestly. I just want to thank the committee again for this opportunity, and I'll turn it to my friend, Representative Rader.

Representative Brent.

Through the chair, thank you for that question, ranking member. What this would do is JobsOhio would have to track and then report how it's spending those expenditures so that we could see on an annual basis how that money is being spent and who's receiving it. So in this case, that would be on the report that we could then see exactly who's getting And then we can go back and check and see if it's actually being spent in a way that's kind of comporting with our mission and vision. Just a quick follow-up. Yes.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Representative. In my testimony, I mentioned sunlight, and if we can shine light on an organization, it gives public trust and transparency. I truly believe that had this bill been passed, we wouldn't have seen such an embarrassment happen to our state. I hear the podcast had two episodes. that's some money. My district, I think, sees this, and we're a little offended when I represent one of the poorest counties in the state. Imagine what could have been done to a place like Scioto County in our local economic development had we been given $50,000 to help a few good-paying jobs to lift people up out of poverty. Seeing that go to a podcast, it's kind of embarrassing to our state. So thank you for that point.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, gentlemen. So in your opinion, has JobsOhio been a pretty good economic driver for Ohio? Have we increased jobs or are we having that loss of jobs?

And I'll answer that if I may, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. I just want to know. I won't go as far as to say the jobs that have been created since Jobs Ohio are connected or aren't connected to Jobs Ohio. They put out big numbers. And if you go and you look at the actual individual projects, you know, talk to the businesses in my community that they claim are the recipients of those jobs that have been created, the contributions from Jobs Ohio is relatively small. They actually took me on a tour, and I appreciate this. Team Neo took me to three businesses in my district. And I got to see some of the work they had done. And one of the businesses received a small grant for a $1.2 million machine. I mean, it was a few thousand dollars for a $1.2 million machine from Jobs Ohio, yet they claimed that created jobs. Now, they had a small role there. The company was very appreciative of the small grant they got. The company was already purchasing the piece of equipment. So all we want to do is instead of finding out kind of after the fact and through meeting these companies in our districts, We'd like to see a much more detailed, granular understanding of how these public dollars are being spent so we can kick the tires and understand better how these economic development instruments are actually being used to create the jobs that are claimed to be created. So I think that's what we're trying to do with this bill. And again, nothing in this bill would necessarily change what Jobs Ohio is doing today. In fact if they are creating the jobs and doing the things that they doing I do believe that there shouldn be any problem with what we asking for today It just about transparency and accountability at the end Representative Yes Well in my region they been very successful You know, we actually have roadways, infrastructure, water, sewer, so it's been very successful in our areas. I don't mind tweaking some things and, you know, flipping over a few rocks, but to answer my own question, they've been very successful in my opinion. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Chairwoman. There we go. Sorry, I turned myself off again. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the representatives. My question for you, and Representative Pazula, you referenced, you know, Florida had sort of pursued this model and then had concerns about the transparency issue. Are you aware? I mean, how do we compare to other states that have these entities in terms of, you know, what I see is just the lack of transparency. And I think that that's the big concern here because, you know, we've essentially given Jobs Ohio access, full access to the liquor license profits in this state, which, as you know, I can't remember whose testimony, you know, totals about $16 billion through their now extended contract to 2053. that's an incredible amount of resources with almost no transparency in what is the return on investment there. And so I'm just curious, you know, as you're looking across other states, you brought up, I think, Michigan and Indiana or many other states that have similar entities. entities, how do we compare in terms of transparency and accountability, especially to a legislature or really the public?

Representative Sinnenberg.

Thank you. Through the chair, thank you, Representative Sindenburg, for the question. I think that actually through this process we met with the auditor's office, and I think there's some additional tweaks that we can make to make sure that what's currently happening, There are some basic sort of audits that happen. They sample projects over $15 million, which I thought was interesting. They only pick a couple of projects, and they sample them to make sure the structure, they don't publish anything about the project, but just to kind of give a stamp of approval, I guess. There's a couple-page report that's issued every year from the auditor right now based on Jobs Ohio, and we're working with them right now to figure out how we can port what they currently do. There's no sort of enforcement mechanism there. They just pretty much say whether, you know, generally they're compliant or not. and then there's a report that is made. So I think, to your point, I think a lot more could be done. We then met with the inspector general on this, Meyer, and I think if an amendment is to be made, we already submitted for one actually, I think the inspector general could have a larger role. Right now, as the rules currently written, the inspector general cannot do any type of investigation on their own of Jobs Ohio. They can't just come in if they see something that's amiss. They can, if there's been a formal complaint filed, then follow up on that complaint. but the inspector general has a broad authority. In fact, you're the only person that can walk into the governor's office today and go through his email if he wants any time in order to make sure that everything's above board. So I think it's really important maybe that we – something we've talked about, considered including the inspector general as kind of a check and balance. And it's definitely a check that the inspector general is also not a – it's a political appointee, but he's removed one step from that electoral process, and I think it does provide a little bit of extra – and an extra layer of protection that I think is warranted. So good question.

