Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/09/1996 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 359 APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BDS & COMM'NS
Number 310
CHAIRMAN KELLY brought up HB 359 as the next order of business
before the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee. He called the prime
sponsor to testify.
Number 315
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, prime sponsor of HB 359, stated HB 359
would specify that appointments made during the interim expire the
first day of the session and must be reappointed within 30 days of
the beginning of session. Any appointment made after the first 30
days of a session must be submitted within 5 days. Then the
legislature will confirm or reject that appointment. If the
appointment is rejected, the person may not be reappointed to the
same position. The requirement to reappoint during session
eliminates the carry-over appointments of the lame-duck
appointments. It moves almost all of the expiration dates of
boards and commissions to March 1, so that there is some
consistency. It also eliminates a loophole that could possibly
allow a governor to appoint someone during the interim, not present
them for appointment, recognizing that the appointment would
expire, and then reappointing the same person so as to retain
someone that the legislature never had the opportunity to confirm.
He thinks that the administration generally supports the bill.
CHAIRMAN KELLY commented he is still a little confused about the
March 1 extension date. How does it operate now? Are there
different expiration dates for various boards and commissions?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that as they came on board, they
had different dates. You will notice that HB 359 specifies "except
as otherwise provided". The only one being excluded is the Board
of Regents.
CHAIRMAN KELLY asked what extending to March 1 means. Does that
mean the legislature then has the opportunity to look at new
appointees every year?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied that is why it's during session. The
debate is just about where in the session you would want to draw
that line.
CHAIRMAN KELLY asked if there were questions for Representative
Porter. Hearing none, he called Mr. Baldwin to testify.
Number 360
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
informed the committee that the Department of Law has been working
with Representative Porter on HB 359, and generally, he has
accommodated the department's concerns. There is one remaining
area of concern regarding how the bill would work: all of an
incoming governor's interim appointments would expire on the first
day of the session. The department thinks that would be an
administrative burden on a new governor to have to respond that
rapidly when there is so much else going on with the transition.
He suggested specifying that the appointments would expire on the
date that the name is submitted. That would give the governor time
to handle the transition and would also keep vacancies from
occurring. He stated that the change could occur, if the committee
so desires, to the language on page 5, line 29. Words could be
inserted to the effect that the term would end on the day during
the next regular session upon which the appointment is presented.
CHAIRMAN KELLY asked if they would lock in how long the governor
would have to present those appointments.
MR. BALDWIN thinks the preceding section of statute specifies 30
days; that is existing law. It is on page 4 of HB 359.
CHAIRMAN KELLY noted that would only be a factor every four years,
and perhaps eight years.
MR. BALDWIN brought to the committee's attention that there are
amendments being made in other sections of the bill to boards or
commissions or bodies that, by the executive branch's
interpretation, do not require confirmation. But for some reason
or other the legislature has seen fit to, by statute, make these
boards or commissions subject to confirmation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY asked if Mr. Baldwin if there was a problem with
specifying the first day of session. You could essentially have no
board for 30 days. If everybody's term were to end, then you would
have a board that could not take action for 30 days. The chairman
asked if he was correct in assuming that might be a possibility.
MR. BALDWIN replied that is a possibility under the way the bill is
currently written.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thinks that would exist in those situations
where a governor would make the lame-duck appointments. What he is
trying to do with HB 359 is take away the motivation to do that.
If it was worded so that it was clear that the next governor's
appointments had to be made within the confines of the new language
of the bill, he would not have great objection to it.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN KELLY thinks staff can work out that problem. You could
just specify every fourth year, just as we do for the start of
legislative sessions. He asked staff to work out that problem
between the administration and the sponsor, and the bill will be
brought up again first thing on Thursday. He asked Mr. Baldwin if
the governor will sign the bill with that correction, not
withstanding the other objections.
MR. BALDWIN responded he will have to reply to that question on
Thursday. There has been a meeting with the governor about the
bill.
CHAIRMAN KELLY, hearing no other comments, adjourned the Senate
Labor & Commerce Committee meeting at 2:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|