Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2004 10:35 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2004
10:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 311(JUD)(efd fld)
"An Act providing for a special deposit for workers'
compensation insurers; relating to the board of governors of the
Alaska Insurance Guaranty Association; stating the intent of the
legislature, and setting out limitations, concerning the
interpretation, construction, and implementation of workers'
compensation laws; relating to restructuring the Alaska workers'
compensation system; eliminating the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board; establishing a division of workers'
compensation within the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development and assigning certain Alaska Workers' Compensation
Board functions to the division and the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development; establishing a Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; assigning certain functions of the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board to the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission and the Workers' Compensation Hearings Board;
relating to agreements that discharge workers' compensation
liability; providing for hearing examiners and hearing panels in
workers' compensation proceedings; relating to workers'
compensation awards; relating to an employer's failure to insure
and keep insured or provide security; providing for appeals from
compensation orders; relating to workers' compensation
proceedings; providing for supreme court jurisdiction of appeals
from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission; providing for
a maximum amount for the cost-of-living adjustment for workers'
compensation benefits; providing for administrative penalties
for employers uninsured or without adequate security for
workers' compensation; and relating to assigned risk pools and
insurers."
- FAILED TO MOVE CSSB 311(JUD)(efd fld) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 311
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE & WORKERS' COMPENSATION SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/09/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/04 (S) L&C, FIN
02/10/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/10/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/10/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/19/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/19/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/26/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/04/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/04 (S) Moved SB 311 Out of Committee
03/04/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/05/04 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 1DNP 2NR
03/05/04 (S) DP: BUNDE; DNP: FRENCH; NR: SEEKINS,
03/05/04 (S) STEVENS G
03/12/04 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER L&C
03/26/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/04 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/04 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/14/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/04 (S) Moved CSSB 311(JUD) Out of Committee
04/14/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/04 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 1DNP 2NR 1AM NEW TITLE
04/15/04 (S) DP: SEEKINS; DNP: ELLIS;
04/15/04 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, OGAN; AM: FRENCH
04/15/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/15/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/21/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/21/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/22/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/22/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/23/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/26/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 2DNP 1NR
04/26/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;
04/26/04 (S) DNP: HOFFMAN, OLSON; NR: DYSON
04/26/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 311(FIN) Out of Committee
04/26/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/01/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/01/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 311(JUD)(EFD FLD)
05/03/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/04 (H) L&C, FIN
05/07/04 (H) L&C AT 6:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/07/04 (H) Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled
05/08/04 (H) L&C AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 311.
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Lobbyist
for Teamsters Local 959;
Member
Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers'
Compensation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 311.
MICHAEL JENSEN, Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the provisions in SB 311
regarding uninsured employers and the guarantee association be
passed and the commission section be rejected.
CHANCY CROFT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 311.
LORI WING, President
Alaska Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 311.
JOHN GIUCHICI, Member
Workers' Compensation Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 311 except for the
appeals commission section.
MELINDA TAYLOR, Communications Director
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Executive Board Member
Anchorage Central Labor Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of the majority of SB
311 with the exception of the appeals commission section.
DAVE KESTER, Commercial Insurance Broker
Ribelin Lowell & Company Insurance Brokers, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 311.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-53, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to back to order at 10:35 p.m.
Representatives Anderson, Gatto, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Rokeberg,
Crawford, and Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kott, Stoltze, and McGuire were also present.
SB 311-INSURANCE & WORKERS' COMPENSATION SYSTEM
Number 0123
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community and Economic Development, said she is present to
answer questions raised at the last hearing of SB 311 about the
rate making process. She mentioned that she has spoken
previously about lack of a profitable market, cost of claims,
exorbitant premium increases, and the assigned risk pool which
needs to be self-funded. She noted that there are provisions in
the bill that affect each one of those areas.
MS. HALL continued to say that what she really wants to talk
about today is rate making, and the role of NCCI Holdings, Inc.
(NCCI) and why it was not involved in this process. She
explained:
NCCI develops base costs. The lost costs are
incorporated from data that's countrywide and local.
