It is very disturbing that the agency did not contact me as the prime sponsor
of the legislation and chair of the Senate Commerce and Trade committee
as to the intent of language dealing with the reduction of weekly benefits
from thirty weeks to twenty-six weeks. I find that your agency, in developing
rules to implement this legislation, is attempting to interpret legislative
intent.
My intent, as sponsor of the legislation, was for the reduction to transition
from the thirty weeks to the twenty-six weeks, and then the twenty-six weeks
would be the permanent time frame for benefits.
The change in language to implement this change was specifically designed
to allow the transition for employees who would be laid off in the very
near future. It was not intended to be a floating or fluctuating target.
Again, I wish to emphasize that my intent as the prime sponsor of the legislation
and chair of the Senate Commerce and Trade committee was for the benefit
week to be permanently reduced to twenty-six weeks. There was never any
debate or discussion here in the Legislature that the intent was otherwise.
The proposed rules change this legislation.
I await your response.
Sincerely,
JIM HONEYFORD
State Senator
15th Legislative District
cc: Juanita Myers, UI Rules Coordinator
Anthony Anton
Kathleen Collins
Tom Dooley
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"