Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Employee Loyalty Hb319 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Employee Loyalty bill stalls after committee questions over scope and whistleblower protections
Summary
Rep. Judy Boyle’s House Bill 319, which would restrict state employees from representing claimants against the state, drew extensive questions from lawmakers and died for lack of a motion after concerns about breadth and First Amendment and whistleblower protections.
Rep. Judy Boyle (Representative, District 9) introduced House Bill 319, a proposal that would bar state employees from acting as paid or unpaid agents, consultants, experts or attorneys in claims against the state.
The bill drew sustained questioning from committee members about whether it would chill whistleblowers, prevent fact witnesses from testifying and limit First Amendment activity. "They have to decide 1 or the other. They're a State employee or they're a private contractor," Boyle said in defense of the measure.
The bill would make it an offense, as Boyle described, for a state employee to act as the lead attorney against the state while still being paid by the state. Several members raised hypotheticals about professors or agency employees who might, outside work hours, assist with or advise on litigation. "This seems to restrict that First Amendment right," Representative Akiles said during questioning.
Committee members pressed how the bill would treat fact witnesses and subpoenaed experts. Boyle repeatedly pointed to lines in the draft intended to preserve subpoenaed fact witness testimony, saying, "They would need to wait for a subpoena," when asked how a coworker providing facts would be treated.
Representative Joe Alfieri gave a closing statement against the bill: "I am very uncomfortable with the provisions of this. I will vote against it." With no motion made to advance the bill, committee leadership declared the bill would die for lack of a motion.
The committee record shows no public testimony was taken on HB319 and members emphasized that some concerns — including the bill's breadth and interaction with whistleblower protections codified in Title 6 — would need resolution before the committee could act.
Questions that went unanswered in the session included whether the draft properly distinguishes between protected whistleblowing (referenced by Boyle as Title 6, "whistleblower statute") and impermissible advocacy, and how unpaid consultants or small gratuities would be treated.
HB319 was not advanced by the committee and no vote to send the bill to hearing was recorded.