That is filed with the Division of Insurance. The
Division of Insurance is the primary rate approval
body in the state. We review the proposed lost costs
and either approve, disapprove or modify those. Then
insurance companies take those base costs, they adopt
them, or they file deviations. They then also do a
multiplier on top of that for their own expenses,
profits, and contingencies, and it takes those three
steps before we get a final rate. Each component is
based on actuarial analysis.
NCCI looks at cost. They were not able to make a cost
projection, not because they weren't asked. I've had
several communications with NCCI. This is a system
change. It is not a benefit change. NCCI in the past
has always costed benefit changes. This particular
process is not quantifiable as is a benefit change.
Number 0333
I also want to clear up rate increases/decreases.
Today, as I sit here, we have no idea what the rate
increases will be January 1, 2005. NCCI is in the
data collection process analyzing that. We will start
to get preliminary figures in July and August and go
through the process I just described. There is no
guarantee, and I've said this I think in prior
hearings, that we will have rate decreases. Rates
depend on the cost of claims. The goal of this
legislation started as Commissioner O'Claray said last
night. I went to the administration with what I term
the crisis in workers' compensation. We have had
insolvencies - five insolvent work comp companies - we
have very large rate increases due to cost of claims,
we have an assigned risk pool that has been losing
money at a drastic rate for six years.
We've looked at other things, other than this. This
was an attempt to try to modify the system without
changing benefits. We looked at changing our medical
fee providers to the Medicare rate. It would save
$50,000. It is a huge change in benefits. But, we
also felt it was likely to mean injured workers could
not find medical care if we did that. It's been done
in several states lately. In a state the size of
Alaska it could be dramatically injurious. What we're
looking at is finding consistency, predictability -
the time-line for decision is cut in half - we're
looking to reduce attorney fees. In 2002 there were
$11 million in attorney fees and $1.2 million in
litigation costs. We have roughly $13 million tied up
in claims costs just in the attorney fee litigation
process. In general, without changes, we're going to
continue to lose insurance companies and have no
chance to develop a competitive, healthy market place.
Earlier this week at a better time of day, you
listened to me talk about insurance bill, and I'll
agree that we need to do regulatory modernization.
Alaska has fallen behind. We have one of the few
states left with a very cumbersome process called
prior approval. We are in that same place with our
workers' compensation system. We need to change our
insurance regulatory system; we need to update our
workers' compensation system. We need to improve the
state of our marketplace if we're going to continue to
have - even begin to have - affordable work comp
insurance. I support the bill as it's currently
written, SB 311.
Number 0527
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Lobbyist for Teamsters Local 959; Member,
Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers'
Compensation, testified against SB 311. She mentioned a letter
she had drafted to the committee. "This is a workers' comp
reform bill," she stated. She pointed out that the bill is a
62-page document with many issues. She said that her
organization supports everything that Ms. Hall presented and
that [those parts of bill] would produce a very good and
positive system. Other parts of the bill such as the proposed
changes concerning the upgrade of the hearing officers are also
supported by her organization, she said.
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS spoke about the major bone of contention to
labor, which is about changes to how injured workers are treated
in this state. She opined that no one has time to read all of
the contents in the bill, and she said that if the bill does not
pass there are claims that there will be a 20 percent increase
in insurance. She challenged any insurance representative to
come forward with that information, and she stated that in 2002
there was a 50.6 percent increase in medical costs, a factor
that the bill does not address. She noted that the bill is
looking at establishing an appeals commission. She stated:
We have said that if you as a legislative body [are]
willing to bring on, at $500,000 to $1 million cost,
[an] additional layer of government to this state,
with three political appointees to listen and review
cases ... then we will agree, we will support you
making that increased cost ... but, we draw the line
at the de nova review. We do not believe that this
politically appointed appeals commission should have
the power to take what you already have at a lower
level now - and it's a brand new system ... where you
have a hearing officer and attorney who is now
instructing this panel at a lower level [than] what
the law is.
Number 0840
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS asked the committee to take another look at
the bill because her organization does not believe it is going
to be good for injured workers, but it is going to be good for
the employers. She opined that if the commission is removed
from the bill, there would still be a system that brings
predictability to the process. She appealed to the committee to
not pass SB 311.
Number 0977
MICHAEL JENSEN, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Michael J.
