Louisiana House Bill HB756

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/21/10

Caption

Provides relative to compensation and benefits of, certain restrictions on, and disclosure requirements for members of the Board of Pardons (EG -$104,704 GF EX See Note)

Impact

The bill also enacts financial disclosure requirements consistent with other state boards and commissions, requiring board members to file annual financial statements detailing their financial interests and potential conflicts. This step is seen as a move towards greater accountability and transparency within the Board of Pardons. The changes could impact the way the board operates by encouraging members to have other professional engagements since the full-time commitment requirement has been removed.

Summary

House Bill 756 amends the regulations surrounding the Board of Pardons in Louisiana, making significant changes to the compensation structure and restrictions placed on its members. The bill removes the salary provisions for board members and establishes that they will serve without a salary but will receive a per diem for attending meetings. Additionally, it allows for reimbursement of travel expenses for up to two meetings per month. These amendments aim to streamline board operations and reduce costs associated with the Board of Pardons.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 756 is mixed among legislators and stakeholders. Proponents appreciate the shift towards a more flexible compensation model which may attract diverse expertise while keeping the Board's financial commitments minimal. Conversely, critics express concern that the absence of a salary might deter qualified candidates from serving, potentially impacting the effectiveness of the Board of Pardons.

Contention

Key points of contention include the balance of compensation and commitment necessary to ensure the Board of Pardons functions effectively. While the legislation aims for budgetary efficiency, opponents worry that allowing board members to engage in other employment could lead to conflicts of interest or distractions from their duties. The overarching debate reflects broader concerns about public service roles and expectations in terms of compensation and ethical conduct.