Arkansas Senate Bill SB1

Arkansas 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/24
• Engrossed: 4/16/24
• Enrolled: 4/17/24
• Chaptered: 4/23/24
• Passed: 4/23/24

Caption

An Act For The Arkansas Senate Appropriation For The 2024-2025 Fiscal Year.

Impact

The bill emphasizes fiscal responsibility and transparency in disbursing state funds for the Senate's operational necessities. It includes provisions for the appropriation of funds totaling approximately $2.85 million to cover salaries, operating expenses, and computerization initiatives to streamline legislative processes. This funding initiative is crucial for ensuring that the Senate can function effectively, which indirectly supports the broader legislative mandate and public service responsibilities imposed on this governmental body.

Summary

Senate Bill 1 (SB1) is a legislative act proposing an appropriation for personal services and operating expenses of the Arkansas Senate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. The bill establishes the personnel funding provisions, including regular salaries for Senate staff and allocated funds for temporary or part-time help when necessary. It aims to ensure that the Senate can adequately meet its operational needs for the budget year specified, with a focus on maintaining adequate staffing levels and functional capabilities for legislative duties.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB1 appears to be positive among the legislators as it supports the necessary operations of the Senate without imposing any new taxes or regulatory burdens on the citizens. Given the unanimous support indicated in the voting history—97 yeas and no nays—it reflects a consensus among the legislature about the importance of prioritizing state funding for legislative processes and ensuring that government operates smoothly.

Contention

While the bill received overwhelming support, some discussion may surround the allocations and priorities of funding within the broader context of state budget management. Critics of similar appropriation bills may raise concerns regarding the emphasis on administrative expenses as opposed to direct funding for public services or community programs. However, with the current voting outcome, it appears that opposition was minimal in this instance, with no documented grievances indicated during the voting process.