Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Appropriations Committee reviews compiled member recommendations, readies bills for next day
Summary
Members of the House Appropriations Committee on March 17 reviewed a consolidated spreadsheet of members' recommended base appropriations, one-time appropriations and reductions, discussed balances and process improvements, and previewed bills on the next day's agenda.
The House Appropriations Committee met briefly March 17 to review a consolidated set of member recommendations on the budget and to outline the agenda for the next day.
Committee member 1, House Appropriations Committee member, opened the meeting by distributing a document summarizing submissions and explaining the color-coding: "The first box are the recommended base appropriations...the base appropriations are in green. The second 1 is 1 time appropriations, and that's that yellow highlight. The third 1 is a list of reductions, and that's in the hold."
The nut graf: committee members said the packet — replies from 11 members — is a first pass intended to let members spot duplicates and areas of agreement before fuller review at the next meeting. Committee member 1 described using a spreadsheet-like template to make comparison easier and said members would have time to absorb and annotate the material offline.
Members discussed an apparent balance figure flagged in red on the spreadsheet. Committee member 1 read the line aloud and asked whether it indicated overspending. Committee member 3 answered with the spreadsheet interpretation: "So that means that in this case, it's, the reductions were 15,000,000, and they were 2 expenditure boxes. 108 was 12.9, and then 1 time was 21.3. So there are more savings than expenditure." Later Committee member 3 clarified shorthand: "16,000,000. Okay. So we have 11 people's responses." Those figures were discussed as worksheet totals and shorthand, not as final appropriation amounts.
Committee members emphasized process improvements for future rounds. Committee member 2 suggested sorting combined submissions to identify duplicates and common priorities, saying it would make agreement easier: "If I have it in this spreadsheet, it would be nice to be able to take those altogether and sort them so we could find the the duplicates where people would agree, upgrade, and be able to, you know." Committee member 1 said staff (Maria and others) would help simplify the materials and that members should review and make notes before the formal session tomorrow.
The committee also previewed the next day's agenda, which Committee member 1 said would begin at 9 a.m. with item "age 67 about ledge ops and government accountability" and include several bills. Committee member 1 added that they had a separate meeting with the administration at 8:30 a.m. about a budget adjustment. Committee member 1 listed items expected on upcoming agendas, citing an "OPR bill, office of professional," a possible flood response bill, Teresa's bill H 91 arriving later in the week, and a housing bill that committee members expected but whose timing was "not specified." Committee member 1 said the committee would not be "overrun with bills" and could focus on the budget.
No formal votes or motions were recorded during the brief meeting.
Ending: members adjourned after confirming materials would be distributed to absent colleagues and that they would reconvene the next day to begin a more detailed review and possible consolidation of overlapping recommendations.
