SB 347 Kansas-Opinions?

[nontyp]

SB 347
Requiring a senate confirmation of commission appointees.

"In the appointment of members of the commission, the governor shall give consideration to the appointment of licensed hunters, fishermen and furharvesters, park users and to nonconsumptive users of wildlife and park resources."

Not sure what to think of this. @Ben Long @Big Fin any insight? The wording seems favorable, but I just wonder if this is some way of playing political games with the commission.

 

[Ben Long]

SB 347
Requiring a senate confirmation of commission appointees.

"In the appointment of members of the commission, the governor shall give consideration to the appointment of licensed hunters, fishermen and furharvesters, park users and to nonconsumptive users of wildlife and park resources."

Not sure what to think of this. @Ben Long @Big Fin any insight? The wording seems favorable, but I just wonder if this is some way of playing political games with the commission.

Not sure of the context. I don't believe in the line between "consumptive" and "non-consumptive." On the other hand "shall give consideration" doesn't seem too prescriptive to me. I'm no attorney and don't know the political context. But I would focus on actions more than words myself.

 

[nontyp]

Thanks Ben. We’ll be at the capitol tomorrow so hopefully we can get some more context. It’s moving fast so that just has us concerned about some ulterior motives.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's fairly standard to get approval of governor appointments.for cabinet level people.

Commissions can go through this as well (MT). Not sure of other states that have Senate approval for commissions, though.

The lack of inclusion of landowners seems odd but the descriptions are sufficiently vague that a Governor could do just about anything with those positions.

Not sure why the Legislature needs to approve KS commissioners. Split Gov't and a desire for a political stopgap maybe?

 

[kansasdad]

Shall consider.....complete freedom to appoint anyone she (currently Gov Kelly) wants to appoint (based on the regions requirement).

And then the changes to the law would enable a senate confirm/not confirm vote as I read the bill. Putting the senate (super majority R right now) in more control of the commission/commissioners.

Split Gov't and a desire for a political stopgap maybe?

Bingo!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Shall consider.....complete freedom to appoint anyone she (currently Gov Kelly) wants to appoint (based on the regions requirement).

Yes & no. The "Shall give consideration too" specifically lines out the interests that are supposed to be chosen from. So the Governor would have to choose from the aforementioned set of stakeholders identified in the act and show some justification to the Senate as to why those people fit that particular statutory stakeholder role.

Regardless, for the purposes of this discussion - this piece is not germane to the bill unless someone were to try and amend that list. The provided list in the SB in the OP is the same as in current statute: https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch32/032_008_0005.html

The crux of the bill is the senate confirmation. Not sure if any other agency in KS has to have their oversight board or commission approved by the senate. Could be some issues of equal application that the Gov could use to veto, etc.