To Veto or Not to Veto
Today is the last day for Gov. Huntsman to sign bills, let them slip into law without his signature, veto them, or, in the case of a Senate concurrent resolution, let it die without his signature. My preferences (which, not surprisingly, mirror my votes on the legislation) are that he veto the midwifery bill and sign the medical devices bill (for which I was House sponsor), the child drugging bill, child welfare reforms, and the Tooele County/State Trust Lands landfill resolution (for which I'm named on the bill as the House sponsor but wasn't; Rep. Rhonda Menlove was the sponsor).
I talked about the midwifery bill here. Since I haven't had any conversations with the Gov. or his people about the medical devices bill, I'm surprised by his reluctance to sign it; to me, it does a great job of limiting liability at the right point (i.e., when someone else makes the decision to reprocess a single-use device -- using their chemicals, sterilization techniques and packaging). The child drugging bill strikes a good balance between government and parents regarding administration of psychotropic drugs. The child welfare reform bill better ensures due process for families.
The Gov.'s reluctance on the landfill bill (household solid waste -- banana peels and old shoes) is very interesting. The landfill would mean significant revenue to School Trust Lands (and community councils). The only reasons I've heard for not signing the bill are (1) a desire to stop importation of waste to Utah and (2) to give a competitive advantage to the Goshutes (who have a competing landfill in the works), to discourage their acceptance of the spent nuclear rods. Reason (1) doesn't apply, since waste won't be imported. Reason (2) makes no sense, unless the Goshutes completely and officially disavow the rods -- which they won't do. Though I think the resolution will be signed, if it is not, things get interesting. Since neither reason stated above would comport with the State's fiduciary duty to generate revenue for the schools from the Trust, the beneficiaries of the Trust (who have been ripped off in the past) would likely sue the State (and win) for breach of its fiduciary duty .
I talked about the midwifery bill here. Since I haven't had any conversations with the Gov. or his people about the medical devices bill, I'm surprised by his reluctance to sign it; to me, it does a great job of limiting liability at the right point (i.e., when someone else makes the decision to reprocess a single-use device -- using their chemicals, sterilization techniques and packaging). The child drugging bill strikes a good balance between government and parents regarding administration of psychotropic drugs. The child welfare reform bill better ensures due process for families.
The Gov.'s reluctance on the landfill bill (household solid waste -- banana peels and old shoes) is very interesting. The landfill would mean significant revenue to School Trust Lands (and community councils). The only reasons I've heard for not signing the bill are (1) a desire to stop importation of waste to Utah and (2) to give a competitive advantage to the Goshutes (who have a competing landfill in the works), to discourage their acceptance of the spent nuclear rods. Reason (1) doesn't apply, since waste won't be imported. Reason (2) makes no sense, unless the Goshutes completely and officially disavow the rods -- which they won't do. Though I think the resolution will be signed, if it is not, things get interesting. Since neither reason stated above would comport with the State's fiduciary duty to generate revenue for the schools from the Trust, the beneficiaries of the Trust (who have been ripped off in the past) would likely sue the State (and win) for breach of its fiduciary duty .
posted by steve u. at 3/22/2005
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home