Louisiana Senate Bill SB566

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/14
• Refer: 3/25/14
• Report Pass: 4/14/14
• Engrossed: 4/21/14
• Refer: 4/22/14
• Report Pass: 5/7/14
• Enrolled: 5/29/14
• Chaptered: 6/9/14
• Passed: 6/9/14

Caption

Provides relative to the board of commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System (CATS). (gov sig)

Impact

If enacted, SB 566 will amend existing state laws regarding the governance of the Capital Area Transit System. The key change is that members of the board will serve beyond the expiration of their terms until their successors are appointed and qualified. This provision will prevent the potential disruption that could arise from having vacant positions on the board, thus allowing for more stable oversight and management of the transit system. The bill also emphasizes a rapid response for appointing replacements, which could enhance the efficiency of the system’s governance.

Summary

Senate Bill 566 focuses on the governance structure of the Capital Area Transit System (CATS) in Louisiana. It specifically addresses the composition and operational procedures regarding the board of commissioners overseeing the transit system. The bill modifies the conditions under which board members may be removed and introduces guidelines for appointing temporary replacements, thereby ensuring continuity in the board's operations during transitional periods.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 566 appears to be generally supportive, particularly among stakeholders who prioritize maintaining the effective functioning of public transit systems. Supporters argue that ensuring a seamless transition during board member changes is crucial for the stability and effectiveness of CATS. However, there may also be concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of appointments, particularly the procedures for temporary appointees.

Contention

While the bill seems to present a practical solution to governance issues, concerns may arise regarding the implications of extending terms indefinitely until a successor is appointed. Critics could argue that this provision risks reducing accountability, as it allows board members to remain in their positions without the usual electoral or appointment processes. Such feedback could prompt discussions about the balance between stability and democratic processes in governance.