Certified Final Objection No. 138 of the
††††††††††† At its meeting on January 5, 2007, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (Committee) voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, IV, to enter a preliminary objection to Final Proposal 2006-154 containing rules Pari 1200 of the Pari-Mutuel Commission (Commission) relative to games of chance.† The Commission responded pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(c) with a cover letter from the Chairman dated January 10, 2007.†
At its meeting on January 18, 2007 the Committee voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(f), to enter a final objection to Final Proposal 2006-154.†† The final objection has been filed with the Director of the Office of Legislative Services for publication in the New Hampshire Rulemaking Register.† The effect of a final objection is stated in RSA 541-A:13, VI:
†††† After a final objection by the committee to a provision of a rule is filed with the director under subparagraph V(f), the burden of proof thereafter shall be on the agency in any action for judicial review or for enforcement of the provision to establish that the part objected to is within the authority delegated to the agency, is consistent with the intent of the legislature, is in the public interest, or does not have a substantial economic impact not recognized in the fiscal impact statement.† If the agency fails to meet its burden of proof, the court shall declare the whole or portion of the rule objected to invalid.† The failure of the committee to object to a rule shall not be an implied legislative authorization of its substantive or procedural lawfulness.
††††††††††† The following summarizes the basis for the Committeeís final objection:
Contrary to the Public Interest
Pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, IV(c), the Committee objected that Pari 1200 is contrary to the public interest, pursuant to Committee Rule 403.01(a)(1).
Based upon testimony from the public and from the Commissionís representatives, the Committee learned that the Commissionís public hearing on the rules and its vote to establish the text of the Final Proposal both occurred at the Commission meeting on November 27, 2006.† The Committee also heard testimony that there was substantial public comment made at the Commissionís hearing, and that no changes were made to the text of the rules despite the Commissionís recognition of some merit to the public comment.††
Therefore, the Committee determined, pursuant to Committee rule 403.01(a)(1), that the Commission failed to consider fully all public comment to the Initial Proposal because the Commission allotted insufficient time to consider the public comment before the Final Proposal was established.