Re-creates the Department of State and the statutory entities made a part of the department by law
Impact
The impact of HB432 primarily revolves around the governance and operation of the Department of State and its statutory entities. By re-establishing these entities, the bill ensures ongoing governmental oversight and the necessary legal backing for state operations linked to the Department of State. This measure addresses issues of operational continuity and program stability, which are essential for effective state governance and administration. The timeline established within the bill also provides a structured approach to any future decisions regarding the existence of these entities.
Summary
House Bill 432 is a legislative measure aimed at re-creating the Department of State and the statutory entities associated with it, with the new structure effective from June 30, 2014. The bill stipulates that the statutory authority for these entities will continue until July 1, 2019, unless re-created before that date. Its enactment is a significant step in maintaining continuity in the functioning of the Department of State, ensuring that vital governmental functions are preserved and legally recognized. The consistent legislative authority allows for a stable governance framework necessary for state operations.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB432 appears to be generally supportive among legislators, as it was passed with a significant majority in the Senate, recording 36 votes in favor compared to only one against. This indicates a strong consensus regarding the necessity of re-creating the Department of State and its associated entities. The discussions likely reflected the importance of maintaining effective governance structures without significant opposition during the voting phases.
Contention
While no notable points of contention were explicitly stated in the legislative discussions or voting records available, the nature of any re-creation of state departments typically invites scrutiny from various interest groups concerned about accountability and efficiency. Future debates may arise around fiscal implications and the performance of these statutory entities post-re-creation. Continuous evaluation of their functions and any potential overlap with existing governmental responsibilities could also become discussion points as the bill progresses.
Relating to the recusal or disqualification of a statutory probate judge or other judge authorized to hear probate, guardianship, or mental health matters, and the subsequent assignment of another judge.
Relating to the recusal or disqualification of a statutory probate judge or other judge authorized to hear probate, guardianship, or mental health matters, and the subsequent assignment of another judge.
Relating to the recusal or disqualification of a statutory probate judge or other judge authorized to hear probate, guardianship, or mental health matters, and the subsequent assignment of another judge.
Relating to the recusal or disqualification of a statutory probate judge or other judge authorized to hear probate, guardianship, or mental health matters, and the subsequent assignment of another judge.