31 May 2006

Committee action, May 31: SB 732, SB 620, SB 707, SB 693

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 732 would change the composition of the board of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which is the insurer of last resort in the state. Author Sen. James David Cain, in his testimony in front of the House Insurance Committee argued the changes would make the board more professional and less political in its actions and expenditures. Chiefly bothering proponents was its paying for a lobbyist (a former member of the Legislature who also lobbies for private insurers) and generally that it was too politically connected in its potential competition with other insurers. After amendments, the bill was reported favorably by consent.

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 620 and SB 707, both by Sen. Edward Murray, attempt to tighten restrictions and penalties concerning disputes between insurers and consumers. They argued there was too much room to absolve themselves of paying claims, or not enough incentives to in good faith settle or negotiate. Opponents objected to the broadening redefintion of terms such as “bad faith” and allowing third-party claimants. They said current laws and penalties were adequate and that these pieces of legislation would drive up prices through increased numbers of lawsuits and simultaneously discourage writing policies in the state.

SB 620 was reported favorably by a 10-4 vote, after an amendment that would have weakened the application of penalties failed by one vote with Democrats voting against and Republicans in favor (although two Republicans absent, Reps. Tom McVea and Jim Tucker, might have swung it the other way).

Supporters said these protections were necessary for consumers. Concerning SB 707, Rep. Cedric Richmond said the bill only brought fairness to the process. But Rep. Shirley Bowler thought the provisions of this bill would negate the “no pay, no play” philosophy prevalent in Louisiana insurance legislation that would encourage suits the consequences of which could create huge expenses for insurers in many areas.

For SB 707, Vice Chairman Taylor Townsend suggested amending out the third-party claimant portion might overcome opponents’ objections. However, supporters said these objections were overblown. They brought a number of witnesses and their lawyers, the latter of who said additional teeth were necessary to make insurers (interestingly, most stories concerned the state-owned Citizens) pay up on asserted legitimate claims they alleged were being denied.

Tucker, returned from a Senate committee, argued the bill went too far, that it was really a problem of individual insurance companies that needed to be overseen more effectively. The bill’s approach, he argued, would inflate costs because it would make it easier to introduce legal expenses into the process.

Townsend did offer an amendment he said would allow only those with some connection, first parties, to the claim could bring action. It was adopted by consent. Rep. Troy Hebert offered an amendment to make remove catch-all language describing bad faith behavior, saying they needed to balance between punishing legitimately bad behavior but also to discourage frivolous actions that could affect availability of insurance. It was adopted by consent.

Richmond moved to report the bill, arguing it would make only bad-faith insurers leaving the state while helping those in need. Johns offered a motion to defer. This time, with all members present a straight party-line vote of the 10 Republicans passed this motion over the objections of the 8 Democrats, thus involuntarily deferring the bill.

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 693 would remove the requirement that insurance companies could increase rates by as much as10 percent higher without Insurance Rating Commission approval. Author Robert Adley confessed his bill “didn’t look too good” after the discussion on the previous ones, but said in the new realities of the post-disaster environment meant the Commission should look at every rate increase request, because over time they can accumulate to high relative levels of increases.

Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out that the flex-band policy actually encouraged lower rates, because companies were not afraid that, if conditions changed from those that allowed them to reduce rates, that then they couldn’t raise rates later under adverse conditions, “because there’s not a more political board in this state” than the Commission, he argued. This made for increased competition, thus lower rates.

Adley argued nonadmitted (that is, not state-guaranteed in case of insolvency) already were providing competition because of lower rates. But Johns said that was fine if you were foolish enough to take that chance, you could. He also pointed out that the existing process was open and documented. Adley said the flex-band cutoff was meaningless because of the Citizens Corp. assessment being passed on to consumers with policies for admitted companies, so why not have the Commission review everything?

Rep. Dale Erdey said experience and research showed the flex-band procedure worked to lower rates. In fact, in all areas but property and casualty, there was no regulation so this would be a step backwards. He echoed Johns’ comments about how even this session a bill had advanced to get rid of the Commission (the only such body in all 50 states) which he saw as a benefit.

Opponents testified about the anti-competitive nature of the measure. Adley said he’d done what he could to decrease rates. Tucker moved to defer the bill, the motion passing 12-4 with some Democrats joining all Republicans voting for this. “Closer than I thought,” Adley joked.

THURSDAY: HB 145 is scheduled to be heard by the House Committee of Labor and Industrial Relations.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
We can get a thousand insurance companies in here tomorrow, if we didn’t make them pay claims.
Richmond, in response to insurance industry representatives saying SB 707 would discourage companies coming to Louisiana, to applause.

As you known, Rep. [John] Alario is pretty good at shooting down good ideas that the [Blanco] Administration doesn’t like.
Tucker, noting the protectiveness of the budget bill by its House sponsor, when saying the proper solution to rate increases was using nonrecurring additional revenues to make up for Citizens’ insurance losses, not by passing them along to ratepayers.

28 May 2006

Legislative regular session through May 26

This week will be slower with Memorial Day on Monday and with a Republican fundraiser on Tuesday.

