Late yesterday the senate did amend H. 689, UCIOA. There was a late amendment offered that extended the effective date until January 1, 2012, instead of 2011. I’m not sure why the amendment was offered and adopted; nor am I sure of what the house’s response will be. I’ll update you on this as soon as I know more. (I’m posting this update at 7AM Thursday). Also late yesterday I got a copy of a new draft of H. 470 which the Senate Judiciary Committee should consider at 8:30 this morning. The draft pretty much tracks what I’ve reported in my last two posts about out of committee discussions. The draft contains the kind of cost sharing with the counties to pay for side judges while keeping their jurisdiction as it exists today as I wrote about. It does keep 14 probate judges at new salaries, mostly lower than what they earn today. Also included are some limits to their benefits if they work less than 50%. I’m not sure how they will react to this and I have not seen a fiscal analysis of whether this draft meets or at least approaches the $1 million savings the legislature asked the Commission to find. I’ll post something later after this morning’s committee meeting.
UPDATE at 2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee did go through the draft this morning as planned and reacted favorably to what they had before them. Everyone with a stake in the outcome had a chance to react to the bill and, for the most part, there was agreement that this version did address the concerns of the Commission on Judicial Operation. That's not to say that the probate judges were not disappointed with the salary scheme but, overall, the bill does keep 14 probate judges and keeps side judges where they are now. Each goup shares in the cost of achieving those goals. A final vote is scheduled for tomorrow assuming legislative counsel gets a clean draft for the committee to vote on.
Thanks for keeping on top of this and keeping us informed Bob. Any indication how the house might react to this? It seems to be a substantial change from what they approved.
ReplyDelete