Louisiana House Bill HB136

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Truman D. Owens, Sr. v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and ABC Construction Company"

Impact

The approval of HB 136 facilitates direct state financial involvement in the judiciary’s decisions, indicating a commitment to uphold the rule of law and financial accountability. By allocating funding to settle the consent judgment, the state demonstrates its readiness to take fiscal responsibility for outcomes arising from its governmental functions, specifically those conducted by the Department of Transportation and Development. These appropriations may impact future funding discussions and financial planning within the state's budget as it reflects the necessity of addressing legal claims against governmental bodies.

Summary

House Bill 136 is a legislative proposal aimed at appropriating funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014. This bill specifically allocates $60,000 to cover a consent judgment resulting from the case 'Truman D. Owens, Sr. v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and ABC Construction Company'. The bill's passage is a response to the court's ruling and underscores the state's obligation to fulfill financial responsibilities stemming from legal settlements awarded by the judiciary.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 136 is generally supportive among legislators who view it as a necessary step in fulfilling the obligations rendered by the court. Supporters argue that paying the judgment is critical for maintaining public trust in the state's operation and its agencies. There are minimal points of contention associated with the bill as it primarily deals with a financial reallocation rather than wider policy changes, although discussions about the origins and implications of the judgment itself may spark broader conversations about accountability within state agencies.

Contention

While HB 136 primarily addresses a single financial appropriation, it reflects the ongoing need for scrutiny regarding legal practices and commitments of state agencies. Although there haven't been significant objections regarding the immediate financial implications of the bill, the underlying case may raise questions about the accountability and operational effectiveness of the Department of Transportation and Development. Future discussions may delve into preventive measures to avoid similar legal situations, highlighting the importance of effective management and compliance within state entities.