Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/28/1994 09:10 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 28, 1994
9:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chair
Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Jim Duncan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Alaska Public Offices Commission:
Confirmation: James I. Adams
HOUSE BILL NO. 421
"An Act authorizing grants for temporary housing assistance during
emergencies and disasters."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 49(FIN) am
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic transmission of
absentee ballot applications, to delivery of ballots to absentee
ballot applicants by electronic transmission, and enacting a
definition of the term `state election' for purposes of absentee
voting; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in
situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82; and
providing for an effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 255(HES)
"An Act establishing a comprehensive policy relating to human
resource development in the state."
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43(FIN)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the rights of crime victims.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 421 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/23/94.
HB 49 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/23/94.
SB 302 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/94, and 3/23/94.
SB 255 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
1/25/94, 2/1/94, 2/3/94, 2/8/94, and 3/16/94 and State
Affairs minutes dated 3/23/94.
HJR 43 - See Judiciary minutes dated 11/16/93 and State Affairs
minutes dated 3/9/94, 3/21/94, and 3/23/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
James I. Adams, Nominee
Alaska Public Offices Commission
P.O. Box 594, Nome, AK 99762¶443-3444
Tim Sullivan, Aide
Representative Mulder
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 421
Joe Swanson, Director
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017, Juneau, AK 99811-0017¶465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 49
Portia Babcock, Aide
Senate State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4522
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 302
Laraine Derr, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400, Juneau, AK 99811-0400¶465-4880
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
Donna Page, Senior Hearing Officer
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400, Juneau, AK 99811-0400¶465-2330
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
John Mallonee, Deputy Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th, Suite 312, Anchorage, AK 99501-3556¶269-6800
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HJR 43
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-20, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
9:10 a.m. The chairman notes the committee does not yet have a
quorum, but will take testimony.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up the APOC nomination of James I. Adams as
the first order of business. The chairman calls Mr. Adams to
testify.
Number 030
JAMES I. ADAMS, Nominee, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
testifying from Nome, states he has worked for the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities and has worked as an engineer
for 27 years. He is interested in serving on APOC in order to do
something for the state.
MR. ADAMS says that in his line of work he has dealt with
contractors on both federally and state funded projects. He has
gained experience in administering these projects. He hopes to
uphold the laws of the state.
Number 070
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Adams if he has had a chance to review the
proposed APOC regulations for enforcing the new ethics law.
Number 079
MR. ADAMS replies he received a five pound package in the mail last
week, but has not had a chance to get into it, though he hopes to
in the near future.
Number 081
CHAIRMAN LEMAN expresses a concern that the legislative intent of
the ethics law, which was to tighten up reporting, is being
interpreted by APOC as a requirement to report sources and amounts s
of income. The chairman says the intent was just to report sources
and not amounts. He thinks that is very far reaching and will have
a detrimental affect on recruitment of good people to become
candidates for office. Chairman Leman believes requiring the
reporting of sources and amounts of income is in opposition to the
intent of the law.
Number 113
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Adams if he is a registered professional
civil engineer.
MR. ADAMS responds he is not a registered engineer.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Adams if his position at DOT does not
require registration.
MR. ADAMS replies there are different job classes. In some job
classes one can advance through the ranks. For those who did go to
school and get the required paper, they are in another section.
Number 127
CHAIRMAN LEMAN recalls that APOC is made up of four members from
political parties and one member who is non-partisan. The chairman
asks Mr. Adams which category he seeks to fill.
MR. ADAMS says, as he understands it, the four main board members
of the two parties just nominate someone who represents five.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Adams what party he is affiliated with.
MR. ADAMS responds he likes to see who's running before he decides
who to vote for.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Adams what his party registration is.
MR. ADAMS replies he really hasn't, but he would probably lean
democratic.
Number 145
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Mr. Adams and asks if there are any further
questions. Hearing none, the chairman announces the committee will
move to the next subject.
Number 155
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls a brief at ease.
Number 156
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 421 (GRANTS FOR HOUSING DURING
DISASTER) as the next order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee. The chairman calls a representative of the
prime sponsor to testify.
Number 159
TIM SULLIVAN, Aide to Representative Mulder, says HB 421 was
introduced by the House Special Committee on Military & Veteran's
Affairs at the request of the State Division of Emergency Services,
Department of Military & Veteran's Affairs. Mr. Sullivan reads
Representative Mulder's sponsor statement on HB 421.
Number 179
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if anyone in the audience wishes to testify on
HB 421. The chairman asks the pleasure of the committee.
