Skip to content

December 17, 2014: Ironic. Jim Rayphand

THE following is from the Dec. 17, 2014 front page Variety article on H.B. 18-133:

“A person who makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof may be imprisoned for a period of not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000 or both.”

“Material statement” means “a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.”

So is it ironic or satirical or (per this new House bill now) criminal that the same standing committee which recommended passage of H.B. 18-133 with the above mandates simultaneously submitted an “incorrect” statement to the House Speaker, Honorable Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero, on findings in support of H.B. 18-149? Namely that, “(The) committee finds that the current commonwealth law does not require businesses to provide designated parking spaces for persons with disabilities” when, in fact, Public Law 17-65 does require businesses to provide said parking spaces.

I assume that standing committee reports are “reasonably likely to be relied upon by (members of the House) in the discharge of (their) official powers and duties.”

Do proposed mandates apply to members of the Legislature? Or, are they exempt from their own laws? Or, is there another reason why our representatives needed to pass what appears to be a redundant law?