Jensen, stated that he represents injured workers before the
workers' compensation board, as well as workers with longshore
injuries and federal workers' compensation claims. He stated
his appreciation for the committee's work on this bill. He said
the bill has three parts, two of which pertain to provisions
regarding the guarantee association and penalties for uninsured
employers. He asked that those two provisions be stripped out
of the bill and passed. However, regarding the part that deals
with the appeals provision, he said he believes as Commissioner
Sampson and Ms. Huff do, that it should be rejected. It is much
too political and should be changed to have the selection of the
commission members go through the judicial council. The de nova
review should only be allowed if there is a procedural issue or
if there is some evidence that the hearing panel decision was an
abuse of discretion, he suggested. He urged that the provisions
regarding uninsured employers and the guarantee association be
passed and the commission section be rejected.
Number 1132
CHANCY CROFT objected to the recess of the committee yesterday
afternoon and the violation of the 24-hour notice provision of
the uniform rules and the two-minute limit. He noted that
people who had already testified were allowed to testify again
without giving first-time testifiers an opportunity to speak.
He emphasized that this bill contains a very important question
about compensation and he referred to the bible as an early
source of compensation information. He said:
This bill addresses a problem that does not exist. It
jeopardizes an essential benefit to injured workers -
that is - promptness of payment of benefits. There's
a study out of Maine that showed that when benefits
are denied, that injured workers have to borrow money
from relatives, they have to sell assets, they have to
go on welfare, some of them even go into bankruptcy,
and in the end, by the time they finally get to a
hearing, 80 percent of their claims are determined
valid.
He claimed that the "two bites to the apple provision" in the
bill adds confusion instead of clarification because one panel
is in charge of credibility and another is in charge of weight.
MR. CROFT opined that the bill is going to cause problems that
did not exist before, such as who has or has not participated in
this bill. "There are a lot of people besides the Chamber of
Commerce that Ms. LaBolle testified about that haven't
testified, he said. One third of the injured workers don't have
an attorney and have had no input in this bill, he stated. He
said that ways to improve the workers' compensation board have
been suggested for years by himself and others, and they have
not been asked to contribute to this bill. There are three
board members - the longest serving board members and who are
management members - who were not asked for input on this bill,
he said. They would have told the committee that the decisions
made by the board are about evenly split between injured workers
and carriers, even though in the last year or two there were
more decisions favoring the employer.
He opined that the bill does not address any problems about
fairness of board decisions, but adds confusion. He referred to
Section 122, which deals with the credibility of witnesses and
the treatment of a board decision like that of a jury verdict.
He maintained that the bill will increase premiums because it is
going to cause delay and confusion. He said the bill would
require more that $20,000 to be spent per case to set up a
system that violates the spirit of Alaska Constitution because
it sets up a specialized court. He concluded by stating that
passing the bill would raise premiums more and slow down payment
to employees.
Number 1455
LORI WING, President, Alaska Independent Insurance Agents and
Brokers, spoke about the increased costs in workers'
compensation programs. She noted that clerical rates have risen
by 40 percent this year and 81 percent since 1999. Hospital
employee rates are up 54 percent, sand and gravel digging up 35
percent, contractor supervisors up 22 percent, restaurant
workers up 29 percent, street and road construction up 37
percent, and roofers, who took a modest increase of 4 percent
this year, are up 99 percent since 1999. She termed this a
crisis. As an example, she talked about a restaurant in
Anchorage that paid $73,000 for workers' compensation last year
and this year will pay $98,000. She cited several more
examples.
MS. WING stated that the organizations that have been hit the
hardest are the not-for-profit businesses such as those that
provided medical and social services. She gave an example of a
hospital in Dillingham whose premium rose from $391,000 to
$524,000 in one year. She emphasized that employers would
rather be putting this money into employers pockets for benefits
and compensation packages and safety programs.
MS. WING concluded with a final example of a roofing contractor
in Alaska with a payroll of $5,000,000 having to pay a workers'
compensation premium of $2,111,000, whereas another contractor
doing security work in Iraq with the same payroll only has to
pay $745,000 in workers' compensation. She said that employers
are begging for relief and she urged passage of SB 311.
