Sunday, January 20, 2008

Additional Study Bill Offered

Senate Joint Resolution #107:

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 107
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 9, 2008
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth.
----------
Patron-- Saslaw
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, the long-term and short-term impacts to the state and local economies, both positive and negative posed by the development of a uranium mining and processing industry in the Commonwealth needs to be examined; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth. The joint subcommittee shall have a total membership of eight members. Members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and five members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership.
In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the findings of a study completed by the National Academy of Sciences and funded from state appropriations.
Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2008 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $8,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.
No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the Senate members or a majority of the House members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2008, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a Senate or House document. The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.
Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2008 interim.

1 comment:

Smidgen said...

How clever...Coles has his study request being covered in at least 2 directions. This is a Senate Joint Resolution and states that the House concurs. This means that after this bill comes out of the Rules Committee, and it will because the members of Rules include the principle sponsors of SB525, it can be approved on a voice vote. When that happens, the study begins to take shape.

Changing the Code of Virginia, as necessitated by SB525, might have proved too slow a process. Whatever the case, Coles' political advisors have decided that this route could easily be quicker. I'd have to agree.

If you're going to oppose SB525, it's vital that SJ107 be opposed as vehemently and vigorously. This Joint Resolution ultimately allows the mining study.

SJ107 indicates that it was filed on Jan 9, 2008 but, if it was, it wasn't made public on that date. Sometimes legislators can get these things held back and blame 'human error' or 'oversight' or some other vague 'mistake' for not getting it before the public in a timely manner.

Certainly, Coles bills are not being properly announced and/or cross-referenced in the Legislative Information System (LIS) which is supposed to be the way the public can track bills. Pretty sleazy operations...or just fortunate for Coles?

Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY