Special Session
The Governor has issued the Proclamation for the special session, and the bills are drafted. [Thanks Ric and Senate Site for doing the legwork on the links].
Candidly, I'm not much for special sessions. Because the typical wheels of a general session aren't turning (committee hearings, filing deadlines, and the typical delays involved in moving legislature from one body to the other), special sessions really can be an insiders' game. Recognizing this fact during my first year in the Legislature, I worked with others (thank you, again, Speaker Stephens) to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring 48-hours advance notice of items on the call. That's still not much notice (I wanted 72-hours), but it is better than the old practice of adding items to the call after we had convened, which of course gave practically no opportunity for non-insiders to participate in any way other than to read about the changes after the fact.
This session could be interesting. On some bills, like naked short selling of stocks, executive compensation, and Medicaid funding for dental services, there hasn't been much coordination between the branches or much discussion within caucuses. So, I don't have a feel for how they might go.
UPDATE (5/23/06 7:00 a.m.): Utah Policy Daily astutely adds, "Items are also considered out-of-context of the overall budget and priorities of the state." Just about every spending item we consider in the General Session is important. The question in a General Session becomes how important the item is compared to other priorities. In a Special Session, however, items are considered in isolation, and that sense of overall balance can be lost. Hence, the Tribune's observation, "Lawmakers don't like re-opening the budget in a special session, fearing a money grab. That's 'like opening Pandora's box. Nobody wants to do that,' said Senate Majority Leader Pete Knudson."
As the Tribune states, "Knudson couches the bill as a reallocation of existing health department money. But Mower says it's a new appropriation." So, what is it -- reshuffled money or new money? That's an important question to people who worry about balancing the checkbook.
Candidly, I'm not much for special sessions. Because the typical wheels of a general session aren't turning (committee hearings, filing deadlines, and the typical delays involved in moving legislature from one body to the other), special sessions really can be an insiders' game. Recognizing this fact during my first year in the Legislature, I worked with others (thank you, again, Speaker Stephens) to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring 48-hours advance notice of items on the call. That's still not much notice (I wanted 72-hours), but it is better than the old practice of adding items to the call after we had convened, which of course gave practically no opportunity for non-insiders to participate in any way other than to read about the changes after the fact.
This session could be interesting. On some bills, like naked short selling of stocks, executive compensation, and Medicaid funding for dental services, there hasn't been much coordination between the branches or much discussion within caucuses. So, I don't have a feel for how they might go.
UPDATE (5/23/06 7:00 a.m.): Utah Policy Daily astutely adds, "Items are also considered out-of-context of the overall budget and priorities of the state." Just about every spending item we consider in the General Session is important. The question in a General Session becomes how important the item is compared to other priorities. In a Special Session, however, items are considered in isolation, and that sense of overall balance can be lost. Hence, the Tribune's observation, "Lawmakers don't like re-opening the budget in a special session, fearing a money grab. That's 'like opening Pandora's box. Nobody wants to do that,' said Senate Majority Leader Pete Knudson."
As the Tribune states, "Knudson couches the bill as a reallocation of existing health department money. But Mower says it's a new appropriation." So, what is it -- reshuffled money or new money? That's an important question to people who worry about balancing the checkbook.
posted by steve u. at 5/22/2006
Subscribe
2 Comments:
Steveo Did you really drop the bomb on Jenkins?
Chayce
No. Not at all. Sen. Jenkins and I spent some time discussing the food tax and transportation funding. But the discussions were cordial at all times and, ultimately, productive.
<< Home