Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impoundment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Conrad proposes bill to give auditor formal power to investigate gubernatorial impoundments
Summary
Sen. Danielle Conrad introduced LB 11‑47 to require the Auditor of Public Accounts to investigate and quarterly report any impoundment, delay or withholding of legislative appropriations by the governor; bill sponsor cited constitutional concerns and said the fiscal note is $0.
Senator Danielle Conrad introduced LB 11‑47 to require the Auditor of Public Accounts to investigate any impoundment of funds in which the governor withholds or delays funds appropriated by the Legislature and to submit a quarterly report listing impounded funds, dates, reasons and estimates of fiscal impact. "LB 11‑47 requires that the auditor of public accounts has the ability to investigate any impoundment of funds in which the governor withholds or delays funds appropriated by the legislature," Conrad said during the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.
The sponsor framed LB 11‑47 as a transparency and accountability measure aimed at reducing reliance on press reports and whistleblower complaints to understand executive withholding of appropriations. Conrad said the practice of impoundment has recurred in the current administration and "raises serious constitutional concerns," arguing the Nebraska Constitution makes the Legislature the sole branch with authority to appropriate funds.
Conrad told the committee the bill would allow any legislator, state agency or eligible recipient of public funds to file a complaint with the auditor alleging impoundment, and that the auditor could include additional pertinent information in quarterly reports. She referenced the auditor's office in stating there is a $0 fiscal note for this bill and that the auditor believes the office can handle the reporting under existing resources.
The hearing record for LB 11‑47 shows 9 proponents and 11 opponents on the written record; the sponsor waived an in‑person closing statement and no formal committee action occurred at the hearing. The committee did not take testimony that resolved competing views on the prevalence or legality of impoundments; no court decisions were introduced during the hearing to alter the record.
What happens next: the sponsor said she would answer committee questions and the committee may consider amendments or additional testimony before any vote. The hearing closed without a committee vote.
