Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Panel approves redesign of state employee retired plate after debate; one objection recorded
Loading...
Summary
After a contested discussion over where proceeds would flow, the committee voted to report Senate Bill 19 — changing the name and design of the state employee retired prestige plate — by a roll call that recorded approximately 21 yes votes and one no (Rep. Schammerhorn).
The committee considered Senate Bill 19 on April 27, a measure to change the name and design of the state employee retired prestige license plate and to designate which entity receives proceeds. Representative Schammerhorn objected on the floor, expressing concern that proceeds could be redirected away from the LASERS retirement system to a private organization.
Frank Jobat Jr., representing the retirees’ association (RSEA), told the committee the foundation behind the plate is a private, tax‑exempt nonprofit and said the group uses funds for scholarships: "We started in 1966. We created the foundation about 10 years ago ... it's a private nonprofit, tax exempt organization. ... We're on track to give away 10 [scholarships] this year." He also said the organization does not lobby and that prior plate sales may simply not have occurred.
Representative Schammerhorn questioned where funds would go and noted an actuarial note showing LASERS had not received funds from the current plate; other members urged passage and said the change would generate scholarships and other charitable activity. Representative Wiley moved to report the bill favorably; Representative Schammerhorn objected, triggering a roll‑call vote.
The committee recorded approximately 21 yes votes and one no (Representative Schammerhorn). The chair declared the motion to report passed and SB 19 will be sent to the House floor with the committee’s recommendation.
What it means: The bill would change the retired state employee plate’s name and design and alter where proceeds are deposited; proponents say the nonprofit will use funds for scholarships, while critics warned that redirecting money away from retirement system support could be problematic. Further fiscal and legal review may follow on the House floor.
