Louisiana Senate Bill SB749

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/20/10
• Refer: 4/20/10
• Report Pass: 5/17/10
• Engrossed: 5/20/10
• Refer: 5/24/10
• Report Pass: 6/14/10
• Enrolled: 6/20/10
• Vetoed: 7/2/10

Caption

Requires review by the Litigation Subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget of certain negotiations, compromises and settlements. (7/1/10) (EN NO IMPACT GF EX See Note)

Impact

The amendment mandates closer scrutiny of large financial transactions, which could help prevent misuse or misallocation of state funds. By placing a cap at one million dollars for the requirement of prior review, the bill seeks to protect public funds, thus restoring legislative and public trust in how state settlements are handled. It is expected that this will lead to more strategic negotiations and potentially better financial outcomes for the state in legal matters.

Summary

Senate Bill 749 introduces a significant amendment to Louisiana state law concerning the oversight of financial agreements made by the state and its agencies. Specifically, it requires that any negotiation, agreement, compromise, or settlement which may obligate the state to pay more than one million dollars must receive prior consultation from the attorney general and the Litigation Subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget. This legislative change aims to enhance accountability and oversight in financial dealings of the state, ensuring that substantial settlements are thoroughly vetted before being finalized.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB749 appears to be favorable among legislators concerned with financial oversight and accountability. Supporters argue that this bill is a necessary step to ensure that public funds are not wasted or used irresponsibly in large settlements. However, there might be some concern from individuals or entities previously accustomed to negotiating settlements without such oversight, who could view the bill as a potential hindrance to expedient resolutions of legal disputes.

Contention

Despite the supportive sentiment, there are points of contention regarding the implications of heightened oversight. Critics may argue that additional bureaucracy could slow down necessary settlements, causing delays in resolution of critical issues. The balance between ensuring accountability and maintaining efficiency in legal matters is likely to be a key topic of discussion as the bill is implemented.