Louisiana Senate Bill SB455

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Provides relative to the sunset and abolition of certain special funds in the state treasury. (6/30/11) (OR INCREASE GF RV See Note)

Impact

The implications of SB455 are profound as they would fundamentally alter how certain state funds are managed. By transitioning some special funds to the general fund, the bill intends to streamline budgetary processes and improve oversight of public spending. The establishment of a routine review process for these funds is designed to ensure that only those that provide measurable benefits to the state are allowed to persist, potentially freeing up resources for other essential state functions. This move could also lead to greater scrutiny of existing financial practices and requires financial entities supported by special funds to adhere to higher standards of accountability similar to those applied to the general fund.

Summary

Senate Bill 455 proposes significant changes to the management of special funds within the Louisiana state treasury. The bill mandates the sunset and potential abolition of certain special funds that have not been reviewed or deemed beneficial by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget. Starting June 30, 2011, the bill aims to eliminate many of these special funds unless there is a legislative enactment to continue or modify them following a thorough review, which occurs every four years. This legislative move reflects an effort to enhance transparency and accountability regarding financial activity in the public sector.

Sentiment

The sentiments surrounding SB455 are mixed. Supporters argue that the proposed changes will lead to a more transparent and accountable budgeting process that allows the state to allocate funds more effectively based on need and performance. Conversely, opponents express concerns that this bill might undermine certain dedicated programs that address specific needs in the community, as the process of abolishing funds could potentially disrupt essential services and initiatives.

Contention

Notable points of contention arise from the balancing act between financial efficiency and the preservation of dedicated funding for crucial programs. Critics caution that the mandatory review and potential abolition of special funds might lead to the elimination of valuable programs that, although not immediately impactful, play a long-term role in societal benefits. The debate also highlights the complexities of state budgeting processes and the potential downsides of prioritizing general fund allocations over specialized initiatives that serve targeted populations.