WSR 97-18-076

RULES REVIEW PLAN

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

RELATIONS COMMISSION

[Filed September 3, 1997, 10:20 a.m.]

Reviser's note: The following Rules Review Plan has been electronically generated directly from the agency and has not been through the usual editing and proofing processes.

On March 25, 1997, Governor Gary Locke issued Executive Order (EO) 97-02, titled "Regulatory Improvement". The Governor has established as one of the top priorities of his administration "to improve the effectiveness and fairness of our regulatory processes." EO 97-02 explains one of its purposes as follows:

To ensure that state regulations that have significant impact on labor, consumers, businesses, and the environment are reviewed on an open and systematic basis and to ensure that they meet standards of need, reasonableness, effectiveness, clarity, fairness, stakeholder involvement, coordination among regulatory agencies, and consistency with legislative intent and statutory authority.

The Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) designated staff member Mark S. Downing (753-2955) as the agency's contact person for regulatory review.

EXISTING PERC RULES

Over its 21+ years in existence, PERC has adopted several chapters of rules that are primarily "procedural" in nature. The following seven chapters in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) are currently in effect:

Chapter 391-08 WAC RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 391-25 WAC REPRESENTATION CASE RULES

Chapter 391-35 WAC UNIT CLARIFICATION CASE RULES

Chapter 391-45 WAC UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE RULES

Chapter 391-55 WAC IMPASSE RESOLUTION RULES

Chapter 391-65 WAC GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION RULES

Chapter 391-95 WAC UNION SECURITY DISPUTE RULES

Adjudicative proceedings conducted by PERC under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are also subject to the Model Rules of Procedure, Chapter 10-08 WAC, adopted by the chief administrative law judge of the State of Washington.

STAKEHOLDER INCLUSION IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT

A letter containing a draft of this Rules Review Plan was sent to approximately 100 union and employer representatives that utilize the services of the Commission (i.e., "major stakeholders" referred to in EO 97-02), seeking their input and comments regarding the rules review plan. The requirement of EO 97-02 for agencies to submit their rules review plans to the Governor by September 1, 1997 was explained, and responses (by letter or fax) were requested by August 25, 1997. Written comments were received from the following individuals:

Gary A. Carlsen, representing Spokane County

Faith Hanna, representing the Washington Education Association

Lawrence B. Hannah, Perkins Coie law firm, representing employers

Jim Meith, representing the City of Bremerton

David Fleming, representing Public School Employees of Washington

Robert R. Braun, Jr., representing employers

A telephonic communication was also received from J. Pat Thompson, representing the Washington State Council of County and City Employees.

RULES REVIEW PLAN ELEMENTS

a. Time Schedule

PERC's rules will be reviewed in sub-groups over a four-year cycle, as follows:

Chapter 391-08 WAC in 1998

Chapters 391-55 and 391-65 WAC in 1999

Chapters 391-45 and 391-95 WAC in 2000

Chapters 391-25 and 391-35 WAC in 2001

Although there was some sympathy for reviewing all PERC rules as a single project, there are also substantial concerns about a single-project schedule, as follows:

EO 97-02 calls for a new culture in which agency rules are to be reviewed on an ongoing basis, rather than when the agency gets around to the task.

PERC reviewed all of its rules and made extensive revisions in 1996. PERC's only previous comprehensive rules review was in 1980. Each of those projects was a massive effort that distracted attention and resources from ongoing dispute resolution responsibilities. The same could be expected for any future single-project review.

A massive project tends to discourage participation by clientele segments which are only interested in certain aspects of PERC's rules.

Concerns about inter-relationships between WAC chapters can be addressed by making all related amendments when a new concept is adopted in any chapter.

A "little bit of rules review each year" process is more in keeping with the new culture than a "review all at once and then forget about it for 4 years" approach.

b. Review Methodology

In the autumn of each year, the PERC staff will review the WAC chapter(s) under scrutiny that year for conformance with the review criteria of EO 97-02, and will transmit a report of problem areas and recommendations to the Commission.

The Commission will submit its findings and suggested rule changes to the agency's major stakeholders by February, and invite comment. (Although all rules in the chapter(s) under scrutiny will be open to review and comment, it is anticipated that only those rules which have been controversial will be the subject of actual comment and further study after this point in the annual process.)

Any rules changes being recommended for adoption will be explained at conferences and similar forums (e.g., at the annual IRRA/FMCS/PERC conference held in Seattle each March, and other conferences, as appropriate).

c. Public Participation in Review Process

Agency clientele will be encouraged to participate in the various stages of the review process established under b., above. Additional proposals and comments will be solicited from clientele.

d. Resources Required to Amend Rules

Proposed rule changes will be the subject of public rule adoption hearings, as required by the APA. PERC will undertake its rule review plan and meet APA requirements within the constraints of its existing budget(s).

e. Exceptions to Review Requirements

PERC is unaware of any instances where it will require an exception to the regulatory review requirements.

f. On-going Review Process

After completion of the initial four-year rules review process, the foregoing rule review schedule could be repeated in similar four-year cycles (subject to input from major stakeholders about the effectiveness of such a process).

[Open Style:Columns Off]