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 58 with minor amendments passed House; HB 108 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 109 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 760 with minor amendments passed Senate; HB 850 was reported directly to the Senate; HB 909 with major amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 992 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; SB 1 with minor amendments passed House; SB 25 passed House committee; SB 681 passed House committee.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 1028 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 1129 with minor amendment passed Senate committee; HB 1130 with minor amendment passed House and was reported directly to the Senate; SB 98 was reported favorably by committee; SB 613 passed Senate.

SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

Total House introductions: 1398; total Senate introductions: 752.

Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 19.

Total House bad bills: 19; total Senate bad bills: 22.

Total House good bills heard in House committee: 46; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 23.

Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 21; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

Total House good bills passing committee: 17; total Senate good bills passing committee: 14.

Total House bad bills passing committee: 10; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 9.

Total House good bills passing House: 12; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 8.

Total House bad bills passing House: 3; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 5.

Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 8; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 6.

Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 3; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 1.

Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 7; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 5.

Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 2; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0.

Total House good bills passing Senate: 2; total Senate good bills passing House: 1

Total House bad bills passing Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House: 0

Total House good bills going to the governor: 1; total good Senate bills going to the governor: 0

Total House bad bills going to the governor: 1; total bad Senate bills going to the governor: 0

24 May 2006

Floor action, May 24: HB 1130, SB 347, SB 700, HB 685

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 1130 unexpectedly popped up on the Senate floor when Sen. Tom Schedler had it declared a duplicate of his SB 665 after getting conforming amendments in place. It occurred without objection, meaning the bill, which would allow more governments to be created with, among other things, powers to tax, if now passed by the Senate unchanged would go to the governor.

SB 347, recently overwhelmingly defeated, was up for reconsideration. But its author Sen. Edward Murray pulled it back to the calendar, almost certainly ending its advancement this session.

SB 700 apparently still has a paucity of support. It was a special order for the day but its author Sen. Charles Jones postponed it another week.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 685 would force, after a certain amount is produced annually, ethanol or other renewable fuel sources to be included in gasoline at least at the 2 percent level of the total. Sen. Ben Nevers handled the bill, reminding the body of high oil prices that might be ameliorated by this bill (even though opponents in committee had argued otherwise).

Sen. Robert Barham said Louisiana was placed well to benefit from production of these renewable sources. He also offered an amendment that did not allow regulations to mandate who did or did not have to sell it, being as the Department of Agriculture had done this in the past. Nevers objected, saying the bill did not specify who could make such regulations. Barham’s response was that the bill as presently constituted did not provide enough protections to let the market decide things. This amendment failed 12-24.

Barham next tried amendments that would create more leeway statutorily for supplier compliance. Nevers said government bodies should make those calls. These amendments succeeded 18-17. He also offered amendments to clarify how the counting of production occurs which would matter in terms of when implementation would occur. Nevers objected by saying it would be another tactic to delay implementation, arguing the bill was written correctly to prevent premature implementation. These amendments failed 9-27.

Sen. Walter Boasso also was accused by Nevers as trying to delay by making the standards require production 18 months after hitting the target instead of 6 months. Boasso argued it took time for infrastructure to develop. Nevers said the infrastructure already was in place and delay could not be afforded. His amendment failed 13-23.

In closing, Nevers stressed the bill would alleviate high fuel costs, create business in the state, and help the environment. The bill passed 32-4.

THURSDAY: SB 98 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.

QUOTES OF THE DAY
He’s going to lose 20 pounds before this is all over.
Barham, talking about the furious Agriculture Department lobbying against his HB 685 amendments.

I love you guys …. Since I’m on a roll, why don’t you pick one?
Barham, after his second set of amendments narrowly passed, and was asked what amendments next to present.

23 May 2006

Floor action, May 23: HB 30, SB 1

DID YOU KNOW?
It’s hard to get away from appropriations or expropriations these days in the Legislature. HB 30 would permit government to set parameters constitutionally to restrict government’s ability to expropriate, if passed by the voters into the Constitution. Essentially, it would prevent expropriation of unblighted private property for use by another private entity unless it were by a port authority.

Speaker Joe Salter offered an amendment to define a “homestead” that would protect homes that qualified for a homestead exemption expropriated for economic development purposes, except for ports. It was adopted without objection. This would write one very comprehensive, but not total, constitutional protection for a home, but not for property around it.

Author Rep. Glenn Ansardi argued that combining this bill with HB 992 which defined what could be expropriated. The state would have the constitutional authority to enact restrictions under HB 30, and HB 992 provides them.

Rep. Jim Tucker asked the difference between this bill and SB 1, which places all sorts of restrictions on expropriation. He argued HB 30 relied more on statutory solutions, while SB 1 would write into the Constitution more fixed restrictions. Ansardi said SB1 would create more questions than answers.

Rep. Mike Powell argued there was a fundamental philosophical difference between in and SB 1. He said the Constitution’s purpose was to prevent government from taking rights from the people, so it was appropriate venue for protection from expropriation. “The exception swallows the rule,” he noted.

Under criticism from supporters on this point, Rep. Taylor Townsend said that SB 1 still allowing expropriation for industrial expansion purposes was consistent with the intent of the people at the time the Constitution was written, as evidenced by their affirmative vote. Thus, it should remain in the Constitution.

