Texas Senate Bill SCR17

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/17/11
• Enrolled: 2/28/11

Caption

Granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Thursday, February 17, 2011, and ending on Tuesday, February 22, 2011.

Impact

If SCR17 is enacted, it would effectively allow the Texas Legislature to modify its operating procedures temporarily, facilitating a break that could aid in managing legislative workload or considering other state business. The permissions outlined within this resolution align with specific constitutional parameters, allowing the legislature to maintain productivity while adhering to overall constitutional frameworks. This act of granting permission is significant in terms of legislative protocol and can influence the timing and scheduling of legislative sessions.

Summary

SCR17 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution proposing to grant legislative permission for both houses of the Texas Legislature to adjourn for more than three days. This request is pertinent to the specific period beginning on February 17, 2011, and concluding on February 22, 2011. The resolution is framed within the context of Article III, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, which typically restricts either house from adjourning for more than three days without consent from the other house. By seeking this resolution, the legislators aimed to ensure flexibility in their scheduling and legislative activities during this period.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SCR17 is generally procedural and administrative rather than contentious. As it revolves around the internal mechanics of legislative scheduling, there are not significant opposing viewpoints typically associated with more controversial bills that affect policy or public welfare. However, discussions on such concurrent resolutions often focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of legislative operations.

Contention

There are limited points of contention associated with SCR17, given its procedural nature. Any criticism or debate likely revolves around the implications of extending adjournment periods on legislative efficiency and public accountability. It raises questions about the balance of legislative authority and the need for continued engagement with constituents during prolonged breaks, but these concerns are generally less intense compared to those found in more substantial legislative proposals.