Legislature(1999 - 2000)
1999-05-19 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1999-05-19 House Journal Page 1664 HB 69 Representative Green moved and asked unanimous consent that the House consider the Senate message (page 1648) on the following at this time: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(FIN) am "An Act requiring certain reports or information from alcoholic beverage licensees that are also limited liability organizations; relating to powers of employees of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to investigate violations of certain criminal laws; relating to regulation of alcoholic beverage licenses issued to limited liability organizations; relating to brewpub licenses; relating to package store licenses; relating to a licensee's violation of laws relating to alcoholic beverage licensing, sales, and distribution and to imposition, monitoring, and enforcement of conditions imposed on alcohol beverage licensees that are recommended by a local governing body and that are required to be imposed on an alcohol beverage licensee unless the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 1999-05-19 House Journal Page 1665 HB 69 determines the recommended conditions are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; relating to consumption of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises; relating to the liability of a member of a limited liability organization who also holds an alcoholic beverage license; extending the termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to June 30, 2003; relating to residency requirements for obtaining an alcoholic beverage license; and providing for an effective date." and SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(RLS) (same title) There being no objection, it was so ordered. Representative Green moved that the House concur in the Senate amendment to CSHB 69(FIN) am, thus adopting SCS CSHB 69(RLS), and recommended that the members vote yes. The question being: "Shall the House concur in the Senate amendment to CSHB 69(FIN) am?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 69(RLS) Concur YEAS: 24 NAYS: 16 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Bunde, Cowdery, Davis, Dyson, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Harris, Hudson, James, Kohring, Kott, Masek, Morgan, Mulder, Murkowski, Ogan, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Whitaker, Williams Nays: Berkowitz, Brice, Cissna, Coghill, Croft, Davies, Halcro, Joule, Kapsner, Kemplen, Kerttula, Kookesh, Moses, Sanders, Smalley, Therriault And so, the House concurred in the Senate amendment, thus adopting SCS CSHB 69(RLS). Representative Green moved that the effective date clause be adopted. 1999-05-19 House Journal Page 1666 HB 69 The question being: "Shall the effective date clause be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 69(RLS) Concur Effective Date YEAS: 40 NAYS: 0 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Berkowitz, Brice, Bunde, Cissna, Coghill, Cowdery, Croft, Davies, Davis, Dyson, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Halcro, Harris, Hudson, James, Joule, Kapsner, Kemplen, Kerttula, Kohring, Kookesh, Kott, Masek, Morgan, Moses, Mulder, Murkowski, Ogan, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Sanders, Smalley, Therriault, Whitaker, Williams And so, the effective date clause was adopted. The Chief Clerk was instructed to so notify the Senate. SCS CSHB 69(RLS) was referred to the Chief Clerk for enrollment. The Speaker stated that, without objection, the House would revert to: