Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/17/2003 01:35 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 49-2003 REVISOR'S BILL
MS. PAM FINDLEY, Revisor of Statutes with the Legislative Legal
and Research Services, informed committee members SB 49 is a
clean up bill where the policies were determined by earlier
Legislatures, but the wording was not right for one reason or
another or where names of boards changed. She noted this bill
should not affect policy and a sectional analysis was provided.
SENATOR ELLIS said he appreciated her good work, professionalism
and attention to detail in keeping the Legislature out of
trouble. He said if Senator Halford and others were here, they
would ask if there is anything even bordering on policy or
substantive impact.
MS. FINDLEY answered no. She directed everyone's attention to
Section 27, page 10 where the explanation goes on for several
pages. Two amendments happened the same year to the same
section. This involved loans and there is a limit on these
loans. The amendments were put together in the same statute and
they don't work together very well. SB 49 attempts to keep the
two acts separate. She was told what is in the Revisor's bill
is the way the department has been executing the law so there
should not be any change on the ground. This is the most
substantive because it does involve two amendments. She feels
comfortable the policy choice was made because in one of those
subsections it is clear that another one is being accepted. The
whole explanation must be read to understand it because it is
complicated. That is the only section she wrestled with and
came to the conclusion the Legislature's policy was clear enough
for her to put that in this bill.
SENATOR THERRIAULT read the bottom of page 5 on the sectional
analysis. This section amends to make it clear that the two
$300,000 caps operate separately. If the Legislature disagrees
with my interpretation, this section could be removed. He asked
if Chair Seekins intended to move the bill at this time.
CHAIR SEEKINS replied he wanted the bill introduced and then
allow time to go through it in more detail, work out any
questions and bring the bill back at a second hearing to
finalize it.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted he would like to get a complete
understanding before it is moved from committee.
MS. FINDLEY confirmed it is complicated.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that the Judiciary Committee is not
going to move legislation out in the first hearing unless it is
something relatively minor.
SB 49 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|