Number 188
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge HB 421 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 190
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders HB 421 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 191
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 49 (ABSENTEE VOTING & USE OF FAX) as
the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs
committee. The chairman notes the existence of a committee
substitute that incorporates some of the changes that were
suggested at the last meeting.
Number 198
JOE SWANSON, Director, Division of Elections says the change made
in the committee substitute requires the division to make receipt
of faxes received under HB 49.
Number 202
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt SCS CSHB 49(STA) in lieu of
CSHB 49(FIN) AM.
Number 204
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, notes the committee
substitute has been adopted in lieu of CSHB 49(FIN) AM. The
chairman asks if anyone in the audience wishes to testify, or if
there is any discussion among committee members.
Number 209
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SCS CSHB 49(STA) from
the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 211
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders HB 49 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 215
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 302 (UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT
ACT) as the next order of business and asks that representatives
from the Department of Revenue join the committee at the table.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN announces the committee has a committee substitute
that incorporates about four changes that the Alaska Family Support
Group suggested. The chairman states it is his understanding that
the Department of Revenue has no objection to the changes.
Number 227
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt CSSB 302(STA) in lieu of the
original bill.
Number 229
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, notes the committee
substitute has been adopted in lieu of the original bill. The
chairman asks Ms. Babcock to review the changes to SB 302.
Number 239
PORTIA BABCOCK, Committee Aide, Senate State Affairs Committee asks
the representatives of the Department of Revenue if they met with
Mr. Kirk of the Alaska Family Support Group.
LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue says the
department met with Mr. Kirk, but there is only one change the
department agreed on with Mr. Kirk. The change was on page 13,
line 17. The change involved non-disclosure of information in
exceptional circumstances. Ms. Derr says Mr. Kirk suggested other
changes, but the department did not agree with him that those
changes needed to be made.
DONNA PAGE, Senior Hearing Officer, Department of Revenue says the
department didn't necessarily disagree with Mr. Kirk, but the
change on page 13 was the only change the department felt had to be
made. The department didn't have an opinion one way or the other
on most of Mr. Kirk's concerns, because his concerns did not affect
the agency.
Number 256
MS. BABCOCK states the first change is on page 4, lines 24 and 25.
it would add language stating a tribunal may dismiss a case for
improper venue.
The Department of Revenue has no position on that change.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Page if she can enlighten the committee as
to the meaning of "improper venue."
Number 280
MS. PAGE responds Mr. Kirk's concern was that this jurisdictional
statement was very broad. Mr. Kirk wanted to agency to have the
right to dismiss a case for improper venue. If no party of a
support order lives in the state, the state does not really have
any interest in the case.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if that change would do any disservice to the
bill.
MS. PAGE does not think it would. The act is intended to have the
child support order in the state where someone involved in the
order lives, so that it can be enforced.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any discussion among committee
members.
Number 291
SENATOR TAYLOR says he is concerned about the use of the term
"tribunal". It is being used to describe both an agency of the
executive branch, and the court system. He thinks it is dangerous
to recognize a state agency as a tribunal, and would hope that
agency would not have the same powers and authorizations that a
superior court would have.
Number 300
MS. PAGE responds the bill was purposely written to include the
administrative agency as a tribunal. The administrative agency as
tribunal can only do what is already authorized by law. This would
solve a problem by having the administrative agency operate under
the same laws the court system operates under, insofar as having
one child support order, one time, and one place. Right now, the
agency is part of the problem. People move to Alaska, and Alaska
starts a new support order, even though there may be an existing
support order in their home state. You then find obligors having
a child support order they're paying on in Alaska, and another
state attaching their income tax return, because the other state
does not know there is an existing child support order in Alaska.
Number 325
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are any objections to this change.
The chairman asks Ms. Babcock to move on to the second change.
Number 327
MS. BABCOCK states the next change is on page 13, line 16, insert:
"..upon a finding by the court."
MR. MALLONEE notes the committee substitute does not say
"...finding by the court", but "...finding by the tribunal".
MS. BABCOCK says the original bill just stated "...upon a finding."
She thinks the legislative drafter must have decided to use the
term tribunal. The insertion was supposed to read, "...upon a
finding by the court."
Number 354
SENATOR TAYLOR says he continues to have a problem understanding
how we can take the enforcement branch of government, which is
often the initiating party (CSED), and call them a tribunal.
Unless this is being mandated by federal law, he does not find that
attractive thinking. Would anyone in the room like the legislature
to do the same thing with the District Attorney's Office, or the
Internal Revenue Service? Shall we give them the power of being a
tribunal?