Other supporters said in this time of need government should have maximal flexibility to do things necessary for economic development. Other opponents argued the right was too basic to allow government to do this, that this placed too much trust in government.

Closing, Ansardi argued his bill would provide more protection than SB 1 because, now amended, industrial reasons no longer would be valid in most cases. The bill failed 28-67.

DID YOU KNOW?
On to the second half of the doubleheader, SB 1, the House went, which largely had been debated in absentia. Rep. Peppi Bruneau pointed out that currently "public purpose" was too broad so SB 1 was necessary to define in the Constitution that term in a way that maximally protected liberty. Bruneau also said amendments were forthcoming that would provide even more protections, including dealing with the industrial purposes exception.
One included a homestead provision similar to that under HB 30, except encompassing 160 rather than 5 acres, even from industrial takings.

Ansardi proposed an amendment which would make an exception for economic development districts. Opponents said this provided no protection, since the Legislature could create these by majority votes without any direct oversight by the people. This, they said, gutted the bill. Ansardi said this approach would maximize the ability to promote economic development. The amendment failed 15-75.

Ansardi then spoke on the bill, saying the bill was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn’t exist in Louisiana. Just because it “could happen” wasn’t justification enough to limit the Legislature’s discretion. He urged looking to other legislation to deal with the issue.

Debate was cut off and Bruneau let Rep. Pete Schneider close by reciting the old Mark Twain aphrosim, “no man’s property … is safe when the legislature is in session.” Bruneau said there’s no reason to wait for something to do happen: “Economic development is a good thing, but expropriation as discussed is a bad thing … don’t let vultures profit from the misery of our citizens. Let’s rebuild this state right, by not trampling on people’s rights.”

The bill passed 89-3.

QUOTES OF THE DAY:
"That's what we ought to do with this bill -- flip it"
Bruneau, saying HB 30 would allow too much flipping of real estate for economic gain.

"Mr. Bruneau said he took his medicine today, so we all ought to be safe."
Schneider, after Bruneau finished his opening of debate for SB 1.

“My colleagues have urged me to give up, but I’m not.”
Ansardi, after a string of voting defeats, speaking against SB 1.

20 May 2006

Legislative regular session through May 19

THE GOOD: SB 746 has been declared a substitute for HB 1391, and it appears that will be the bill going forward.

THE BAD: HB 1163 made an unusual odyssey going from a good bill to a bad one. It did so when it became substituted out by HB 1392 which does not curb expropriation for private economic gain but merely places a two-thirds voting requirement on it to happen.

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 58 was reported favorably by committee; HB 428 was involuntarily deferred by committee; HB 815 was passed by Senate and House concurred in amendments; SB 27 failed to pass the House; SB 33 with minor amendments was reported favorably by House committee; SB 382 with minor amendments passed Senate.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 194 was reported with minor amendments favorably by committee; HB 385 was involuntarily deferred by committee; HB 489 was turned into an unobjectionable bill by substitute; HB 741 was reported favorably by committee; HB 853 was defeated by the House; HB 1130 with minor amendments passed House; HB 1340 was reported favorably by committee by substitute into HB 1390; SB 613 with minor amendments was passed by committee; SB 747 passed Senate.

MONDAY: SB 526 and HB 1129 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.

SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

Total House introductions: 1395; total Senate introductions: 748.

Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 19.

Total House bad bills: 120; total Senate bad bills: 22.

Total House good bills heard in House committee: 46; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 23.

Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 18; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

Total House good bills passing committee: 17; total Senate good bills passing committee: 14.

Total House bad bills passing committee: 9; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 7.

Total House good bills passing House: 11; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 7.

Total House bad bills passing House: 1; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3.

Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 3; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 2.

Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 0.

Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 1; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 2.

Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0.

Total House good bills passing Senate: 1; total Senate good bills passing House: 0

Total House bad bills passing Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House: 0

Total House good bills going to the governor: 1; total good Senate bills going to the governor: 0

Total House bad bills going to the governor: 0; total bad Senate bills going to the governor: 0

17 May 2006

Committee action, May 17: HB 489, HB 1307, SB 613

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 489 was going to drop form 30 to 7 days the residency requirement for voting. However, its author Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock substituted language to allow the state to study the matter to set an optimal period of time. Registrars had complained cutting the time period two short would cause logistical problems. The House and Governmental Affairs Committee accepted the substitute form it passed without objection.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 1307 by Rep. Nita Hutter would do something potentially far-reaching – changing the presidential preference primary from the second Tuesday in March to the second Saturday in February. Hutter said “Super Tuesday” no longer really was, so by moving up the date Louisiana would have more influence and national attention from campaigns. Party representatives testified the national parties did not object.

However, 25 municipalities had scheduled elections on the present date. Amendments were added to allow them to continue to do so at their own costs. The bill was reported favorably without objection.

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 613 by Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek would enshrine into law the existing formula now promulgated by regulation for reimbursement by the state to nursing homes for Medicaid care. Supporters argued that by putting the formula into law it would create more predictability in revenue streams, which would make loans more easily obtained. They also said the existing formula did a good job of steering reimbursements into areas of care where needed. If rates are adjusted downwards, nursing homes will not provide and build as much. There aren’t federal protections anymore, so rates are becoming driven by budgets.

