Those who follow this blog know that we aren’t fans of Title Only bills. These proposals are essentially blank bills that float around allowing lawmakers to act quickly on policies after the normal cutoff periods, often without a public hearing on the final details before a vote. Yesterday something bizarre happened in the House Appropriations committee that I’ve never seen in my nearly 20 years of following the legislature – lawmakers stripped down a complete bill and made it essentially a Title Only Intent Bill. This is the equivalent of saying: “We have to make this bill blank so we can reach an agreement on it behind closed doors.”

With only 2 hours public notice, the House Appropriations committee took executive action at 5:30 p.m. last night on SB 5376 (Protecting consumer data). That bill had previously passed the Senate by a vote of 46-1. During a 23-minute hearing the Committee amended the bill by stripping the text and instead making it a Title Only Intent bill. According to staff the adopted amendment “strikes all material from the Senate Bill and replaces it with the intent section…”

This controversial decision resulted in a vigorous debate about the appropriateness of using Title Only bills. It is worth watching the short hearing and listening to the discussion.

Rep. Drew Stokesbary, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, told me this about last night's hearing: 

"This was a deeply disappointing abuse of process by majority House Democrats. Not only did they hastily convene an unscheduled committee meeting with just 2 hours’ notice, they proceeded to completely strip all the thoughtful, well-worked policy provisions from the bill and use their political power to force an empty 'title only' bill to the floor. With just 19 days left in session, we should be perfecting bills, not starting from scratch. Thanks to last night’s decision by the majority, it’s now highly unlikely that the Legislature will be able to enact any meaningful safeguards for our constituent’ personal data."

Responding to the actions of the House Appropriations committee Sen. Palumbo, the co-sponsor of SB 5376, told me: 

“This is a classic case of the quest for perfection being the enemy of the good. Chair Carlyle has spent almost a year working in a thoughtful, transparent manner with all parties to find consensus on what should have been the model ordinance for other states to adopt. The open API for facial recognition software would revolutionize this budding technology and create accountability. It’s sad that one interest group can sideline this important legislation.”

Yesterday we also saw another Title Only bill introduced with the fear-inducing title “Relating to tax revenue.”

Here are the current Title Only bills floating around Olympia:

• Behavioral health workforce act: HB 2081
   
• Capital budget act: SB 6001, SB 6002
   
• Education act: SB 6006
   
• Fiscal matters act: SB 6004
   
• Promoting the economic growth of the video game industry act: HB 2041, SB 5886
   
• Revenue act: SB 6005
   
• Sports wagering act: SB 5965
   
• State general obligation bonds and related accounts act: SB 6000
   
• State government act: SB 6003
   
• Tax preferences: HB 2168
   
• Tax revenue: HB 2167
   
• Washington climate change mitigation act: SB 5980

HB 2140 (Relating to K-12 education funding) was also introduced as a Title Only bill but was given real text after an April 1 public hearing.

There is a better way.

Rather than introduce and adopt blank bills to circumvent legislative deadlines, lawmakers should instead ban Title Only bills and embrace meaningful legislative transparency reforms. These companion bills from 2014 provide a good template for lawmakers to follow: SB 6560/HB 2369: "Increasing legislative transparency by providing mandatory notice and waiting periods before legislative action, banning title-only bills, and opening all legislative committees to the public."