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Taylor if he is speaking in favor of an
amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks an amendment would be appropriate to at least
designate the court.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if the department has any response to changing
"...upon a finding by the tribunal.", to "...upon a finding by the
court."
Number 379
MR. MALLONEE states the department has no objection to that one
change. In response to Senator Taylor's remarks, he says that
where a tribunal is referred to in SB 302, it does specify that the
tribunal has only those powers as otherwise dictated in statute.
SENATOR TAYLOR says he is uncomfortable with the existing power
CSED has to modify outstanding orders, based upon abilities to do
things, as far as service requirements are concerned, that were
significantly streamlined just for CSED. He does not think CSED
should have but about half the authority they do. Judges should be
involved in the process. CSED is there for one purpose: it's there
to enforce support orders. It's not there to listen to people who
have lost their job and have been out of work for four months.
It's there to enforce support orders, and they will zealously do
that, if they've got to go out and take your income tax, take your
permanent fund, take 50% of whatever you're earning, even though
you're current on your support, and then apologize later. Those
are the calls Senator Taylor receives from constituents.
Number 400
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if SB 302 has been referred to Judiciary.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responds SB 302 is going to the Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR DUNCAN tells Senator Taylor to relax.
SENATOR TAYLOR says he is just concerned with the tendency to
empower an agency over the court system.
Number 405
SENATOR MILLER makes an amendment to page 13, line 16, to
substitute the word "court" for the word "tribunal".
Number 407
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if everyone understands that amendment, and if
there is any objection to the amendment. Hearing none, the
chairman notes that the amendment has been adopted. The chairman
asks Ms. Babcock to review the third change.
Number 411
MS. BABCOCK states the next change is on page 13, line 22,
eliminate subsection (b), leaving (a) and (c).
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if someone from the Department of Revenue could
explain what that change would do.
Number 417
MS. PAGE replies this change affects the superior court, and the
department does not have a position on the change one way or the
other. It would allow the court to assess fees against an obligor.
Mr. Kirk's objection was that subsection (b) didn't allow the
assessment of fees against an obligee (the custodial parent).
Number 423
CHAIRMAN LEMAN summarizes that by deleting subsection (b), the
playing field would be leveled.
Number 425
MS. PAGE adds that the court currently only assesses fees in child
support cases, as a rule, when they feel one side or the other has
not been cooperative and is acting in bad faith.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Page that, by deleting subsection (b), the
legislature would not be changing existing policy.
MS. PAGE responds that is correct.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any objection to that change.
Hearing none, the chairman notes the change has been adopted. The
chairman asks Ms. Babcock to review the fourth change for the
committee.
Number 430
MS. BABCOCK states the fourth change is on page 21, line 1, adding
language, "...except to the extent that a party was reasonably
unable to respond."
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if the department has any comment on that
change.
Number 446
MR. MALLONEE says the only thing that bothers him about that change
is it would leave CSED wide open to a number of discussions over
long periods of time about what is "...reasonably unable to
respond."
Number 449
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks what the current CSED guidelines are regarding
that subject.
Number 452
MR. MALLONEE replies that at this time, it is a simple matter of
responding to a notice within the allowable given time frame for
that particular notice. He thinks there needs to be language
giving the department indication as to what is reasonable. That
type of subjective language makes it very difficult for
interpretation. What Mr. Mallonee considers reasonable may not be
considered reasonable by another person. He thinks it is going to
be time consuming for CSED to figure out what the definition of
reasonable might be. He thinks reasons for not responding in a
timely manner should be quantified in the bill.
Number 461
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Mallonee if there is currently discretion
on the part of CSED to waive time requirements for responding to
notices if a person has good reason for not responding within the
allowable time period.
Number 464
MR. MALLONEE responds CSED regularly re-hears cases when a person
does not respond in a timely manner.
MS. PAGE adds that hearing officers will make adjustments if
justice requires it. However, not all cases reach the formal
hearing level.
MR. MALLONEE points out that all cases have the right and the
opportunity for a formal hearing.
Number 475
SENATOR TAYLOR comments he is concerned with the language on page
20, line 30, "...precludes further contest of the order...." He
thinks that language would preclude any appeals.
MS. PAGE agrees, saying if it came to her as an appeals officer,
she would have to follow the statute. Ms. Page affirms that is not
the case today.
SENATOR TAYLOR says that it then is a major change.
Number 494
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks why having this language in SB 302 is
necessary. The chairman asks if it is part of UIFSA.
Number 495
MR. MALLONEE replies the whole bill came out of the standard UIFSA
legislation put out by the Uniform Law Commissioners. He thinks
that language is intended to require timely contestation of support
orders. Why wasn't the order contested within the time period
allowed?