Opponents pointed out that even with the bill’s language that said rates could be adjusted under extraordinary circumstances, the state’s flexibility would be removed in budgeting. Predictability would be nice, but the state should have options to look at the budget as a whole since revenues and expenditures were unpredictable. Protecting this one industry would reduce options regarding other providers. While supporters insisted that budget cuts could be made to nursing home providers under the bill, cuts could only be a minimal amount below the formula.

Confusing the picture was amendments that presumably guaranteed that cuts could be made were not produced. This caused some opponents who planned to speak to hold back, not knowing what was going on. But Cheek insisted that they would be produced and they would accomplish this task. With that, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee reported the bill favorably with the unseen amendments.

THURSDAY:
HB 194 is scheduled to be heard in the House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.

QUOTES OF THE DAY:
Will one of the sergeants-at-arms shackle Sen. [Nick] Gautreaux to his seat?
Sen. Joe McPherson, trying to keep a quorum for the committee to keep doing business.

I’m not sure what these amendments are going to do, but that’s OK.
McPherson, about the unseen amendments to SB 613.

15 May 2006

Committee action, May 15: SB 528

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 526 by Sen. Walter Boasso would attempt to prevent actions made by government that would increase the estimated $12 billion in unfunded accrued liabilities. Amendments actually to pay it down by requiring a greater portion of investment gains to go to paying it down if the Legislature kicks in some money as well were adopted. It had to make a stop in the Senate Finance Committee because of the large fiscal note attached. Boasso wants the Legislature to kick in about $110 million starting this year to pay it down, which he said not only would reduce liability by almost $2 billion, but also had a provision that would allow for cost-of-living-increases for retirees to restart and would help out bond ratings. He said perhaps 40 percent of the money kicked in could come from the federal government.

As previous, a number of interest group supporters spoke in favor of the bill. But a representative from the governor’s office seemed to throw cold water on the bill, arguing that perhaps a constitutional change would be better to reduce the liability due in 2029, lowering it from 100 percent. Sen. Chris Ullo wondered about the status of new estimations of revenue and of assistance bills from the federal government, and was told substantial one-time costs were upcoming. Sen. Art Lentini noted the teacher pay raise proposed about equaled the figure in the bill. “We should take care of the current problem,” he argued. The administration also said 15 percent probably was a more realistic figure for any federal offset.

Boasso called the administration’s testimony was “the most elegant letdown I’ve ever heard.” He said it pays bills, facilitates COLAs, and even if the time never seems right, it has to be done. Chairman Francis Heitmeier made a substitute motion to defer the bill to make it into a study, but Ullo wanted it simply deferred temporarily to wait on the Revenue Estimating Committee’s estimates. Sen. Noble Ellington objected to Ullo’s motion, so it was put to a vote and it passed 4-3. This means that the bill can be brought before the committee again this session.

TUESDAY:
HB 1260 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary C Committee.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Republicans are always invited, and switch cards will be available.
Rep. Gil Pinac, chairman of the House Commerce Committee, after announcing at the committee meeting that the Democratic Caucus would meet later that morning.

13 May 2006

Legislative regular session through May 12

THE GOOD: SB 746 comes by way as a substitute for SB 537, and improves on it. By Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, it would establish a fund from any potential sales of state-run developmentally-disabled institutions to support costs from waiver programs to serve these individuals in the community, which right now are woefully, inadequately funded.

THE BAD: SB 747 by Sen. Edward Murray comes by way of substitute for SB 602, but doesn’t make it any better. This would permit extra fees to be assessed in perpetuity on telephone lines for a one-time capital outlay use and then its maintenance.

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 1382 was reported favorably by committee, HB 707 was reported favorably by committee and passed House; HB 760 with minor amendment was reported favorably by Senate committee; HB 992 was reported favorably by committee and passed House; HB 1260 passed House; SB 544 was reported favorably by committee; SB 681 passed Senate; SB 746 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 1340 was reported favorably by committee; SB 347 with minor amendment was reported favorably by committee; SB 747 was reported favorable by committee

MONDAY: HB 1163 is scheduled to be heard in the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee; HB 385 is scheduled to be heard in the House Commerce Committee; HB 1129, SB 526 and SB 700 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee;

SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

Total House introductions: 1384; total Senate introductions: 747.

Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 19.

Total House bad bills: 18; total Senate bad bills: 22.

Total House good bills heard in House committee: 40; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 19.

Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 14; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 21.

Total House good bills passing committee: 13; total Senate good bills passing committee: 13.

Total House bad bills passing committee: 5; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 6.

Total House good bills passing House: 10; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 6.

Total House bad bills passing House: 0; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3.

Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 1; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 1.

Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 0.

Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 1; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1.

Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0.

11 May 2006

Floor action, May 11: SB 502

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 502 by Sen. Francis Heitmeier would create the crime of price gouging. He maintained that during the hurricane disasters this went on. Sen. Robert Barham said it happened all over the state, and offered amendments to have it apply statewide as originally it was to apply only in certain affected parishes.

