Louisiana House Bill HB321

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/1/18
• Refer: 3/1/18
• Refer: 3/12/18
• Report Pass: 4/23/18
• Engrossed: 4/30/18
• Refer: 5/1/18
• Report Pass: 5/10/18
• Enrolled: 5/16/18

Caption

Requires the reporting of positions and funding to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)

Impact

If enacted, the bill would require state agencies to maintain a clear record of their authorized and actual personnel levels, ensuring that the legislature and the public can track how vacancies are handled and funded. This could potentially lead to more strategic hiring practices and ensure that necessary funding is available for positions that remain unfilled. The expectation is that regular reporting might motivate agencies to renew their efforts in filling vacant positions more promptly.

Summary

House Bill 321 aims to enhance budgetary controls on personnel within the state administration by requiring the commissioner of administration to provide quarterly reports on personnel positions and vacancies. This includes reporting the number of authorized positions, vacancies, and the duration of vacancies for each budget unit in the executive branch. The legislation seeks to improve transparency regarding staffing and funding, allowing for better oversight of state resources dedicated to personnel management.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 321 appears to be generally supportive, particularly from those who advocate for transparency and accountability in government operations. By focusing on personnel funding and vacancy reporting, proponents argue that this bill addresses inefficiencies and allows for better legislative oversight. However, some stakeholders may express concerns regarding the administrative burden it could place on agencies tasked with compiling and reporting this information.

Contention

One notable point of contention is the administrative workload that could arise from the additional reporting. Some agency representatives might argue that such requirements could take valuable time away from their primary functions, potentially complicating staffing strategies. Opponents could also raise concerns about the implications of having ongoing public scrutiny over vacant positions, which may lead to political pressure regarding hiring decisions, particularly in budget-sensitive areas.