Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill letting Legislative Management Committee direct counsel in litigation after heated debate
Summary
After extensive floor debate and a failed amendment to limit delegation, the Utah House approved Senate Bill 152 to let the Legislative Management Committee authorize the Legislative General Counsel to represent the Legislature in litigation by majority vote; the bill passed 70-5.
The Utah House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 152 on the floor after an extended debate over whether leadership should have authority to direct legislative counsel in litigation. The bill authorizes the Legislative Management Committee — a bipartisan body of House and Senate leaders — to ask Legislative Council or the Legislative General Counsel to engage on behalf of the Legislature by a majority vote of that committee.
Representative David Clark, the House sponsor, said the bill “gives clarity and focus to a practice that we have practiced” and framed the change as formalizing an existing, informal process so the Legislature can act promptly when litigation arises. He told members that the management committee is composed of leadership they have elected and that the proposal simply identifies the individuals to make decisions about when to engage counsel.
Representative Hendrickson offered Amendment Number 2 to narrow the delegation, arguing the step would better inform rank-and-file members and avoid vesting too much authority in a small group. Hendrickson said the amendment would require the Legislature, during each general session, to direct counsel by joint resolution and would limit delegation during interims. He argued that the amendment would help members avoid appearing uninformed when litigation involving the Legislature became public.
Supporters of the bill, including members who described the management committee as an experienced leadership group, responded that the authority was needed for timely and pragmatic responses and that communication back to caucuses and members would continue. Representative Brown and others said they were concerned about member notification and information flow, but they also acknowledged the need for nimbleness in legal matters.
The body voted on the amendment and then the bill. Amendment Number 2 failed on the floor. The House then passed Senate Bill 152 by a recorded margin of 70 yes and 5 no. The bill will be sent back to the Senate for the President’s signature.
What happens next: The bill takes effect under the Legislature’s normal transmittal process; members opposed to the delegation asked for future work on formal communications so the full body receives timely information when management acts on litigation.