A number of senators brought up questions about the extent of the law’s coverage and how it was to be enforced. Sen. Nick Gautreaux wanted to know how selective prosecution would be prevented, or who would be prosecuted – who was responsible in the supply chain for “gouging?” Sen. Ann Duplessis wondered why gasoline was not exempt when other commodities were, and offered an amendment to remove the protection of “commodity markets.”

Both amendments were adopted without objection, and the bill passed 34-0.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Those two girls voted the machines of Sens. Romero and Cravins … they can’t do that …. Vote your machines … Cravins, yes … no, absent … [whispering] tell that girl she can’t vote that machine.
Pres. Don Hines, when a quorum call was requested prior to voting on SB 117 and he identified two non-Senate members voting “present” at the machines of Sens. Craig Romero and Don Cravins; subsequently, it seemed somebody tried to vote Cravins’ machine when the Senate considered SB 117. This after news reports had come out about how legislators physically absent from the chamber somehow had votes being recorded as if they were there.

10 May 2006

Committee action, May 10: SB 537, HB 1340

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 537 by Sen. Sharon Weston Broome would make the state shift any funds saved from closing developmentally disabled centers to funding community-based health care services. Actually, it’s a substitute bill which would create a fund to increase the waiver slots that the state would fund, currently with 14,768 people on the waiting list for the biggest program, NOW, who are there now on average about 11 years with about 1,500 in centers.

Chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee Joe McPherson asked whether those in centers could be moved onto the waiver program. They could be, but probably not many. Those on the list are presumptively eligible, so most probably would qualify for the program. However, maybe 1,000 are in private facilities.

Broome said her bill would allow the assets saved from any closures would stay in the system for the disabled. McPherson asked whether existing, aging homes should be phased out, with occupants moving into the community or private facilities. Broome noted in large part studies supported this rationale. McPherson pointed out that there needed to be data collected to be able to make these determinations of what all people in the system need.

McPherson broached an amendment that for flexibility purposes would remove the language creating waiver slots, because he argued that sale of assets was nonrecurring money. Broome resisted the idea, saying the money could be put into a fund interest generated from which could fund some slots. However, the bill was not that explicit, so she offered to add that language for floor consideration.

Various supporters testified, sometimes emotionally, noting only 491 slots only had been created in the past five years, that many on the list will not survive the wait, that choice was maximized, that existing income eligibility levels made it difficult to otherwise get aid even as care expenses overwhelmed existing assets of families. Kay Marcel, director of Louisiana Citizens for Action Now, said these funds would be just a drop in the bucket and that the state should do so much more, but at least it would be a start. New money, reform of then long-term care system, and protecting current funds all were needed; at least the latter could be done with this bill.

Sen. Lydia Jackson, however, said the bill offered false hope because of the non-recurring vs. recurring cost argument; no recurring revenue was planned to enter the fund. Broome said this was a necessary first step to bring about system transformation, even as it would be just a small part.

Sen. Tom Schedler noted this was progress to set up such a fund, but now the Legislature had to commit funding and reduce the state facilities, and this fund was the vehicle to make this first step happen through the appropriations process. The current system “is a public embarrassment,” he noted. “Other states handle this much better than Louisiana does.” Schedler also asked the state to do a better job in getting the needs assessment done, even as he understood the limited resources available. “A governor needs to make this whole issue a priority.”

Other senators said they agreed with everything that had been said, that it was shameful and was taking too long to solve for this. McPherson all read off about 50 names of supporters as well. In response to testimony, he also reminded that developmental facilities always will be needed, but that more information was needed to know what resources should be shifted to community-based care. He still argued that a better use of the money from any closure of a current facility would be to plow money into a fixed asset, and wanted to discuss this with Broome for floor amendments.

The committee reported the bill favorably without objection.

DID YOU KNOW
HB 1340 would extend early voting through satellite centers as a reaction to a declaration of emergency after Apr. 30, 2007. House and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman Charlie Lancaster and Rep. Peppi Bruneau both argued various parts of the bill were too vague; for example, what was a “significant” amount and what would determine where the satellite centers would be? In response, author Rep. Cheryl Gray moved to take out the language and leave these decisions in the hand of the Secretary of State. Amendments were passed, and the substitute bill was reported favorably without objection.

THURSDAY: SB 689 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee; SB 347 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee; SB 544 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
If you could just help your neighbor Sen. [Nick] Gautreaux on his speech so he can slow down and be understood …
McPherson, to a witness who testified using a mechanical voice.

09 May 2006

Committee action, May 9: HB 699

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 699 by Rep. Billy Montgomery’s would permit telephone companies to offer cable services. Amendments proposed to the House Commerce Committee stripped out many features that had brought the objections of local governments, as the bill originally would have granted a statewide franchise regulated by a statewide board. The franchise fee would be the same to new entrants to the business under the bill as under existing contracts.

The amendment that sparked the most discussion was one that exempted pre-1974 Constitution home rule charter entities, although they could elect to be governed by the proposed statute. This was necessary because of legal niceties.

Rep. Tank Powell brought up the issue about what companies would be obligated to do regarding right-aways, and was assured they could not do what they please. With that, the amendments were adopted unanimously.

