Red tape watch site would launch

Summary#

HF-2790 would add a new section to Iowa law requiring the secretary of state to establish a “red tape reduction” website. The stated goal is to give the public a way to ask for information about state executive branch regulatory restrictions and communicate with the secretary of state about them; the bill does not require restrictions to be reduced.

  • The secretary of state must establish a website that allows those requests and communications.
  • The secretary of state must report to the legislature each year, before the regular session begins, on restrictions that were the subject of requests or communications through the website.
  • The bill does not require agencies to answer requests, change restrictions, or review them.

What it means for you#

  • Members of the public: You would have a website to request information about state executive branch regulatory restrictions and communicate with the secretary of state about them. The bill does not guarantee an answer or set a response time.
  • State agencies: The bill does not require agencies to respond to the website, take part in a review, or change their restrictions.
  • Secretary of state and legislature: The secretary of state must run the site and submit the annual report. The legislature would receive information about restrictions raised through the site.
  • General public: This bill is introduced and is not law. It would not create a working website unless it passes and takes effect.

Money#

No publicly available information on the cost of establishing and running the website or preparing the reports.

  • The bill requires the secretary of state to establish the site and submit annual reports, but gives no cost estimate or staffing details.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “regulatory restrictions.”
  • It does not say how requests or communications will be handled, whether they will be answered, or whether they will be referred to an agency.
  • It does not set rules for what the annual report must include beyond restrictions that were the subject of requests or communications.
  • It does not explain whether the site will connect with any existing state process.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would give the public a central way to ask about state executive branch restrictions and contact the secretary of state about them.
  • The annual report could give legislators information about which restrictions the public raised through the site.

Case against#

  • The bill does not require anyone to answer a request or act on a concern, so using the site may not lead to a review or change.
  • The report covers restrictions raised through the site, but the bill does not require broader reporting on restrictions or their effects.
  • The bill does not explain how the site will work or how much it will cost to establish and run.