[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6357620,"mediaKeyId","2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2","parentId",2213856,"title","Committee debates a lighter-touch approach to public-comment rules for local governments","audioSeconds",636,"startMs",2016000,"endMs",2652000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2&start=2016&end=2652","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2/thumbnail_2016000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357620/North-Dakota/Committee-debates-a-lighter-touch-approach-to-public-comment-rules-for-local-governments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357620-1d844aa7495b450eae17941b0d7bfbf6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204154&Signature=HxYqmjqpsBICT6MuEMcBKVr0tZ0rDhiwEUZBSkWJ1yRCpKAhxIlhvCL~nZ1jRDTcyP66DaJGtbecqFcjg3Tfv6YCpEWCWdjTIjaXGpTPqCVG9TD2QYvR5zao0qX~oZL0l2ULiH6KnCCVohNbix1CohpUf2BwEa08OG5xQxuCV6uiyCv9eMLX7hVFaQWSEzoQePOS8ZagW3YNVzttkRi9m90roudPsE7k~poQCVvHVOIwvslcct6b9ozRa-yPtBYQ95XOXXD9BJyt~oNAfqwkGKgQJfAlZtkoFwRr-j1Zj7sA-OGOPqJVLNk0ZkCZNsPq7mEuFqDNOtpbkHe-FKLN5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate State and Local Government, ND","date","2025-01-31T00:00:00Z","article","The State and Local Government Committee held a broad discussion about a proposed approach to regulating public comment at local public meetings, agreeing in principle on requiring that public bodies adopt policies but expressing sharp concern about a one-size-fits-all state mandate.

Chair Roars and several senators said they were reluctant to have the state dictate a single schedule (for example, quarterly) for public comment across widely varying entities. \"Not all public meetings are the same,\" the chair said, noting that a township that meets once a year cannot be held to the same standard as a city commission that meets weekly. Senator Lee and others favored asking public bodies to create and publish a policy that provides regular opportunities and gives guidance on how members of the public can request time to speak.

Senator Wallen emphasized the distinction between meetings \"in public\" and \"public meetings,\" noting that some gatherings are held publicly but do not include a public comment segment. Senator Castaneda said he supported a requirement that entities develop a policy but expressed concern that some bodies might comply only in form — \"we're gonna hold one public meeting a year\" — and suggested the committee continue to refine language to discourage that kind of minimal compliance.

Multiple senators recommended drafting a light-touch bill requiring a written public-comment policy that encourages notice and access and that local bodies be given flexibility to tailor frequency and procedural rules to local circumstances. The committee asked for an amendment draft and asked Senator Castaneda to work with legislative counsel and the bill's drafter to craft language for a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate State and Local Government Jan 31, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","Senators debated how or whether to require public bodies to allow public comment, with members favoring a requirement that local governments adopt written public-comment policies rather than imposing a uniform, prescriptive state schedule.","taxTitle","State and Local Government, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28908,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357629,"Committee hears competing views on bills to curb foreign ownership; constitutional, trade concerns raised",1965,5479000,7444000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2&start=5479&end=7444","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2/thumbnail_5479000.jpg","/articles/6357629/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-bills-to-curb-foreign-ownership-constitutional-trade-concerns-raised","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357629-89b1ff7e7627141f924b8334351028a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204154&Signature=fsEn8YxVo7SsFKUNvM2Mm1CzoeppaQFxJVhOxULhp18b-Q8uSaJB7wlYGLjkQ-eKwnPRybNrPszsEPmPeID0TjjILsjzvgZ7o-K-9KfZaQNKP8tC7BUIkpSN3mb~gWRiu-JfI9eT~TuwbeEI3bt~9rAef~KxuCwATNioygyz3JXo7NqIV4mf1z73YM3YsiGF8c~PhMDsbrapvNmejY55Z4PFNVfbwKV4tkXgh86BsBeh6~3SIhaiKrfD4iSokIQf9vrBQyOOfrlI6Ku5a3aT6me-KM-7WypCjGb-Ch7uKIMqhVgfHPDAHK~zEJ3e1KL3cjnBVKNCSq1FfirClaWkNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State and Local Government Committee held hearings on two related measures aimed at limiting certain foreign ownership of North Dakota real property and extending related statutory authority: Senate Bill 2337 and Senate Bill 2361.

Senator Chuck Wallen, sponsor of SB 2337, said the bill is a reworked version of a previously failed proposal and keeps a number of prior revisions while reducing the ownership threshold in some provisions from 50% to 25% and extending a sunset date from July 31, 2025, to July 31, 2027. Wallen said he removed a section that would have required additional record-keeping filings by the secretary of state and county recorders because \"they're at the end of the row.\" He asked the committee to act now rather than wait on federal action.