Montgomery explained the changes to the bill would satisfy some questions of local governments, but that nothing could satisfy the cable companies who wished to keep monopolies. He said this bill, which would open up competition, was the bill he had introduced in his entire career that was the most consumer-oriented. He pointed out that cable companies were able to get into other lines of business, but they continued to try to keep others out of the cable business. He also said the bill would force greater transparency in what fees and how much were being paid to whom.

The bill would have other providers able to obtain a statewide franchise that would then allow them to channel franchise fees to local governments. In fact, they could offer channels on demand, but also would carry state and local government-mandated channels.

Rep. Chuck Kleckley asked how complaints could get resolved, without a local franchise to contact through local government. Montgomery pointed out that increased competition should make for more responsive providers that make for better service. Indeed, better oversight would occur because, at this time, satellite providers operated without any oversight through franchise agreements, or payments to government He said after Texas had done this, satellite share of the market had gone down. Kleckley wondered about rural provision; Montgomery said since broadband service is far-reaching, most areas could be served, some where cable does not.

Rep. Bodi White observed it would take awhile for the infrastructure to come about to provide the service. However, it was pointed out, that the infrastructure would come quicker under the incentives provided by the bill. Rep. Gary Smith said the lines would have to exist, but that nothing was going to force their building. Again, with the ability to deliver into areas of potential profit, the rollout of this service should increase as market strength demanded.

Rep. Diane Winston said the bill did not have a “buildout” procedure, meaning providers were forced to provide to areas designated by local governments that did not have it. She also mentioned the lack of basic standards for customer service. Testifiers pointed out that some federal standards would still apply, and that competition would spur good service and “buildup” when profitable. She also said local governments might see a loss of revenue, because often beyond the basic required federal franchise fee some franchisees will pay local governments more – although Montgomery pointed out that amount gets transferred to consumers.

Rep. Roy Burrell wondered whether the investment into the market might discourage new entrants, as in some places it could be considerable. Reps. Don Trahan and Mickey Frith also brought up rural provision; Montgomery said the bill would improve chances of rural provision.

Opponents said required buildout was a desirable feature not guaranteed under this bill. They also said they could compete under the law now, but would have to go through the individual franchise agreements which would have greater local control; this bill would get around that through the statewide franchise. Perhaps, they said, the phone companies interested could commit right now to do this and provided the materials to do so; otherwise, they claimed there would be two sets of rules that might make things unfair or confusing. They said this was asking for special privileges, while other small companies were trying to compete under the current system.

Frith did offer as a substitute the language suggested by opponents, but they committee rejected the idea. Committee members were a bit taken aback at the abruptness of the offer and did not want to commit to it on such short notice.

Powell asked whether exclusive franchises can be granted, and was told they could not be, and the reason why that other firms did not enter markets was because of the startup costs. Kleckley asked the same question a different way about why should this bill be supported, and opponents said it was part of a larger national strategy to consolidate regulation in then field, giving an advantage because the same local standards would not be required of them, in terms of buildout and customer service. They also said that by allowing state franchise, in essence it would put state control over right-aways.

Rep. Mike Walsworth asked whether if a new entrant agreed to everything in a contract, they could come right in. Opponents said it did not have to be similar, but it always negotiated on a provider-by-provider basis. Walsworth did get opponents to admit that a local government could refuse to negotiate with a provider. Strain asked why the process couldn’t be reversed; opponents said the law could not make existing contracts null and void and some are to last decades.

Opponents also found fault with specific provisions about channel provision, and claimed the definition of “gross revenue” could be legally defined as coming from internet service and therefore would not owe fees. They kept harping that this was a bill to aid AT&T only (which is in negotiation to buy the provider of most phone service in the state, BellSouth).

Closing, Montgomery pointed out existing contracts allowed free reign to franchisees to charge what they want, and that greater competition would help to hold those prices down. The bill passed 13-5.

WEDNESDAY: HB 582 is scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee; SB 537 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
They are Hitler when it comes to the cable business.
Montgomery, referring to Cox Cable.

08 May 2006

Committee action, May 8: SB 474

DID YOU KNOW?
After taking the morning off for Democrats to raise campaign bucks, Senate committees began meeting in the afternoon. SB 474 would bring some sanity to the capital outlay budgeting process. Sen. Robert Adley’s bill would take the five existing priority categories involved currently in ranking projects, which basically are meaningless, and make them into two. This would mirror the reality of the present situation, where placement in either of two categories means immediate of likely future funding, while placement in any of the other three mean these projects unlikely will receive funding any time soon, if at all.

Naturally, the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee began to offer alternatives. One suggestion was to create three categories, to distinguish among money for planning and preliminaries, actual spending, and future spending. Another was that the whole matter ought to be studied some more. Finally, Adley responded by arguing any action was better that keeping the current system.

That seemed to satisfy everybody, who unanimously approved favorable adoption as it is.

TUESDAY: HB 385 is scheduled to be heard by the House Commerce Committee; SB 645 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary A Committee; HB 760 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Sen. Adley, do you see the kinds of bills you need to handle?
Senate President Don Hines, when a bill he was introducing sailed right through the committee without any comment, after Adley’s extended efforts regarding SB 474.

