House to hold extra interim meetings

Summary#

HR-23 is a West Virginia House resolution, not a bill that amends an existing law. If adopted, it would call for House of Delegates interim meetings during 2026, in addition to meetings already established by the Joint Committee on Government and Finance. Its stated goal is to give House members more chances to examine issues and develop policy for the next legislative session.

  • The Speaker would set the meetings’ dates, times and locations; the resolution does not establish fixed dates.
  • Public notice of the meetings would have to be given, but the resolution does not say how far in advance.
  • Delegates who attend would have to be paid for their legislative services and expenses under West Virginia Code §4-2A-1 and following provisions.

What it means for you#

  • Delegates: If the resolution is adopted, attending delegates would be paid for their legislative services and expenses under the cited code. The resolution does not set the rates.
  • Public: The meeting details would be publicly announced. The resolution does not itself guarantee public attendance or participation.
  • Taxpayers: The resolution would require payment to attending delegates, but the total cost is not stated.

Money#

The resolution requires payment to delegates who attend, but no cost estimate is available.

  • The amount depends on the payment and expense rules in the cited West Virginia Code provisions. Those provisions were not supplied, so the rates and exact eligible expenses could not be verified.
  • The resolution does not state how many meetings would be held or provide a total budget.

What is unclear#

  • The Speaker would choose the number and schedule of meetings; the resolution sets no limit.
  • It does not set a notice period or specify how notice must be given.
  • It does not say whether the meetings would be open to the public or allow public participation.
  • The cited code provisions were not supplied, so how payment works and whether the resolution changes existing payment arrangements could not be verified.
  • The resolution is introduced and has not been adopted; whether it will take effect is uncertain.

Case for#

  • The resolution appears intended to give delegates more time to investigate issues and develop policy before the next legislative session.
  • Holding House meetings in addition to the Joint Committee’s meetings could provide another forum for that work.
  • Letting the Speaker set the schedule allows dates, times and locations to be chosen later, while requiring public notice.

Case against#

  • The resolution sets no limit on the number of meetings or the resulting payments and expenses.
  • The Speaker controls the schedule, but the resolution sets no minimum notice period.
  • Public notice is required, but the resolution does not explain whether members of the public can attend or take part.