The Senate Site, the self-described "unofficial voice of the Utah Senate majority," has a YouTube video of Senate President John Valentine explaining why SB 144 is needed - to prevent the governor from entering into contracts without the senate's approval.
A Salt Lake Tribune article says:
"The bill by Sen. Scott Jenkins, a Republican from Plain City, comes after Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman had Utah join the Western Climate Initiative, a pact that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Jenkins says his bill isn't retaliation for signing the Western Climate Initiative, which a lot of lawmakers weren't in favor of Utah joining. However, Jenkins says that when Huntsman entered into the pact it made Jenkins decide that the governor's power needs to be reined in."
Ignoring the fact that Jenkins contradicts himself in that statement, the senate could be taking on more than it bargained for. The state enters into many contracts and agreements every year. Just consider the Department of Economic Development, for example, that spends taxpayer dollars on contracts to attract business to the state. What about other state agencies? Will the senate be micro-managing all of their budgets too since they are spending taxpayer money?
This explanation doesn't wash. We're not stupid. We know what this is about.
Depleted Uranium -- Much ado about nothing?
8 hours ago
Posts
4 comments:
If I'm reading your blog correctly, you seem to imply that the bill violates the 'separation of power' principle. Seems counterintuitive.
I'm reading the bill as reinforcing that principle. What's your argument to the contrary?
The bill is clearly intended solely to tie the hands of the governor just in case the legislature doesn't like something he does. The explanation is 1) that pacts are "laws" and the governor is not supposed to make laws, and 2) such pacts impact taxpayer funds.
But the same can be said of numerous executive actions taken by the governor's office. The governor's office and other departments enter into legal agreements all the time, and literally every move made by his and all branches of our government are paid for by taxpayer funds. SB 144 picks out one aspect of the governor's responsibility and decides to give it to the legislature. Why stop at that? Why not have the legislature approve every action the guv takes? In fact, why have a guv at all? Maybe we could just have a political appointee who is at the beck and call of the legislature.
This is clearly retribution plain and simple.
Regardless of whether the bill is retribution, the real question is whether the governor should have the ability to unilaterally bind the state's resources. Currently, Utah law appears to be ambiguous on this point, but I'm inclined to believe that legislative branch should be ratifying these decisions. I understand that a lot of executive branch decisions are routine, but I assume that the legislature will routinely approve these types of decisions.
Also, interstate agreements can become federal law if the agreement is Congressionally approved. These compacts have a life of their own and bind member states' resources for years. Some oversight on these types of decisions is necessary IMO.
By the way, great blog! :)
Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. Hope to hear from you more.
Post a Comment