Confirm governor's appointees for livestock loss board
Summary
SR 103 is a Senate resolution confirming three gubernatorial appointments to the Montana Livestock Loss Board: Doreen Gillespie of Ethridge, Joseph Kipp of Browning, and Jordan Mannix of Helmville. Each appointee is confirmed to serve a term ending January 2, 2029. The resolution states that the Senate concurs in, confirms, and consents to these appointments and directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit the resolution to the Secretary of State and the Governor.
The measure does not change substantive law or create new regulatory requirements. Instead, it completes the legislative confirmation process required under Montana law for appointments to the Livestock Loss Board, a board established under state statute to administer livestock loss-related functions. Its practical effect is to authorize the named individuals to serve on the board for the stated terms and to maintain the board’s membership and continuity.
Impact
SR 103 affects the composition of the Livestock Loss Board by confirming three members appointed by the Governor under Montana’s appointment and confirmation statutes. It does not amend the Montana Code Annotated, but it implements existing law governing board appointments and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role. The resolution ensures the board can continue operating with confirmed members representing affected livestock interests and related communities.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SR 103 appears strongly favorable and routine. It passed the Senate Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation Committee unanimously 11-0 and then passed the full Senate 50-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little controversy. The lack of committee testimony or recorded debate suggests the appointments were viewed as noncontroversial and consistent with standard confirmation practice.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record. Because the resolution concerns confirmation of named appointees rather than policy changes, any disagreement would likely have centered on the qualifications, regional representation, or stakeholder balance of the appointees, but no such objections appear in the transcripts or votes. The unanimous committee and floor votes indicate no substantive opposition was raised.