Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates conflicting rules on interim committee meetings; sponsor to reconvene after consultation
Summary
Senate Bill 44, which would remove a 2‑week trigger and retain a 30‑day trigger for interim committee meetings, drew extended committee discussion and was pulled for further consultation with House leadership and the Bureau of Legislative Research.
Senate Bill 44 returned to committee for extended discussion after members raised concerns about two conflicting statutes: one allowing interim committees after a two-week recess and another after a 30‑day recess.
Sponsor Sen. Hester explained the bill would remove the two‑week provision and keep the 30‑day rule so members would have a clearer, single statutory standard. "We have 2 laws saying 2 different things and we've gotta get rid of 1 of them," Hester said. Committee members pressed on practical effects: some argued two weeks provides needed flexibility, while others preferred longer recesses to avoid frequent interim committee activity.
Questions focused on whether leadership could call the General Assembly back during a recess, how a recess without a date certain would operate, and whether the rule should be in statute or joint rules. Jill Thayer of the Bureau of Legislative Research advised that courts have found indefinite recesses problematic and said she would research whether recess without a date certain is permissible.
Several senators asked the sponsor to consult with House leadership and BLR to resolve practical questions; Hester agreed to pull the bill and return with clarifications. Senators discussed alternative wording (14 days versus 30 days) and the need to coordinate with the House because one statute already sets a 30‑day rule. No formal vote was taken; the item was deferred for follow-up.