Number 1638
JOHN GIUCHICI, Member, Workers' Compensation Board, stated that
he has been on the board for 13 years and that he agrees 100
percent with what Chancy Croft and Barbara Huff-Tuckness have
said. He said he disagrees with the reasons for the cost
increases that the last testifier gave. It is not the workers'
compensation system that is causing [the cost increases], it is
the health and medical cost increases across the country in
conjunction with bankruptcies and low returns on monies that the
insurance companies invest, he opined.
MR. GUICHICI pointed out that he agrees with the first seven
sections of the bill and with the penalties for uninsured
employers. He said he totally disagrees with the part of the
bill that deals with the appeals commission that is going to be
established. The appeals commission should not have more power
over and above superior court judges, who are neutral and fair,
and who have done an admirable job, he opined. For insurance
carrier attorneys and employee attorneys to state that [superior
court judges] don't know anything about workers' compensation is
a mischaracterization of the situation, he said. A few of the
advocates of the appeals commission are promoting that it will
save money, yet no one has been able to come up with an actual
cost amount of savings. He concluded by saying:
This appeals commission not coming - not being
referred - from the same body that refers superior
court judges, or any judges for that matter, and not
have to take into account any of the findings of the
workers' compensation board and the hearing officers
and their ability to substitute "political judgment"
on their part, is totally unfair to the system.
Number 1782
MELINDA TAYLOR, Communications Director, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Executive Board
Member, Anchorage Central Labor Council, associated herself with
comments made by Mr. Sampson, Ms. Huff-Tuckness, Mr. Jensen, Mr.
Guichici, and Mr. Croft. She spoke about concerns regarding the
alleged cost savings stated in the bill and about the appeal
process. She said that when she worked for the state she knew
individuals who had been injured on the job and were devastated
from having to face a maze of legal, medical, and financial
issues. She explained that the only guarantee they had was the
knowledge that the superior court process would deal with them
in a fair manner. She opined that the trust and faith in the
right to a fair hearing that these workers have is at risk in
this bill. She asked the committee to "hold the bill over and
let labor and the administration work together and try to figure
it out and come up with the best bill possible for both business
and the workers."
Number 1853
DAVE KESTER, Commercial Insurance Broker, Ribelin Lowell &
Company Insurance Brokers, Inc., testified in support of SB 311.
He stated that there is a very complicated and diverse workers'
compensation system that needs some fixes. This bill does not
fix all things, but it does take a giant step in the right
direction, he opined. He said he believes, regarding the
appeals commission, that it is a good thing for the hearing
officers to be admitted to the bar after having three years of
workers' compensation experience because the issues are
complicated. He stated that he is a volunteer workers'
compensation hearing board member and said that he relies on the
expertise of the hearing officers when hearing cases. He said
that it is a good idea for appeals to be heard by the workers'
compensation appeals commission rather than going right to the
superior court because there are additional costs associated
with going to the superior court such as filing appellate
briefs, attorney's fees, and the extra time it takes. He
pointed out that injured workers need to get back to work as
soon as possible and not wait around for a hearing.
Number 1972
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said looking at the costs it seems that
there is a problem, but that the focus should be on a way to
bring down medical costs and not on how to redo the system of
appeals. He said he does not want to try to save the system by
denying workers benefits, and said he believes that that is what
the driver behind redoing the appeals system is focused on. He
added that he would like to see [SB 311] worked on over the
interim so that the real cost drivers can be addressed.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has a conflict of
interest as a small business owner who pays extraordinarily high
workers' compensation rates and who recognizes the crisis
situation that the state is in. He said he agrees with some of
the testimony about the cost drivers, but stated that the system
is broken and needs to be reformed. He opined that the bill
should be moved along through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related that [SB 311] is an extremely
important bill for workers who become injured, for businesses
who have to meet payroll and try to stay in business without
excessive costs, and for the State of Alaska to try to bring
these parties together. He stated his desire to have a win/win
bill for all parties concerned. The bottom line is, if someone
gets hurt they need to be treated fairly and taken care of, he
said. The bill needs some work, he concluded.
Number 2101
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSSB 311(JUD)(efd fld)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He stated that the purpose
of workers' compensation is to get workers who've been hurt on
the job healthy and back to work. He said he has heard a lot of
contradictions regarding this bill. He quoted a paragraph from
Ms. Wing's letter [original punctuation provided]:
The past few years these employers have experienced
significant increased costs in their Workers'
Compensation programs. These increases do not reflect
any corresponding increase in workplace hazards or
change in the types of reported injuries or diseases.
