Oklahoma Senate Bill SB483

Oklahoma 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/21
• Refer: 2/2/21
• Report Pass: 2/9/21
• Refer: 2/9/21
• Report Pass: 2/18/21
• Engrossed: 3/3/21
• Refer: 3/22/21
• Refer: 3/23/21
• Report Pass: 4/8/21
• Enrolled: 4/22/21
• Passed: 4/27/21

Caption

Revenue and taxation; establishing instruction and training requirements for county equalization and excise board members. Effective date.

Impact

The legislation modifies the landscape of county governance by specifying that failure to complete the required training results in forfeiture of office for board members. Furthermore, the State Auditor and Inspector is tasked with enforcing these provisions, adding an element of oversight to the management of county boards. The bill also establishes penalties for board members who fail to attend meetings, reinforcing the necessity for participation and accountability in these roles.

Summary

Senate Bill 483 seeks to amend existing laws regarding the training and operational requirements of county boards of equalization and excise boards in Oklahoma. This bill introduces mandatory training courses for members of these boards, including an initial six-hour instruction program and ongoing three-hour annual training sessions. The training is intended to ensure that board members are well-versed in their duties and responsibilities as outlined by law, contributing to improved governance and accountability.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 483 appears to be largely positive among proponents, who view it as a necessary improvement to the efficacy and professionalism of county boards. Advocates argue that the bill will lead to more informed decision-making and better public service. However, some concerns may arise regarding the enforceability of the training provisions and the potential impacts on board member turnover due to the strict penalties for noncompliance.

Contention

Notable points of contention may stem from the strictness of the requirements and the administrative burden they impose on county boards. Critics might argue that such strict regulations could deter qualified individuals from serving on these boards, particularly if they fear losing their positions over noncompliance with training mandates. Additionally, the allocation of compensation based on assessed property valuations may raise concerns about fairness and equity in smaller counties.