No?

I'm sorry. Have we met? Jamie here. Thank you, Chairwoman Ray and Vice Chair Larray. I cannot read from here, and there are so many empty spots. I'm having trouble reading the things. But thank you, committee. I'll name each of you if you'd like. We are here today to talk about House Bill 775. It's a small little bill. I was going to ask for copies to be at each desk. It is 3,567 pages. It is slightly larger than the operating budget. And it's sad that it has to be that large to accomplish what we're trying to do. I think everybody, all of you know that I have been a professor in the past, have written a couple of textbooks on state government, and I have a two-hour lecture on the separation of powers and the checks and balances between the three branches, really isolating the conflicts and the ebb and flow between executive and legislative branch over the years. I would be happy to give that lecture. I've given it for 30 years. I can keep it to about two hours. And here's my deal with you. If we have two or less questions, I'll forego it. Third question, I'm doing it. Fourth question, I'm reading the 3,600-page bill. So what this bill does is look at, and we visit this every eight or ten years here in Ohio. We have something called J-CART, the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. Many of you have substituted on that or served on that. And that is the pinnacle of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branch. And the purpose of J-CART was initiated in 1977. It's been around ever since. It is there to make sure that administrative rules, executive branch rules, comply with legislative intent. That's the simple purpose. But every few years, there's what's known as administrative or bureaucratic creep, where they slowly begin to expand their jurisdiction, expand their power, and take more liberties in their rulemaking to create policies, in essence to legislate rather than simply implement or execute the laws that we put in place. What this bill does is it goes through and takes out language from the code or adjusts language in the code that agencies have been using over the last few years with more and more frequency to expand their legislative activities rather than strictly putting in place rules that comply and help implement the legislation we've passed. One of the things that we're taking out in maybe 300 places is, and implement appropriate rules or rules as appropriate. Well, they've started to take advantage, not just one agency, but a lot of agencies, take advantage of that and implement rules that they think would make good law. That's not their job. That's our job. and rather than saying they have to go, I do want to take exception to the LSC analysis because it says they have to do this they have to do that No we doing it for them in this bill We are taking that language out so that future rules will not overstep what the legislature intended them to do If there's an issue, they can bring it to the legislature, and we, as the elected representative of the people, can decide whether or not, and if so, how, to deal with any issues that come up that is not the executive branch's job. So that, quite simply, is what this bill does. Despite the length, it's actually a really simple concept. And with that, remember two questions. I will turn it over, and that includes you. So if you have a question, you can deal with it right now. I'll raise my question in the form of a statement.

to make sure that the branches are doing the jobs that they're constructed to do under our founders' intent. So I'll stop there. I'd be happy to answer your two questions, apparently. Oh, there could be more. But there could be many. Any questions for the representatives? Representative Bruce.

Nothing in this bill precludes the legislature from saying, okay, we want you to, I'm trying to think of an example, update the fired code to be consistent with federal code and best practices. We could pass that as legislation and delegate a fairly wide latitude to an individual agency if there's something we don't want to dig into or we think is more appropriate for the executive branch to do. Nothing in this precludes that. Nothing in this eliminates those things. I think the fire codes went speed limits. You know, we have, for ODOT, we have certain parameters for speed limits, but we let them work within those and within the details, right? We can still delegate that. We can still outline a process for that. We can still give that authority. But it's not to be assumed. The problem is we have agencies now assuming authority that we haven't specifically delegated. delegated. And it is keeping us busy in JCAR because we're dealing with this on a every three-week basis with agencies who have overstepped and done things that are clearly outside of legislative intent, and they're hiding behind some of the language that's a little bit vague, and that's why the bill's so long, is we're eliminating some of those vague statutes. We're not eliminating anything substantive that we've asked an agency to do. We had a, I think this committee actually did a big review of agencies and boards and commissions and what their job descriptions were and if they were complying with it. That's for that kind of legislation. This doesn't do any of that. This simply says and clarifies that we are the ones who make policy. It doesn't say we can't delegate some of that policymaking. It just says we're the ones who make policy, who make the laws.

