In the consideration of rule making, the States of Texas and Montana are to be given attention in this discussion. First point to note in consideration to this is that of the manner by which the local states’ government recognize personal petition from individuals. In Texas, an individual is allowed to submit a petition and shall be posted for sixty days. In relation to the context of the petition, the agency could deny the petition based on their understanding of the matter. On the other end, the State of Montana specifically requires the primary review of rules before the release of the final decision from the agency. The posting happens after all these procedures have been undergone.
In relative connection, both states require every organization to have a written rule of policy that they impose on their people as a basic source of organizational foundation. These written clauses of policies are to be examined and shall be given specific attention to by the government in relation to how much the rules are able to follow through the basic conditions that are supposed to be given attention to. While Texas allows the rules of policy to be approved under the condition by which the major authorities in the government have already seen and examined the clauses, Montana does not pass any rule of policy for approval until it has been submitted for public inspection.
When it comes to the basis of the rules created, it could be understood that Texas administrators specifically insists that the agencies follow a certain pattern thus making all options of rules relatively balanced and equal between all the agencies existing in the community. On the other hand, Montana tries to accept every source of rules and policies that agencies create. However, the said clauses ought to respond to the basic values that the government recognizes to be important especially in making up organizations that are to exist within the communities that they are likely to impact.
In both states though, particular petitions of written rules and policies could be denied by the government for approval based on specific elements that do not coincide with the conditions that are supposed to make distinct impact on how organizations are kept intact in the community. The disproval of provisions is handled accordingly by the government and is announced for the sake of public knowledge.
The specificity of procedures when it comes to the options of rule making may indeed differ between states. Nevertheless, the aim unified under the course of making every agency existing within a community specifically guided by the rules that define the conditions that the government specifically gives attention to. Most often than not, such elements include a sense of concentration on how the recognition of individual human rights is given specific attention to by the administrators of organizations that aim to serve the community.
The approval or the disapproval of such conditions of passing on rules and policies created by organizations depend on how much the creators have put into serious consideration the values that the government imposes upon. The respect for human rights is only one among the many clauses of rules and policies that the government specifically gives attention to. In relation to this, it is rather important to understand that administrators must be able to seek considerable references and resources that could establish their concern for the all the aspects of human rights and other matters related to it hence making their organization a good source of confidence both for the society and the government they operate under.
Subchapter III-Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure. http://web.archive.org/web/20080410191407/http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title5/parti_chapter5_subchapteriii_.html. (Retrieved on May 7, 2013).
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1975). Administrative Law and Government. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.