I didn't even realize this was a possibility, but it seems the Unicameral is talking about getting rid of the State Treasurer. The goal is to save the State some cash by shifting responsibilities to other agencies. There's nothing inherently treasurer-like about returning unclaimed property, for example.
The amendment itself is pretty simple: the State Treasurer's office would cease to exist in 2013. (No problem, since we all know the world will end in 2012 anyway.) What isn't clear to me is where all of the office's responsibilities would end up. Or perhaps even more important than that, which responsibilities would be eliminated altogether.
My gut reaction was that this sounds like a bad idea. But that initial reaction didn't last long. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I really don't know what things the Treasurer just has to do. After all, my only knowledge about Shane Osborne's activities include mostly ceremonial roles like handing big checks to little old ladies, and putting his signature on official letters. Which isn't to say that I think the Treasurer does no "real" work. I just honestly don't know much about the office's day-to-day activities. I assume it's a bit more in-depth than what I have described.
What's your reaction to this proposal? What questions do you have?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I don’t have a strong opinion, but it sounds like Osborn has done enough to tighten that ship that it could actually be done.
Here’s my question - with no Treasurer, whose name is on the checks?
Right now, the State Treasurer directs the transfer of money between state funds but the Department of Administrative Services actually draws the warrants for payments.
Also, the reason the constitutional amendment is so light is because you need to amend the constitution to remove the treasurer and have a vote on that first. If the amendment passes, the enabling legislation will be introduced in the next legislative session to divide up or eliminate the treasurer’s current duties.
If the Legislature were to pass enabling legislation before the public votes on the constitutional amendment, the statutory changes made this year would go into effect and if the constitutional amendment didn’t pass, the constitution would still provide for the office of State Treasurer but he would’ve been stripped of his duties statutorily. And you can’t hinge the effect of the enabling legislation on the passage of the amendment as that’s unconstitutional.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.