Conference Committees are underway

March 8th, 2006

In the final week of session, legislators are focused on the conference committee process. Conference committees are comprised of both House and Senate members that meet to resolve differences in bills that have passed both chambers, but in different versions.

For instance, yesterday the conference committee on HB 1010, the eminent domain bill, met to resolve differences between versions of the legislation that passed the House and the Senate. I am one of four conferees that have been appointed to the committee (there are also seven non-voting “advisor” members). All four Conferees must sign the final conference report before it can be sent back to each chamber for final approval.

Below is a picture taken as the meeting adjourned yesterday afternoon.

eminent domain conference committee

In the case of HB 1010, the meeting went smoothly, and few changes were needed to reach a consensus. The report with the amended bill was circulated to the conferees this morning, and once all four signatures have been collected, the bill will be ready for its final vote.

Conference committees can be very contentious at times, but since both chambers and the Governorís office are all controlled by the same party this year, there has not been much conflict or need for compromise. This is because the Majority in each chamber appoints the conference committee members. If a minority party conferee refuses to sign a report, they can simply be replaced with a more cooperative participant by the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.

The last day of session is only one week away, so conference committees are busily trying to finish their work. The most interesting conference report will definitely be for HB 1008 - the “Major Moves” legislation. That committee met for the first time yesterday, and has not yet come to any agreement.

Entry Filed under: Eminent Domain, Statehouse

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ryan Dvorak for State Rep&hellip  |  March 8th, 2006 at

    […] For instance, yesterday the conference committee on HB 1010, the eminent domain bill, met to resolve differences between versions of the legislation that passed the House and the Senate. I am one of four conferees that have been appointed to the committee (there are also seven non-voting “advisor” members). All four Conferees must sign the final conference report before it can be sent back to each chamber for final approval. […]

  • 2. Doug  |  March 8th, 2006 at

    Just thought I’d mention that I hope HB 1158 somehow flames out in conference committee. This is the one that, among other things, adds a $13 fee to civil litigation where a Sheriff has to execute a writ or serve other papers. I’m strongly against this for personal and policy reasons. Personally, I represent several collection agencies that have to repeatedly initiate proceedings supplemental to collect against debtors. If the debtors don’t appear in court, the only alternative is to have the court issue a writ directing the Sheriff to arrest them. As a practical matter, in Tippecanoe County anyway, this just means the Sheriff adds a note to the database and if the person is picked up for something else, the writ pops up as a flag. Otherwise, they don’t bother going out to pick the guy up. At $13 a pop, though, I don’t think my creditors can afford to enforce their judgments against people with marginal incomes. As word gets around, I think more and more people will take their chances with ignoring an order to appear.

    Administratively, it will also be quite a hassle. They had a system sometime back where civil litigation involved a fee for this, and a fee for that. For simplicity, they decided to get rid of the tangle of fees and just charge a higher, flat fee up front. The flat fee didn’t go down any. In fact, it went up significantly last year. And now we’re getting into a tangle of flat fees to boot.

    Just thought I’d share. Thanks for being one of the 24 “nay” votes the first time around.

  • 3. Ryan Dvorak  |  March 9th, 2006 at

    Doug-

    I agree - the Legislature is always too willing to impose new fees on people using the court system. That’s why I voted against the bill.

    I’ll keep an eye on the conference committee procedings - I’m not sure what they intend to change yet.

  • 4. Ryan Dvorak  |  March 9th, 2006 at

    Correction Doug:

    HB1158 actually came up for concurrence last night - even though it was scheduled for conference, Rep. Richardson eneded up moving for concurrence.

    I voted against the concurrence, but it passed 70-25

  • 5. credit repair in&hellip  |  September 20th, 2010 at

    credit repair in

    This website is terrific - I will be coming back next week.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

March 2006
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Most Recent Posts