Connecticut Senate Bill SJ00039

Connecticut 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/17
• Refer: 2/22/17
• Report Pass: 3/10/17
• Refer: 3/23/17
• Report Pass: 3/29/17

Caption

Resolution Approving An Amendment To The State Constitution To Protect Real Property Held Or Controlled By The State.

Impact

If passed, this amendment would amend Article III of the State Constitution by adding a new section that creates a layer of protection around state-controlled real property. It seeks to prevent the spontaneous or unconsidered disposal of state assets, thus aiming to retain public trust and ensure that the interests of the public are taken into account before significant assets are disposed of. This change is considered crucial in maintaining long-term state property management strategies and avoiding potential financial mismanagement or inappropriate asset sales.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution No. 39 (SJ00039) proposes an amendment to the Connecticut state constitution that seeks to safeguard state-controlled real property from being sold or transferred without significant legislative oversight. This resolution stipulates that any such legislative action can only occur after a public hearing and requires a two-thirds majority vote from both houses of the General Assembly. The intent behind this proposed amendment is to ensure that any significant decisions regarding state assets are subjected to thorough scrutiny and community input, thus fostering transparency and accountability in state governance.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment regarding SJ00039 appears to be supportive among those advocating for increased transparency in governmental asset management. Proponents argue that the amendment represents a responsible approach to stewardship of public resources, as it requires more rigorous legislative processes before state properties can be transferred or sold. However, some concerns may arise regarding potential delays in necessary property transfers that could affect state operations, illustrating a nuanced debate about the balance between oversight and efficiency.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding this resolution include the level of legislative oversight end prescribed by the amendment. While advocates emphasize the importance of protecting public assets through greater accountability measures, critics may argue that the requirement for a two-thirds vote could hinder timely decisions regarding essential state property. The requirement for a public hearing is likewise debated as it may introduce significant procedural delays, thereby impacting the state's ability to manage its resources effectively.