Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances substitute bill adding sunset reviews for court‑related offices, shortens review period for ADR
Summary
Senate approved a substituted first‑sub House Bill 47 to reinstate sunset review dates for the Office of Court Administrator and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with committee amendments adjusting review dates (court administrator to 02/2004 in one motion and ADR to 02/2007 in another); the substitute passed and was placed on the third‑reading calendar.
The Senate debated and advanced a substituted version of House Bill 47 on Feb. 5 that restores sunset review dates for two judicial‑related entities: the Office of Court Administrator and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act. Senators argued whether long sunset intervals were meaningful and proposed shorter review dates to ensure timely legislative oversight.
Senator Gladwell (floor sponsor) explained the substitute inserts a 10‑year review date initially, but floor amendments shortened that timeframe in committee and on the floor. One senator moved to change the court administrator review date from Feb. 2012 to Feb. 2004 to prompt an earlier review of administrative overhead; another senator’s substitute set ADR to a five‑year review (Feb. 2007). The sponsor said the Senate does not object to the shorter ADR review and ultimately the substitute amendment carried.
Supporters said adding review dates preserves legislative oversight and clarifies the timetable for reconsideration; critics questioned whether routinely setting long sunsets is useful unless the Legislature follows through with actual reviews. The Senate passed the amended first substitute under suspension and voted to move the bill to the third‑reading calendar (committee report indicates 23 aye, 0 nay, 6 absent on the floor action reported for passage to third reading).
Next steps: The amended first substitute will be placed on the third‑reading calendar for final consideration and enrollment procedures if it later passes.
The debate focused on review timing rather than changing the substantive functions of the offices; senators emphasized the motion was intended to ensure the Legislature could examine administrative growth and program effectiveness in a reasonable timeframe.
