The House Committee on Government Operations adopted an H‑1 substitute to House Bill 4052 and voted to report House Bills 4052 and 4053 with recommendation, advancing legislation that would bar lawmakers and their legislative staff from signing nondisclosure agreements in their legislative capacity.

The bills’ sponsors—Representative Cara and Representative Wegela—said the measure aims to increase transparency around deals involving state resources. “we have, what I believe is a very common sense bipartisan legislation before you here today. It simply says that we should not be signing non disclosure agreements in our legislative capacity,” Representative Cara said during testimony.

The committee’s action came after supporters, including Michael Lefebvre of the Mackinac Center, testified in favor of the bills. “These bills would prohibit the MEDC's recent practice of insisting that lawmakers sign non disclosure agreements on projects involving state funds. I believe such agreements are undemocratic. Voters who pay the bills of government deserve to know how their money is spent,” Lefebvre said.

Why it matters: Sponsors and witnesses said NDAs can prevent lawmakers from informing constituents about state-funded projects and can limit public review of proposed deals facilitated through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). Representative Wegela told the committee, “I believe this legislation is fundamental to the work we do here in the legislature and to our, constitutional republic because without it, we have we're creating situations where lawmakers are prevented from communicating, the actions of the legislator with their constituents.”

Committee members asked about the scope of the ban. Members were told the bills apply to actions taken in a member’s legislative capacity and to a member’s legislative staff. Committee discussion clarified that staff who do not report directly to a member—such as centralized House general counsel or the human resources office—would not be covered by the prohibition, and employment‑related confidentiality agreements administered through HR were described as outside the bills’ scope.

Supporters cited a statistic that about “1 in 5” members in the prior term had signed NDAs in a legislative capacity. Testimony also referenced past high‑profile deals elsewhere that used confidentiality practices, and the Michigan constitution was cited: testimony pointed to Article 4, Section 11 in arguing for protections around legislators’ ability to speak about their official duties.

Committee action and votes: The H‑1 substitute to HB 4052 was adopted by voice/roll call and reported out on a unanimous 5‑0 vote. Representative Harris moved to report HB 4052 as substituted; the motion prevailed 5‑0. Representative VanderWaal moved to report HB 4053; that motion also prevailed 5‑0. No amendments were recorded during the committee session.

What remains: Both bills were reported out of committee with recommendation; the transcript does not specify the next committee or chamber steps or any effective dates. The record does not list any opposition testimony during the committee hearing.

Ending: With both measures advanced on unanimous committee votes, the bills will proceed in the legislative process for further consideration; timing and floor action were not specified in the committee record.