06 May 2006

Legislative regular session through May 5

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 331 was reported favorably by committee; HB 604 passed House; HB 815 with minor amendments passed House; HB 1260 was reported favorably by committee; SB 1 with major amendments passed House committee; SB 526 with minor amendments was reported favorably; SB 669 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 681 was reported favorably by committee.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 126 was reported favorably by committee; HB 853 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 693 passed Senate.

MONDAY: SB 700 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.

SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

Total House introductions: 1374; total Senate introductions: 745.

Total House good bills: 30; total Senate good bills: 18.

Total House bad bills: 18; total Senate bad bills: 19.

Total House good bills heard in House committee: 36; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 15.

Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 19.

Total House good bills passing committee: 9; total Senate good bills passing committee: 11.

Total House bad bills passing committee: 4; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5

Total House good bills passing House: 7; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5

Total House bad bills passing House: 0; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3

Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 1

Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 0

Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1

Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0

03 May 2006

Committee action, May 3: SB 434, SB 438, SB 602, HB 428, HB 461, HB 853, HB 1176, HB 1197, HB 1236

DID YOU KNOW?
In the Senate’s Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee, SB 438 by Sen. Cleo Fields would regulate certain financial charges rendered in home lending, capping fees. Sen. Ann Duplessis pointed out that many fees were part of the normal business of lending, beyond the control of the lender. Fields said these circumstances were rare but that something needed to be done. “There are a lot of folks out there who are predators.” But Duplessis did not think the bill was tailored well enough to accomplish that without undesirable spillover effects.

With that, Fields asked for deferral, as well as for a similar bill SB 434 which would do the same in area of “pay day” loans.

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 602 by Sen. Edward Murray would allow Orleans Parish to slap fees onto landline telephones to fund recovery cost to rebuild an emergency operations center for Orleans. Duplessis wanted to know why no insurance had been purchased for the equipment, which would cost $2.5 million. The bill also asked for $3.5 million more for a new building. Duplessis said the bill was more than recovery, its indefinite nature seemed to make it a permanent thing. She also Sen. Mike Smith said the matter was getting too complicated and there should be a deferral. Sen. Francis Heitmeier pointed out without this money that emergency operations would be severely crippled.

Then the discussion had to close, because Chairman Ken Hollis noticed a quorum was absent, so the bill, already once deferred, was not dealt with.

DID YOU KNOW?
In the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, HB 1236 by Rep. Mike Walsworth, presented by Treasurer John Kennedy and staff, would prohibit an elected official or member of his immediate family or entity in which any of them have a substantial economic interest from seeking or entering into any contracts arising from a gubernatorially or presidentially declared disaster. This would include children, spouses of them, siblings, their spouses, and spouses and their parents. Amendments would add appointed officials and their immediate family members and would not apply retroactively and such contracts would be renewable. They were accepted.

Then Rep. Peppi Bruneau asked essentially to gut the renewable feature of the amendment, which was unanimously adopted. So was the bill.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 428 by Rep. Jim Tucker would limit statewide elected officials to three consecutive terms. Bruneau thought term limits in general were a bad idea where power did not accumulate, but Tucker pointed out that in narrow policy areas these offices, such as insurance, this could happen. Tucker also said consistency in all state offices was desirable, to equalize power between executive offices and a term-limited Legislature.

After a motion to defer failed 5-5, the motion to report favorably also failed 5-5. Reps. Jeff Arnold, Juan LaFonta, Billy Montgomery, Loulan Pitre, and Mert Smiley voted to pass it, while Reps. Bruneau, Rick Gallot, Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, Charmaine Marchand, and Charlie Lancaster voted it down.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 1176 by Rep. Tank Powell would make campaign contributions from certain affected parties in the area of insurance to candidates for insurance commissioner. Lancaster pointed out that the bill seemed to apply retroactively when, by all appearances, a current contest was going on. Thus, a motion was made was made to make it go effective with the governor’s signature. That and a motion to report favorably passed unanimously.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 461 by Rep. Troy Hebert would move up the dates that the Legislature convenes. He noted Louisiana’s goes into session later than most states which comes close to the end of the fiscal year. Arnold said Carnival would be impacted, but Hebert said mechanisms existed to give them a few days off around then. LaFonta said the summer was busier for some professions, plus family vacations would be facilitated. Lancaster recommended making the effective date starting for the next Legislature. Bruneau, however, thought the dates in the bill (early January or February) might now be too early. Lancaster argued that if other states do it, then they must be able to overcome this problem. With this change, the bill passed.

DID YOU KNOW?
Hebert also with his HB 1197 wanted to cap the amount of money a candidate could loan himself in a campaign. Montgomery argued that the levels still were too high because wealthier people could still loan themselves a lot and be advantaged.

However, Bruneau said first-time candidates might be disadvantaged, even at higher levels. “This bill will have a chilling effect on challengers,” he argued. But Hebert said it was important to prevent winners from leveraging their offices to pay themselves back, advantaging wealthier candidates. “Consider that chilling effect.” The point was there is a difference between giving your campaign money which you can’t get back, and lending yourself money which you can. LaFonta said this bill might hurt those who do not get the support of wealthier interests. Pitre echoed the comment, saying less-wealthy candidates would be less likely to risk assets if they had to give rather than borrow.