You've given me the perfect softball. In the 1770s, the Virginia legislature came up with the Virginia Bill of Rights. And in that, part of that was segregating out the various powers of the various branches. Right. And the legislative oversight, legislative intent, and state authority over federal authority was ingrained. When the Constitution was written later on and the first three articles were drafted, the federal government was a little bit vague. So the folks from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson in particular, made sure that in the Bill of Rights we had the Ninth and Tenth Amendment that allowed the states to act as independent entities even in the federalism system that was there. That concept still holds today. So one of the beauties of JCAR and the process we have is it's not even separation of the branches, but it's also a place where we deal with federalism very directly. And while this bill doesn't specifically alter the arrangement we have now, that's pretty well established between the federal courts and the U.S. Constitution. I think that addresses your question and is a nice preview of the lecture about the conference.

Yes, that's not a change. They have to now. This bill does not address that.

Representative Brent.

Just off the top of my head in the last 24 hours, we had a department that had proposed some rules that were contrary to intent on what I think was legislative intent certainly an area we hadn acted though there is pending legislation dealing with kratom and natural kratom versus the processed part So that one where the legislature is currently having hearings on it and the Department of I Believe Pharmacy decided to act, even knowing that we are debating it, and did something that's what we just haven't made the decision on, basically usurping our power. We've had a number of rules over the last six months that have come out from the governor's office, administrative rules, which go through the agencies, which are things either we've addressed or we're in the process of addressing that have kind of undermined the legislative authority in those areas. We've had a lot over education issues over the last two decades. That seems to be irregular to the point where we invalidated so many rules from the Ohio Department of Education. Eventually, it was easier to just eliminate the department. So we probably have two examples a month of that, which is why we need the legislation. It's becoming very, very prominent that that happens.

No, I meant two overall.

Yes.

The policy rule to rule was passed just like the five-year review was passed six or seven years ago. Like I said, we have to address this every few years because the agencies have full-time professional lawyers figuring out how to do things outside the legislature. I mean, literally, it's full-time jobs at a lot of agencies. The policy to rule simply says you can't ignore rulemaking and just create a policy and start enforcing it, charging fines, charging fees, charging people with criminal offenses because you want to or you think it's right. That's the legislature's legislative prerogative. That's our branch. And that was happening so much that we passed the policy to rule a few years ago that said if it should be in rule, thus should be through statute, indirectly or directly, you can't just do that and skip the rulemaking process. So we added that as a prong to JCAR several years ago, a couple years ago, so that we would be able to catch those things and make sure that the agencies aren't just totally circumventing the checks and balances between the two branches. That's gotten a lot better. But now they're putting in rules, and we do catch them at JCAR and correct them and send them back. But they've shifted it, and now they're doing things in rule that are outside of what the legislature has asked them to do. And some of these folks have, and you want them to, right? You want the Department of Health to have a bias towards making everybody healthy. I once, cross-examination, well, witness questioning, many years ago had the director of the Department of Health up, and we were talking about an environmental thing and I finally asked the question I said so people die walking across the street to get hit by a car I said yes And following your logic to the conclusion you all would adopt a rule outlawing cars and outlawing streets And he said, yes. We want our agencies and agency directors to be very zealous in their field. But our job as a legislature, as a representative of the people that elected us, is to have the balance. Our constitution was set up that way. Our entire nation was founded on that concept, that we have different branches for different purposes, and we have the checks and balances. When one gets out of whack, it becomes more powerful. Quite frankly, term limits have really contributed to that because the bureaucrats will be here longer than us. That's the truth. And so having oversight, having someone who's been on JCAR 16 years now, 15 and a half years, we see a lot. And we see that bureaucratic creep that comes in, and we have to correct it. It's a natural part of government. I'll talk in a few minutes. I've got about 20 minutes to talk about Federalist No. 10 and why human nature was taken into account. And I think it's human nature that the agencies would want to grow and expand their power, expand what they're doing. And again, the Department of Health wants everybody to be healthy and safe, but there's some balance we have to find there as legislators. As my co-sponsor said, we're accountable to the public that Alexis, and we're going to get in trouble with them for a rule that an agency made on our watch if we aren't very diligent with this type of thing.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, gentlemen, for this bill. You guys both are on your second tour duty. You do a great job. You guys really do a good job with the rules, processes, accountabilities. You guys are probably the two best we have in that arena, so thank you. My question's kind of been answered. I got two of them, Chair. Have you guys ever done this in the past? You see mission creep in your roles. Have you ever done this in the past where we try to tighten this down?

Representative Miller.

Well, I think that's why we're here today. I think that kind of circles back as to why we're doing the bill. I think they will, but if they don't, J. Carr, and I'm sure the legislature in general, will assist them in achieving that goal.

Yes, thank you, Chair A., and thank you both for your testimony for this bill. You had mentioned, I think, Rep. Calendar about the cat and mouse game between the legislature and the agencies. So first, is that inevitable? Is this, even if this passes, are we always going to just be, you know, playing this cat and mouse between the agencies and the legislature?

