Lobby Day: House Courts of Justice Committee Meeting

imported post

I sat in on the House Courts of Justice Committee Meeting yesterday afternoon, and the chair, Delegate David Albo had an interesting comment. He said basically there is no money for anything this year, so any bills which come to them that have a financial impact would die in committee, without even being sent to a sub-committee for further action.

As an example, he mentioned that any bills that create a new felony would receive no action. He further explained that if the financial impact statement was not zero, but could be shown to be a trivial amount or if the financial impact statement was simply a wrong assessment, then maybe they could work something out.

But to my untrained ears, it sure sounded like he said there would be no brand new felony crimes coming out of the GA this year. Apparently it costs money to create a new felony crime, although I'm not exactly sure why.

TFred

imported post

If you create more crimes there have to be more people arrested for violating those crimes who will need to be processed and detained pre-trial until they go to court where they get convicted and sentenced to prison. Each step takes tax dollars:shock: because folks are not willing to take them in as houseguests and covering all those costs as private, non-tax-deductible, charity that does not violate and Constitutional rights. <OK. OK. I'm stepping down off the soapbox with my hands up. Don't taze me, bro!>

I am very happy to hear this "ruling" from the Chair of the CsoJ Committee. If you want to be really scared/horrified, consider that some foreign countries add fines/penalties to the cost of crimes in order to pay for making new ways to lock folks up or otherwise take away their rights. Apparently some other places have in fact solved the turnip/blood equation.:uhoh:

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

I guess cutting Judges out of the $50 payola for a permit will be considered minimal impact.

Does this mean if we can come up with a way to save $$$ with a pro gun bill it will be fast tracked into law?

imported post

1.) Judges don't get any of the $50 CHP application fee: $10 to the clerk for processing costs, $5 to the VSP, and $35 to the local LE agency conducting the background check.

2.) Is the government every really interested in saving money?

imported post

When I started talking to members of the GA before the session, I was told by almost everyone I spoke to, that the budget would take precedent over everything else.

imported post

TFred wrote:

I sat in on the House Courts of Justice Committee Meeting yesterday afternoon, and the chair, Delegate David Albo had an interesting comment. He said basically there is no money for anything this year, so any bills which come to them that have a financial impact would die in committee, without even being sent to a sub-committee for further action.

As an example, he mentioned that any bills that create a new felony would receive no action. He further explained that if the financial impact statement was not zero, but could be shown to be a trivial amount or if the financial impact statement was simply a wrong assessment, then maybe they could work something out.

But to my untrained ears, it sure sounded like he said there would be no brand new felony crimes coming out of the GA this year. Apparently it costs money to create a new felony crime, although I'm not exactly sure why.

TFred

Click to expand...

No enhanced misdemeanors, either.

Any such bill would affect local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

In addition, the Chairman also referred to this 2009 Budget Amendment: What this means if that, even if they cannot decide what the specific cost would be for such a bill, for fiscal impact purposes, it would cost at least $50,000.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

TFred wrote:

I sat in on the House Courts of Justice Committee Meeting yesterday afternoon, and the chair, Delegate David Albo had an interesting comment. He said basically there is no money for anything this year, so any bills which come to them that have a financial impact would die in committee, without even being sent to a sub-committee for further action.

As an example, he mentioned that any bills that create a new felony would receive no action. He further explained that if the financial impact statement was not zero, but could be shown to be a trivial amount or if the financial impact statement was simply a wrong assessment, then maybe they could work something out.

But to my untrained ears, it sure sounded like he said there would be no brand new felony crimes coming out of the GA this year. Apparently it costs money to create a new felony crime, although I'm not exactly sure why.

TFred

Click to expand...

No enhanced misdemeanors, either.

Any such bill would affect local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

In addition, the Chairman also referred to this 2009 Budget Amendment:

A. For any fiscal impact statement prepared by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, Code of Virginia, for which the commission does not have sufficient information to project the impact, the commission shall assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000 to the bill and this amount shall be printed on the face of each such bill, but shall not be codified. The provisions of § 30-19.1:4, paragraph H. shall be applicable to any such bill.
​

What this means if that, even if they cannot decide what the specific cost would be for such a bill, for fiscal impact purposes, it would cost at least $50,000.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that was what he was talking about when he said in essence, if a bill had been assigned this arbitrary $50,000 cost, but you strongly feel, and can argue, that it isn't really that much, then that was when he was implying that maybe you and he could work something out. He seemed to be addressing patrons of bills, or at least other committee members who might be in strong favor of a particular bill, and therefore didn't want to see it die in the committee.

TFred

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

1.) Judges don't get any of the $50 CHP application fee: $10 to the clerk for processing costs, $5 to the VSP, and $35 to the local LE agency conducting the background check.

2.) Is the government every really interested in saving money?

Click to expand...

I was talking about the Judges' personal $50 going into the system.