Louisiana House Bill HB17

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/15
• Refer: 2/13/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Judith S. Legendre and Wilton Clay Legendre v. Madden Contracting Company, Inc., et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 17 will directly impact the fiscal responsibilities of the Louisiana DOTD, ensuring that the state fulfills its obligations arising from the court's ruling. By appropriating funds for this judgment, the bill highlights the need for state agencies to manage their legal liabilities effectively. The financial implications of such appropriations underscore the legal risks that state departments face and the importance of having a budget that accommodates these unforeseen expenditures.

Summary

House Bill 17 proposes an appropriation of $30,600 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016. The allocated funds are specifically intended for the payment of a consent judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) related to the lawsuit 'Judith S. Legendre and Wilton Clay Legendre v. Madden Contracting Company, Inc., et al.' This bill underscores the administrative processes involved in settling litigation costs incurred by state departments and their implications for state budgeting and finances.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 17 appears to be straightforward and less contentious compared to broader legislative initiatives, as it deals with a specific legal obligation rather than policy changes. The nature of this bill may draw less public attention and debate, indicating a consensus among legislators about the necessity of addressing the judgment against DOTD. However, there could be underlying concerns about the repeated need for such appropriations, reflecting potential issues within state agency operations or legal decision-making.

Contention

While the bill itself may not be highly contentious, it raises questions about the management of state resources and legal responsibilities. The necessity of appropriating funds for legal judgments may prompt discussions regarding preventive measures and risk management strategies employed by state agencies to mitigate future liabilities. Additionally, how these types of appropriations fit within the larger context of the state budget and overall fiscal health could become a point of contention, particularly among fiscal conservatives who may advocate for more stringent controls and oversight.