Louisiana House Bill HB99

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/20/10
• Engrossed: 4/27/10
• Report Pass: 6/9/10
• Enrolled: 6/17/10
• Chaptered: 6/25/10
• Passed: 6/25/10

Caption

Provides with respect to the nomination and selection of members of the Board of Ethics

Impact

The primary impact of HB 99 is to formalize the processes through which members of the Board of Ethics are nominated, enhancing the accountability and representation of the board's composition. By requiring the nominating committee to submit a diverse list of candidates, the bill addresses potential concerns about bias and representation in board appointments. This may lead to a more inclusive and equitable selection process, which could positively influence the board's decision-making and public perception.

Summary

House Bill 99 proposes amendments to the existing legislation governing the nomination and selection of members to the Board of Ethics in the state of Louisiana. The bill aims to ensure that the members of this board are representative of the state's population in terms of demographics, which includes geographic, gender, and racial considerations. It establishes a nominating committee comprised of specified academic institution representatives to present a list of nominees to the governor and legislative bodies, thereby streamlining the nomination process.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 99 appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters who value the emphasis on representation and inclusivity in the Board of Ethics. Advocates argue that the amendments will strengthen ethical governance and trust in public representatives. However, discussions may include skepticism about the effectiveness of the changes in practice and whether the new processes will address the systemic issues related to ethics that the board is supposed to oversee.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 99 may arise from the balance between legislative control and the independence of the Board of Ethics. Some may argue that increasing the legislature's influence in appointments could compromise the board's authority and its work on ethics enforcement. Critics might express concern over the potential for political motivations influencing nominations, thus undermining the intended purpose of an impartial ethical oversight body.