Senator Jose Castillo, sponsor of SB 2361, told the committee the bill is intended as a hedge while the executive branch conducts a study of threats and vulnerabilities; SB 2361 would extend the current statute's sunset and incorporate a study framework that mirrors House Bill 1209, which the House had passed 91-1. Castillo said state resources could conduct the study and that section 4 contains sensitive material that may need protected handling.

Opponents warned of constitutional and economic risks. Blaine Johnson, chair of the State Bar Association's Real Property Section, argued that foreign affairs and foreign commerce are federally controlled and that state-level restrictions risk federal preemption. He cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the 1968 Oregon case that struck down similar state restrictions on foreign land ownership. Johnson said the bills' definitions diverge from federal terms such as \"foreign adversary\" and that lowering an ownership threshold to 25% risks prohibiting passive investors rather than entities that actually exercise control. \"This bill is clearly overreaching, certainly vulnerable to legal challenges,\" he said.

Johnson and other witnesses also discussed the role of CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) and OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control). Johnson noted that federal review mechanisms are confidential, targeted and not a blanket prohibition on foreign investment; he warned that the bills' reference points — regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations — can change and are not designed around real estate purchases.

The Greater North Dakota Chamber opposed SB 2337, saying lower thresholds could affect publicly traded companies and the state's ability to attract capital. The governor's office (represented by Christopher Joseph, general counsel) said it supports House Bill 1209 (the study) but opposed sections of the bills that could raise constitutional concerns, including restrictions based on alienage or national origin.

The committee did not record a committee vote on either bill during the hearing. Sponsors and several senators urged further study; others urged caution to avoid constitutional exposure and to preserve trade.

Key technical points from the hearing: SB 2337 reduces certain ownership thresholds to 25% (from 50% in prior law), removes some filing responsibilities from recorders/secretary of state language, and extends the sunset to July 31, 2027. SB 2361 would extend the current statutory sunset and add a study and threat-assessment framework modeled on HB 1209 (which the House approved 91-1). Witnesses repeatedly referenced federal regimes (CFIUS, OFAC and 15 CFR provisions) and warned that state action can be preempted if it intrudes on foreign relations or commerce.

Committee members directed attention to the House study (HB 1209) and said they would review testimony and legal advice before further action.","Senators debated two related measures — SB 2337 (lowering an ownership threshold to 25% and extending a sunset) and SB 2361 (extending the current law and authorizing a study modeled on House Bill 1209). Witnesses warned of federal preemption, equal-protection risks and economic impacts; proponents defended the need to act while studies continue.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357631,"Committee backs repeal of century-code mandate that county officers must supply printed blanks",1350,2786000,4136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2&start=2786&end=4136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2/thumbnail_2786000.jpg","/articles/6357631/North-Dakota/Committee-backs-repeal-of-century-code-mandate-that-county-officers-must-supply-printed-blanks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357631-d5ead6727b406990f34554e476aa2126/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204154&Signature=ZVrmO6L2Z20GnSRECQibl3Z39bA-bcS0TJxkiCgf7HH~dvo0OxIIZNXnGzUEyGo93ZnInD0AZVj9cWLrjykH3E90ae23meFBCXy4-P60YlJzaHnbciNLN44B2pW49ZfVXTg8ltTtnDm8qvfWD7I2M3~jc6LCq~J-aFINV~RIL5xmZ9Ot3djrh0r2Q79tc73Qy2q0cocl8cFf5yGMo3aQ35GW8fVy7P9qGQj72LHE-1S0Ofg5hDNb8u40W5H76ZjHXHtDWyWgOFwUa93ARocUceZLk5J5CLEgrvQ~4btT8447LEq~yRQBNrXABND9PJmk72tkB2g5SqfCOI-LbuJqnw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State and Local Government Committee recommended a due pass on Senate Bill 2259 by a 6-0 vote, moving to repeal section 44-04-16 of the Century Code, a provision witnesses described as outdated and potentially misleading to the public.

Senator Judy Lee, sponsor of the bill, said the requirement dates to the constitution and older practice when offices kept printed forms for public transactions; she told the committee the mandate \"is beyond its useful lifespan.\"

Multiple county recorders told the committee they do not supply legal forms or create documents for land transfers and that doing so could expose the office and county to liability. \"I've been in this office 33 years, and we have never held forms in this office at all,\" said Carrie Krause, Wells County Recorder. Krause said customers sometimes assume recorders can give legal advice or provide the correct deed form; she and other witnesses said they instead refer customers to attorneys because documents are legally consequential and vary by circumstance.

Aaron Burst of the Association of Counties described SB 2259 as \"a simple bill\" to remove an obsolete requirement and pointed the committee to the state's open-record statutes and other existing record-access provisions that remain in force.

