Louisiana House Bill HB849

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/18
• Refer: 4/4/18
• Report Pass: 4/24/18

Caption

Provides for certain requirements for specified agency heads including prohibitions on engaging in outside activities or employment for any thing of economic value (EG SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)

Impact

The legislation intends to affect state governance by creating a stricter ethical framework for agency leaders. By prohibiting outside employment where financial conflicts could arise, the bill seeks to mitigate potential corruption and enhance public trust in government operations. The language of the law emphasizes that any financial interests that could conflict with their duties are disallowed, thus contributing to the establishment of a more transparent and accountable executive branch.

Summary

House Bill 849 establishes specific requirements for executive branch agency heads in Louisiana, mandating that they serve in a full-time capacity while limiting their engagement in outside employment or activities that could yield economic value. This measure aims to enhance the integrity and accountability of state officials by ensuring that their primary focus remains on their official duties and responsibilities. The law categorically specifies that agency heads must report to work daily, barring earned leave, thus reinforcing a commitment to their roles within state governance.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 849 tends to be supportive among advocates of government ethics reforms who view the restrictions as a vital step toward ensuring public officials prioritize their agency responsibilities. However, there could be concerns expressed by those who argue that such measures excessively limit the professional opportunities of these individuals, particularly if they have valuable skills and experience that could benefit the private sector, potentially leading to a slightly polarized view on the implications of the bill.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the debate on whether the restrictions imposed by HB 849 may unduly limit the ability of agency heads to pursue secondary interests that could enhance their professional development. Proponents assert that the potential for conflicts of interest outweighs the benefits of allowing agency heads to engage in external activities, while opponents may argue for a more nuanced approach that includes checks on outside activities rather than outright bans.