Number 10, where the legislative branch has sort of moved over the years, I think they would be surprised that a lot of times we seem as legislators and particularly the national level to cede our authority to the executive branch and to say, well, we don't want to actually put that much detail in the statute. Over to you all to figure it out. The secretary shall promulgate regulations that is such a common phrase that you see in federal law. Because most of the time they don't want to do their job. They want somebody else to do their job in the executive branch so they can go raise money to run for re-election. Our job is to actually write the law. And so you'll see an example actually on the second page of the bill analysis of a poorly crafted rulemaking process on the left side. and then what a more detailed one, there are a couple examples here, might look like. So the second one here, the administrator shall adopt parole or is establishing criteria for determining both of the following. And then it lays out specifically what the criteria are. So that then provides legislative intent in a more precise manner than just saying, over to you all, figure it out, write the rule how you want. And so this 3,000-some page bill is really crafted in a way to remove all that general rulemaking authority to say, you figure it out, and to say, it's the legislature's job to figure it out. Even if it takes more time to do exactly what you all are doing on this committee, which I too rarely see around this building, frankly. You're asking good questions. You're delving into the policy. You're trying to get at what this bill is trying to accomplish. Thank you for doing what the job is supposed to entail. One follow-up, please. Thank you, Chair. Is there a model?

Representative Plummer.

Madam Chair, to the member, yes, that's the goal here. And it has been a source of frustration for me as well, Representative, as we've been working the Medicaid fraud investigation for over a year now. And one of the big pieces that came back to me when we started this letter-writing process back and forth with the then-director was, well, they do that at the county level, and so we don't know, and they do that at the Social Security Administration at the federal level, so we don't know. And my answer back to them was, do you know anything? Because I can add a column of 88 numbers. So if the JFS is at the local level doing it, just add the 88 items together, and you'll get your aggregated state number for whatever it is that we're looking for. But it's a source of great frustration that this is how the bureaucrats handle it, And they really become captive to whatever the mission area is rather than representing the interests of the taxpayer and the people. And that's really what we're trying to get back at here. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, indulging another question. I guess I still trying to wrap my brain around you know this seems like a pretty broad expansion of power and requirements of the legislative branch in this Again I worry a little bit about the imbalance here You know we talk about checks and balances but no one ever wants to talk about the check on the legislative branch because we do overreach. But I guess my question for you is, isn't this what JCAR is already supposed to be doing? And what, I mean, essentially, that is what you are tasked to do, is to review these rules that have been proposed, you know, push back on them. You know, in Congress, they have this sort of, they have this 60-day window, essentially, that if a federal agency, they can, they don't like, promulgates a rule that they don't like, they can essentially rescind it, nullify it within 60 days. I guess, again, why are we going to create, you know, more bureaucracy and procedure instead of, I guess, giving a little bit more authority to JCAR to pull these things back when necessary, as opposed to at the front end, which theoretically can really slow down a lot of these necessary processes. And I'm just sort of trying to understand, again, how this isn't going to massively slow down a lot of necessary work for these agencies.

at the idea of a legislator expressing concern about having too much authority within this branch of government. President Washington came up to the Senate early in his first term to present a treaty and thought that the treaty was just going to go right through the process. And they began debating the thing right in front of him. And he stormed out in a huff and actually never returned again. And it set a precedent, as all the things did, the actions that he took, where presidents didn't come up and report to Congress in a personal way for over a century after that. State of the Union addresses or reports to Congress on the State of the Union were done by – were delivered by letter as a result of that experience. And what it was was the Senate demonstrating to the President of the United States, we're in charge here. We're the ones who have consent to grant over the approval of this treaty. We're the ones who craft the laws. You execute them by signing. It doesn't mean that that side of government doesn't have a role to play in crafting legislation, although that's certainly grown over the years from what was originally conceived. But again, I think the founders would be surprised at a legislator expressing concern about too much authority accruing to the legislative branch of government. Quick follow-up. To the representatives, to be clear, I believe what you are calling legislative, there is administrative rule that is necessary for implementation. There is a distinction there, and you're conflating the two. So I'm not sure that our founders would be surprised. I think it would be shocked at some of the things that this legislature has done over the years, but that's a debate for perhaps over drinks.

Are there any further questions for the representatives? Thank you very much. This concludes the first hearing.

I will take that under advisement, Representative. Thank you so much. This concludes the first hearing on House Bill 775. Thank you. I will now call up House Joint Resolution 9 for its third hearing. There were no in-person testimonies submitted. Committee members, please see the written testimony submitted for House Joint Resolution that is available on your iPads for review. This concludes the third hearing on House Joint Resolution 9. Seeing no further business before the committee, the House General Government Committee stands adjourned.