RSA 21-G Organization of Executive Branch
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
21-G:2 Declaration of Findings.
The general court finds that: I. The state constitution provides for the separation of powers within state government among the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. The legislative branch has the broad objective and responsibility to determine policies and programs and to review and oversee program performance and implementation of policy previously established. The executive branch has the responsibility to implement and administer these policies and programs. The judicial branch has the responsibility to resolve disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the laws; II. The growth of the executive branch from 32 constitutional offices and state agencies in 1900, to 96 in 1970, to more than 140 in 1983, has created an unwieldy and confusing state government structure. This structure has developed piecemeal, resulting in lack of policy coordination, excessive costs, inefficient use of personnel and capital, overlapping agency jurisdictions, duplication, and the ineffective use of the state's limited financial resources; and III. The size and complexity of the executive branch, including the unnecessarily confusing current array of administrative terms, titles, and appointment processes, has unintentionally altered some of the constitutionally contemplated checks and balances by an unplanned shifting of policy direction and implementation toward the independent, non-elected executive branch agencies. This reduces the ability of the legislature to assert its primary role as policymaker and the ability of the governor to manage the implementation of that policy. IV. The various scopes in the mission of the executive branch departments, agencies, and commissions require a delineation of their organization within the executive branch. Source. 1983, 372:1, eff. July 1, 1983. 2019, 346:305, eff. July 1, 2019.
21-G:2 Declaration of Findings.
The general court finds that: I. The state constitution provides for the separation of powers within state government among the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. The legislative branch has the broad objective and responsibility to determine policies and programs and to review and oversee program performance and implementation of policy previously established. The executive branch has the responsibility to implement and administer these policies and programs. The judicial branch has the responsibility to resolve disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the laws; II. The growth of the executive branch from 32 constitutional offices and state agencies in 1900, to 96 in 1970, to more than 140 in 1983, has created an unwieldy and confusing state government structure. This structure has developed piecemeal, resulting in lack of policy coordination, excessive costs, inefficient use of personnel and capital, overlapping agency jurisdictions, duplication, and the ineffective use of the state's limited financial resources; and III. The size and complexity of the executive branch, including the unnecessarily confusing current array of administrative terms, titles, and appointment processes, has unintentionally altered some of the constitutionally contemplated checks and balances by an unplanned shifting of policy direction and implementation toward the independent, non-elected executive branch agencies. This reduces the ability of the legislature to assert its primary role as policymaker and the ability of the governor to manage the implementation of that policy. IV. The various scopes in the mission of the executive branch departments, agencies, and commissions require a delineation of their organization within the executive branch. Source. 1983, 372:1, eff. July 1, 1983. 2019, 346:305, eff. July 1, 2019.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.