Attorney Blaine Johnson, chair of the State Bar Association's Real Property Section, supported repeal but noted that certain commonly used public forms (passport, marriage-license applications) are already provided by offices and that a repeal would not necessarily remove practical access to those forms.

After closing testimony, Senator Barta moved a due-pass recommendation; Senator Wallen seconded. The clerk recorded a 6-0 committee vote to give SB 2259 a due-pass recommendation. Senator Lee volunteered to carry the bill.","The committee voted 6-0 to recommend due pass on Senate Bill 2259, which would repeal an antiquated statute (section 44-04-16) requiring local officers to maintain printed blank forms. County recorders testified they do not provide legal forms and said the statute predated modern practice.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357635,"Committee raises major-IT threshold to $5 million, approves amended bill",1061,335000,1396000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2&start=335&end=1396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213856-fc6fac0b009282e82f5e8159ee13cea2/thumbnail_335000.jpg","/articles/6357635/North-Dakota/Committee-raises-major-IT-threshold-to-5-million-approves-amended-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357635-3b568f19d228025df27093559e4b98d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204154&Signature=GJFh6ewLjrmHywlxcBng0ciXsA8KLwM2fwP8McAljuh1fsyfnDREmDzC64InN-Oo3t5XGl~YtWtb6UevDk7HJTGmaT12GKZl72nNii4RXoGkDCxP7UWhXXmGcf0WqKNImOXU3NZj4FF1qcktUxXOtiWAJjS1f0Itx3qt~WNJMOvRipo39gy35TCoZiSnDulHOaRj4pILbdmt2o2G8rZ3jc~7b-9s4dzH6fApTAWmb9PApMAlODCbfKGDiY8pLf5Fqn45l8OyEgDJNi-cFXzfYX53V0RLEXwIHeekMdWlgcoVVTK54yB7QqvVE3peqPbkQ5-05zWidgInUq4UyhUgIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State and Local Government Committee voted to advance an amended version of Senate Bill 2049 that changes how the state defines \"major information technology projects,\" raising the monetary threshold to $5,000,000 and giving the chief information officer discretion to bring lower-cost projects into oversight.

Corey Mok, chief information officer for the State of North Dakota, told the committee the change reflects how agencies now buy more licensed, out-of-the-box solutions rather than building large custom applications. \"Instead of making it a dollar amount ... putting a dollar amount on a front end is not entirely the best way of analyzing the cost,\" Mok said, adding that the amendment preserves oversight for projects that are long-running or that \"warrant additional oversight due to any potential benefits, risks, public impact, visibility, or other significant reason.\"

Mok said the department currently supports about 74 executive steering committees (ESCs) that provide formal oversight on projects; he estimated the definition change would reduce that number by roughly half. He also told senators the department maintains oversight work at lower thresholds through project analysts for projects exceeding $100,000.

Senators asked about drafting details, inconsistent numbers in the printed amendment, and how the $5 million figure was chosen. Mok said the figure was based on benchmarking other states and the department's project portfolio and noted that the amendment presented had not completed legislative council drafting at the time of the hearing.

After discussion, Senator Varda moved to adopt the proposed amendment (1,002 form) and Senator Brownberger seconded. The clerk recorded a 6-0 vote to adopt the amendment. Senator Varda then moved a do-pass recommendation on SB 2049 as amended, seconded by Senator Brownberger; the committee recorded a 6-0 do-pass recommendation.

The amended language will: place a single definition of \"major information technology project\" into the Information Technology Department's code, set a $5,000,000 and/or one-year development threshold (or projects deemed important for public impact/risk/visibility), require the CIO to appoint oversight committees with more flexible membership and an oversight analyst chair, and preserve other oversight processes at lower dollar thresholds.

The committee record shows unanimous support at the committee level; the bill must still complete the legislative process before becoming law.

Mok said the department will continue internal policy work to prioritize project development and to provide subject-matter experts who can oversee multiple projects across portfolios. \"This is a major improvement,\" he said, describing a goal of broader expertise in oversight rather than many narrowly composed committees.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a 6-0 vote to adopt the amendment and a 6-0 do-pass recommendation on SB 2049 in amended form. ","The Senate State and Local Government Committee approved amended Senate Bill 2049 to redefine \"major information technology projects,\" raising the reporting/oversight threshold to $5 million and allowing CIO discretion to add projects for oversight. The committee voted 6-0 on both the amendment and the bill recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates a lighter-touch approach to public-comment rules for local governments

Committee hears competing views on bills to curb foreign ownership; constitutional, trade concerns raised

Committee backs repeal of century-code mandate that county officers must supply printed blanks

Committee raises major-IT threshold to $5 million, approves amended bill