The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process is to resolve controversial issues prior to the commencement of the formal rulemaking process. Negotiated rulemaking is not a substitute for the public notification and participation requirements of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, and a consensus agreement by a negotiated rulemaking committee may be modified by an agency as a result of the subsequent rulemaking process. Refer to 2-5-102, MCA.

A “negotiated rulemaking committee” is an advisory committee established under 2-5-106, MCA to consider and discuss issues for the purpose of reaching a consensus in the development of a proposed rule. "Consensus" means unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee established unless the committee agrees upon another specified definition.

The OPI has contracted with Ken Morrison of Morrison Consulting to facilitate the negotiated rulemaking process for the distribution of monies in the state school oil and natural gas distribution account. As the facilitator, Ken will preside at the meetings of the committee, impartially aid in the discussions and negotiations among the members of a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a proposed rule, and manage the keeping of minutes and records. A facilitator does not have decision-making authority. Refer to 2-5-103, MCA.

One of the first actions of the committee is to approve the agency’s choice of a facilitator. If the committee does not approve the OPI's nomination for facilitator, the OPI will need to submit a substitute nomination. If the committee does not approve the substitute nomination of the agency for facilitator, the committee will need to select by consensus a person to serve as facilitator. A person designated to represent the agency in substantive issues may not serve as facilitator or presiding officer for the committee. Refer to 2-5-109, MCA.

If any committee members have concerns about the OPI’s selection of Ken Morrison, please let Madalyn Quinlan know as soon as possible. The agency wants to make sure that the process can move forward smoothly when the group is convened for its first meeting.

A key characteristic of a negotiated rulemaking committee is that it includes a balanced representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests of stakeholders affected by the rule and who are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule. Refer to 2-5-104, MCA.

A negotiated rulemaking committee may by consensus expand its membership, either by contacting and recruiting persons whose participation the committee believes is essential to the success of the negotiated rulemaking process or upon reviewing a petition submitted to the committee. Persons who will be significantly affected by a proposed rule and who believe that their interests will not be adequately represented by any person on a negotiated rulemaking committee may petition for or nominate another person for membership on the negotiated rulemaking committee. Refer to 2-5-107, MCA.

Members of a negotiated rulemaking committee are responsible for their own expenses of participation. However, an agency may pay for a committee member's reasonable travel and per diem expenses, expenses to obtain technical assistance, and a reasonable rate of compensation if the committee member certifies a lack of adequate financial resources to participate in the committee and the agency determines that the committee member's participation in the committee is necessary to ensure an adequate representation of the interests of the members. Refer to 2-5-110, MCA.

A negotiated rulemaking committee considers the issues and attempts to reach consensus concerning a proposed rule and any other matter the committee determines is relevant to the proposed rule. The person representing the agency on a negotiated rulemaking committee participates in the deliberations of the committee with the same rights and responsibilities of other members of the committee and is authorized to fully represent the agency in the discussions and negotiations of the committee. Madalyn Quinlan, Chief of Staff, at the Office of Public Instruction will represent the agency. Nancy Hall, Lead Budget Analyst and Chris Watson, Revenue Analyst will represent the Governor’s Office of Budget and Program Planning.

If the negotiated rulemaking committee achieves consensus on a proposed rule, at the conclusion of the negotiations, the committee will transmit a report to the OPI containing the proposed rule. If the negotiated rulemaking committee does not reach consensus on the proposed rule, the committee will provide a report to the State Superintendent specifying areas in which the committee reached consensus and the issues that remain unresolved. The committee may include in the report any other information, recommendations, or materials that the committee considers appropriate. Any member of the committee may include as an addendum to the report additional information, recommendations, or materials. Refer to 2-5-108, MCA.

The First Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Members

• Tyler Arlint, Superintendent, Lambert Public Schools
  
• James Baldwin, Superintendent, Poplar Public Schools
  
• Larry Crowder, Superintendent, Culbertson Public Schools
  
• Steve Engebretson, Dawson County Superintendent of Schools
  
• Daniel Farr, Superintendent, Sidney Public Schools
  
• Tony Holecek, Superintendent, Westby Public Schools
  
• Luke Kloker, Superintendent, Fairview Public Schools
  
• Cara Lokken-Frandsen, Teacher, Sidney Public Schools
  
• Terry Quintus, Superintendent, Wibaux Public Schools
  
• Renee Rasmussen, Superintendent, Bainville Public Schools
  
• Gail Staffanson, Richland County Superintendent of Schools
  
• Maureen Simonson, Superintendent, Richey Public Schools
  
• Lora Tauck, Business Manager, Ekalaka Public Schools
  
• Tim Tharp, Superintendent, Sunburst Public Schools
  
• Matthew Torix, Superintendent, Plentywood Public Schools
  
• Scott Westlund, Trustee Froid Public Schools
  
• Madalyn Quinlan, Chief of Staff, Office of Public Instruction
  
• Nancy Hall, Lead Budget Analyst, Office of Governor
  
• Chris Watson, Revenue Analyst, Office of the Governor

The second committee includes 15 members representing school districts from around the state:

• Mike Arnold, Business Manager, Havre Public Schools
  
• Keith Campbell, Superintendent, Miles City Public Schools
  
• Caitlin Chiller, Teacher, Whitehall Public Schools
  
• Bob Connor, Superintendent, Glasgow K-12 Schools
  
• Wade Johnson, Superintendent, Cut Bank Public Schools
  
• Mike Longbottom, Trustee, Laurel Public Schools
  
• Brad Moore, Superintendent, Big Sandy Public Schools
  
• Brian Patrick, Business Manager, Great Falls Public Schools
  
• Sandy Watts, Big Horn County Superintendent of Schools
  
• Krystal Zenter, Trustee, Bridger K-12 Schools
  
• Madalyn Quinlan, Chief of Staff, Office of Public Instruction
  
• Nancy Hall, Lead Budget Analyst, Office of Governor
  
• Chris Watson, Revenue Analyst, Office of the Governor

The Office of Public Instruction is responsible for preparing a statement of economic impact of the proposed rules. The negotiated rulemaking committees will advise the OPI on the content of the economic impact statement.

In accordance with 2-4-405, MCA the statement must include:

a) a description of the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the proposed rule;

(b) a description of the probable economic impact of the proposed rule upon affected classes of persons, including but not limited to providers of services under contracts with the state and affected small businesses, and quantifying, to the extent practicable, that impact;

(c) the probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenue; 

(d) an analysis comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the costs and benefits of inaction;

(e) an analysis that determines whether there are less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule;

(f) an analysis of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule;

(g) a determination as to whether the proposed rule represents an efficient allocation of public and private resources; and 

(h) a quantification or description of the data upon which the analysis is based and an explanation of how the data was gathered.

Ken Morrison is the principal consultant with Morrison Consulting and served as the administrator of the Montana Department of Revenue’s Income and Property Tax Divisions. He has extensive experience with rulemaking and has been a member of a negotiated rulemaking committee. His legislative activities have included work on oil and gas taxation and, the last three legislative sessions, education funding and was part of the effort to pass Senate Bill 260 in the 2015 Session. Ken has done facilitation work at both the state and local levels. His current work includes representing corporate, non-profit and government interests in Montana, membership on the State Bar Association’s Fee Arbitration Panel and Chairman of the City of Helena’s Civil Service Board.

2015 Summer Workshop Agenda

• The Juggling Acts: Various Topics in School Finance
• 2015 Summer Workshops – Elections
• 2015 School Finance Legislative Update
• Special Education Funding