Increases the amount of per diem for members of the board of supervisors of Sewerage District No. 1 of Rapides Parish. (8/15/11) (EN +$6,480 LF EX See Note)
The enactment of SB 19 will have a direct impact on the operational effectiveness of the Sewerage District by potentially attracting more capable individuals to the board due to improved financial incentives. The increase in per diem is aimed at acknowledging the commitment of board members to their responsibilities, thereby enhancing governance within the Sewerage District. This could also lead to more active participation in meetings and decision-making processes that are critical for the management of sewage and drainage services in the area.
Senate Bill 19, introduced by Senator McPherson, focuses on the compensation of members serving on the board of supervisors for Sewerage District No. 1 in Rapides Parish. The bill authorizes an increase in the per diem paid to board members for attending meetings, setting the amount at a maximum of $150 per day for up to 24 regular meetings annually, as well as compensation for up to 12 emergency meetings per year. This legislative change reflects an intention to adjust and enhance the financial remuneration for those serving in these local governmental roles.
The sentiment surrounding SB 19 appears to be generally positive, as the bill is seen as a necessary adjustment to support local governance. Local stakeholders and community members are likely to view the increase in per diem as a recognition of the hard work and duties undertaken by board members. However, there may also be concerns regarding the allocation of public funds for increased compensation, which could provoke discussions among taxpayers about the appropriateness of such increases.
While the bill enjoys notable support, potential contention could arise from those opposing any increase in government spending. Critics may argue that public funds should be allocated to essential services rather than increasing pay for board members, particularly in times of budget constraints. The debate could revolve around the balance between fair compensation for public service and fiscal responsibility in local government budgeting.