Lawmakers Press Commerce on Grant Processes as Agency Defends Competitive Practices

Chair called the Commerce and Legal Services Budget Section to order and introduced Levi from legislative staff, who walked members through the Department of Commerce base budget and the agency's 'blue sheet' summaries.

Commissioner Chris Shilken (Department of Commerce) told lawmakers the department's base budget is driven largely by grant appropriations — approximately $46 million identified in the blue sheet, most of it federal funds — and highlighted several programs including the Community Development Block Grant, Community Services Block Grant and LIHEAP. He also pointed to an $8 million budget authority line tied to UAS programming that represents appropriation authority pending federal awards.

Why it matters: committee members said the base-budget figures are often opaque during session and asked for clarity about who applied for and received grants, how applications are scored and whether Commerce's process reflects legislative intent.

Representative Rosanna Hansen and others asked whether Commerce could provide applicant counts and scoring criteria for specific grants, such as the autonomous agriculture award. Commissioner Shilken said Commerce tracks applicants, uses a written scoring sheet with weighted criteria and is working on a public transparency page that consolidates state and federal grants, award timelines and program descriptions. "We can certainly provide that information," he said.

A larger dispute surfaced when Representative Martinson pressed Commerce on whether the agency is required to follow state procurement law or instead may administer legislatively appropriated grant dollars according to the agency's chosen best practices. Martinson said he had been told the statutory language allowed the agency discretion and asked for written legal guidance. "What that basically says is that you don't have to follow the state procurement law," Representative Martinson said, arguing that the Legislature intended appropriations to be distributed in a specific way.

Commissioner Shilken responded that Commerce's interpretation is that "once the bill is passed, it's our bill to administer" and that the agency adopted competitive, 30-day application processes and other best-practice grant-making approaches after consultation with its legal team. He said Commerce had discussed the approach with an assistant attorney general (identified in the hearing as Austin) and that the department could invite the AG's office to clarify the legal interpretation at a future meeting.

What remains unresolved: Representative Martinson asked the chair to subpoena the AG staffer who advised Commerce; the committee agreed to invite the Attorney General's office to the June meeting to discuss the legal interpretation and procurement limits. Commerce agreed to provide application lists and scoring materials on request and to continue refining the transparency page.

Next steps: the committee requested written documentation of the legal advice and asked Commerce to supply more granular applicant and scoring information for the grants discussed. The chair also reminded members that the Attorney General's budget will be on the June agenda for follow-up.