With that, Hebert decided discretion was the better part of valor and decided to voluntarily defer it.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 853 by LaFonta would prohibit the state from harassing or discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation, or disabilities against any individual in any manner pertaining to employment or in the provision of any service or benefit. Of course, the “sexual orientation” clause drew all of the commentary.

LaFonta argued the measure simply was fair, and that codifying made sense since it already was an executive order. But opponents argued this might make more acceptable homosexual activities in the workplace, because codifying it would connote acceptability and make it more difficult to prohibit. Indeed, to codify this provision into law would have a chilling effect of arguments against the behavior, actually empowering those who were supposedly being discriminated against. They also argued this would permit greater legal attacks on nonprofit organizations that, on principle, oppose homosexual behavior. The moral approval that the bill would grant to homosexual acts would have a ripple effect in other areas of society to make such activities, such as with minors, more acceptable, as well as generally degrade the moral fabric of society, they said.

When a motion to report favorably was made, all of the panel’s Democrats supported it, except for the absent Montgomery, plus Pitre, while the other three Republicans did not, letting it advance 6-3.

THURSDAY: HB 1260 is scheduled to be heard by the House Administration of Justice Committee; HB 582 is scheduled to be heard by the House Health and Welfare Committee.

QUOTES OF THE DAY:
“I challenge Sen. [Walter] Boasso to a tag-team mud wrestling match.”
Sen. Noble Ellington, and I’m not even going to attempt to put this one in context.

“Everybody in this room holds dear a good night’s sleep.”
Smith, referring to legislation to require all mattresses sold in Louisiana be fire retardant.

“I hate to break up this lovefest, but …”
Gallot, asking his committee to move along after Rep. Peppi Bruneau began reminiscing, in the process calling Reps. Charlie Lancaster and Billy Montgomery “whippersnappers,” and talking about the prior day’s appearance of former senator and judge Adrian Duplantier.

“I had cause to hire Mr. Riddle as an attorney once because my opponent had hired Mitch Landrieu, so I had to get a lawyer equally as bad.”
Montgomery, joking with former colleague and Avoyelles District Attorney Charles Riddle, during debate on an unrelated bill while Riddle waited to testify on another.

“I guess Mary’s on top in this situation.”
Bruneau, when trying to recall who was the senior senator from the state.

“The committee lawyer can’t vote, tie goes to the author, something like that?”
Tucker, futilely wanting the tie vote to go favorably on HB 428.

“A lot of people have that problem here.”
Lancaster, when a witness mentioned his hearing aid was acting up.

01 May 2006

Committee action, May 1: SB 526, SB 59, SB 60, SB 669

DID YOU KNOW?
Sen. Walter Boasso is back with a bill trying to make the Teachers Retirement System and Louisiana State Employees Retirement System solvent more quickly. SB 526 is an attempt to prevent actions made by government that would increase the estimated $12 billion in unfunded accrued liabilities. Amendments actually to pay it down by requiring a greater portion of investment gains to go to paying it down if the Legislature kicks in some money as well were adopted

Boasso pointed out over a billion dollars in the long term would be saved by the amendments, even if he had no official support for the bill from the governor. However, in great contrast to Boasso’s past efforts to make the system fairer to taxpayers, less absurdly generous, and more efficient, these changes heartily were lauded by board members of the retirement systems. Thus, it passed unanimously.

DID YOU KNOW?
SB 59, SB 60, and SB 669 by Sen. Art Lentini would prevent elected and other public officials in a state or local retirement system who have been convicted or its equivalent of certain felonies in performing official duties from drawing retirement benefits.

Lentini noted some objections, beginning with the “innocent” spouse or children argument. He said to make these exceptions would moot the effectiveness of the law by encouraging marriages and children of convenience to avoid the consequences, and pointed out this exception doesn’t apply to other punishments for other felonies. He also said he didn’t think convictions might be harder to get because of sympathetic juries might not want to “punish” spouses and minors. Indeed, he thought this would become a tremendous deterrent, knowing that you and your family could lose all retirement benefits.

Opponents did bring up the “innocent” issue, saying there would be fewer pleas and more resources used in prosecution. They also argued that existing penalties were effective as deterrents, and that those going into the systems would not be aware that additional penalties exist through these bills. They also said since some of the contributions came forcibly from employees that it could be construed as an unconstitutional taking of property. And, it could make other legal proceedings such as divorce settlements messier.

Lentini said that corrupt officials should not be entitled to lifetime benefits, and that tough sentencing in other areas wasn’t being questioned. If there was a problem in prosecution, then the prosecutor can plea down. “If this is feel-good legislation, it is for the taxpayer.” He also disputed that legal proceedings in other matters would be made more complicated. He noted that the automatic first-felony pardon procedure currently part of law would not be affected by this bill. Boasso wondered what happened to those pardoned, but Lentini said that would work only if new money were put in the system.

Sen. Jay Dardenne, however, could not see how a community-property arrangement would not be affected by the bill. Lentini pointed out that restitution paid as a punishment for other crimes was not affected by this, so it should be treated the same for this measure.

SB 59 was unanimously reported. SB 669 was likewise. And SB 60 completed the sweep.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Concerning those amendments to combine all the boards … oh, that was last year.”Sen. Gerry Theunissen, joking about Boasso’s past efforts.