In fact, employers have successfully reduced the
frequency of workplace injuries by almost 40% since
1990. Despite these safety gains, Workers'
Compensation costs have continued to rise far faster
that the medical inflation rate.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related that as he listened to the
testimony on this bill he was looking for the mechanical device
that would lower rates. He said:
We've looked through this process, but not just
restructuring benefits, the restructuring of a system
that seems to me that has some basic significant flaws
that we haven't ironed out here. There are some ...
questions about this, not even getting into the de
novo review. Costs have to come down. I haven't seen
or heard that this bill is going to produce any
reduction in compensation costs for employers. I've
heard people claim they are, but I haven't seen any
evidence that they are. I haven't heard any
significant analytical information that says they're
going to come down as a result of this bill and this
restructuring. And, I don't know where the savings
are actually going to come. I think that's a major
question. And, I don't think it brings in the
stability and the predictability that people are
talking about, and I've seen no evidence that it
actually will.
Number 2203
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that it is pretty clear that
"if you represent labor you're against this bill, if you
represent management, you're for this bill. He said he feels
that he is stuck in the middle. Medical costs are going up, he
noted, and he questioned if the bill has merit. He said, "Let's
suppose medical costs weren't going up. Let's suppose that
there was no crisis or anything. Should we revise all these
statutes the way we're doing without any real motivation of
money?" As a recipient of workers' compensation several times,
Representative Gatto reported that he was very unhappy with the
way he was dealt with. "In the long run it worked out, but in
the immediate instance, it was disastrous for me," he said.
CHAIR ANDERSON said he believes the process on SB 311 provided
many opportunities for people to testify, and he said he takes
exception to those who spoke otherwise in this meeting. He
termed it sad that it has turned out to be labor versus
employer, but stated that the testimony has been well intended
with a reasonable effort to come to a compromise. He reported
that his staff has looked for compromise in these areas: a
balanced appeals commission with representation of
employer/employee interests, continued participation of a lay
panel, members in a hearing process from labor and industry,
required participation of all three panel members in hearings to
insure fairness, not just a quorum of two, new guidelines to
avoid conflicts of interest for hearing examiners as well as lay
panel members, a merit system of protection for hearing
officers, 18-month allowance for existing workers' compensation
hearing officers to meet new qualifications for hearing
examiners, and an elimination of legislative intent language
that went beyond existing law.
Number 2323
CHAIR ANDERSON continued:
And yet we still come to an impasse ... where the de
novo issue seems to be the bone of contention, and
just in discussions I've had, from what I can see, the
hearing panel will still have the sole power to
determine the credibility of witnesses - that was one
of the arguments - and also the appeals commission can
still review other findings de novo on the record, but
can not hold a new hearing or take any new evidence,
unlike the superior court. Unless disturbed by the
appeals commission, all the findings of the hearing
panel remain conclusive. And, then the fourth area
that I thought led credibility to the bill was that
the appeals commission was subject to review by the
Alaska Supreme Court for an arbitrary or capricious
decision.
It's very difficult to simply hold this bill and not
at least move it on to House Finance Committee for
more review. One more day of holding it and the bill
dies, and whereas some parties may want that, I think
it's our duty as policymakers to move on. The
governor said this is one of his main priorities.
That doesn't mean you have to vote for the bill or
concur with it, but we have another committee of
referral.
TAPE 04-53, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG restated his motion to move the bill out
of committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Gatto,
and Anderson voted in favor of reporting CSSB 311(JUD)(efd fld)
out of committee. Representatives Lynn, Crawford, Guttenberg,
and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, CSSB 311(JUD)(efd
fld) failed to be reported from the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee a vote of 3-4.
[Although the bill report for CSSB 311(JUD)(efd fld) was signed,
delivered to the Chief Clerk, and read across the floor, the
Speaker ruled that CSSB 311(JUD)(efd fld) didn't receive the
required votes to move out of committee. The legislation was
returned to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
[The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was
recessed at 11:25 p.m. to a call of the chair. The meeting was
reconvened on May 9, 2004.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|