Louisiana Senate Bill SB617

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/12
• Refer: 3/20/12
• Report Pass: 4/2/12
• Engrossed: 4/10/12
• Refer: 4/11/12
• Report Pass: 4/30/12
• Enrolled: 5/15/12
• Chaptered: 5/25/12
• Passed: 5/25/12

Caption

Changes the composition of the board of commissioners of the St.Tammany Parish Development District. (8/1/12)

Impact

The bill will directly affect local governance in St. Tammany Parish by changing how the board of commissioners is constituted. By modifying the number of commissioners and stating the qualifications necessary for membership, the bill seeks to streamline operations and improve the oversight of development projects within the parish. It emphasizes the importance of local taxpayers having representation in the decision-making processes regarding development in their communities.

Summary

Senate Bill 617 proposes amendments to the governance structure of the St. Tammany Parish Development District by altering the composition and appointment process of its board of commissioners. It reduces the number of commissioners from fifteen to thirteen and lays out specific protocols for appointments, including the terms of service which will vary but standardize around three years after initial staggered terms. This restructuring aims to enhance the efficiency and accountability of the board by clearly defining member terms and responsibilities.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB 617 appears to be generally positive, especially among supporters who believe that the restructuring will lead to more effective governance and better representation for local taxpayers. The explicit requirements for board members to be qualified voters and taxpayers adds to the credibility of the board, suggesting that it is designed to truly represent the demographics and needs of St. Tammany Parish. Nonetheless, there may be some concerns regarding the impact of reducing board size on diverse representation.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential implications of reducing the board size; critics might argue that this change limits the diversity of perspectives that can influence development decisions. There may also be discussions on the appropriateness of the appointed bodies responsible for selecting board members and how that might affect local governance. One critical point is how changing the quorum from eight to seven might influence decision-making efficiency, raising questions about how this affects board dynamics during critical votes and discussions.