SENATOR TAYLOR states he can answer that question. The obligor has
to go hire an attorney, he's already behind, CSED is already taking
every dime he has, he's trying to support a new family, and he's
been out of work for a while. Then CSED says, "Why didn't he
assert the support order?" Because the obligor is not given free
counsel, though the obligee is given free counsel. Senator Taylor
comments he would not have so much problem supporting SB 302 if
there was any kind of balance to the process. Dealing with CSED is
like dealing with the IRS.
Number 520
MS. PAGE points out that the language Senator Taylor is referring
to applies to a child support order from another state. This
simply gives Alaska the right to enforce an order from another
state.
Number 529
SENATOR TAYLOR says he understands that, and wants to give an
example of why he does not think that is good language. A
prosecutor in Oregon decided to zealously prosecute non-paying
obligors in child support cases. This prosecutor decided to
prosecute those cases which would fall under felony violations. As
a district court judge, Senator Taylor says he received a 50,000$
felony warrant on a Wrangell resident. Why? Because this man has
not paid support for his five children for seven years. This man
happened to live across the street from Senator Taylor, and his
five kids had been living with him that whole period of time. This
man's ex-wife had been lying to the welfare people. Would this
language preclude this man from coming forward to contest the child
support claim?
MS. PAGE responds that the obligor would always have the
opportunity to respond, as long as they act in a timely manner.
SENATOR TAYLOR comments that is assuming the obligor gets his mail.
Number 546
CHAIRMAN LEMAN suggests to Senator Taylor that he either offer an
amendment at this time, or work on the language when it gets to the
Judiciary Committee. The chairman makes a motion to delete
"...except to the extent that a party is reasonably unable to
respond." The chairman asks if there is any objection to that
amendment. Hearing none, he notes the language has been deleted.
The chairman asks if there is any more discussion on SB 302.
Number 559
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 302 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR TAYLOR objects to that motion, and says he thinks the work
should be done in the State Affairs Committee.
Number 561
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing the objection, states last time Senator
Taylor offered to work on an amendment, he failed to do so. The
chairman says he would be happy to discuss an amendment if Senator
Taylor cares to offer one.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks for a show of hands on whether to discharge SB
302 from the State Affairs Committee. The motion carries three to
one, and so SB 302 is discharged from the Senate State Affairs
Committee.
Number 379
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls a brief at ease.
Number 591
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 255 (STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMT) as the next order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee. The chairman explains that the committee
substitute incorporates language to encourage people to start their
own businesses, as well as training to work for someone else.
TAPE 94-20, SIDE B
Number 596
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt CSSB 255(STA) in lieu of the
original bill.
SENATOR DUNCAN and SENATOR TAYLOR ask the chairman to explain the
bill.
Number 588
CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies that on page 1, line 9, the language,
"...and business community" was inserted. The same term was
inserted on page 2, line 10. Subsection (d) was also clarified and
shortened.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any objection to the adoption of
the cs.
Hearing none, the chairman notes that the cs has been adopted.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks the pleasure of the committee
Number 567
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 255 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR TAYLOR objects, and asks what SB 255 will accomplish.
Number 564
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he has come to the same conclusion as Senator
Taylor and is not sure the bill will do very much.
SENATOR TAYLOR withdraws his objection.
Number 554
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no further objection, orders SB 255
released from committee with individual recommendations.
Number 551
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HJR 43 (RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS) as the
next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
The chairman notes the existence of a committee substitute.
Number 544
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt SCS CSHJR 43(STA) in lieu of
CSHJR 43(FIN).
Number 542
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, states the cs has been
adopted in lieu of CSHJR 43(FIN). The chairman notes the presence
of Eric Musser from the office of Representative Porter, the prime
sponsor of HJR 43. The chairman invites Senator Donley to testify.
Number 524
SENATOR DONLEY expresses concern that it would not be wise to pass
victim's rights as a constitutional amendment. This is a totally
new area of the law. With new developments in the law, there is
frequently a lot of litigation and a lot of judicial time being
spent interpreting these developments. Senator Donley thinks it is
best to develop a baseline of statutory laws before passing a
constitutional amendment. The caveat added by the house on page 2,
line 9, is simply not sufficient to prevent judicial expansion of
the intent of the constitutional amendment.
SENATOR DONLEY says the senate version of this constitutional
amendment has much stronger language deferring to the statutory
direction from the legislature. Senator Donley thinks HJR 43 would
open a huge legal can of worms.
Number 474
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Donley if he prefers the language in
SJR 2 to the language in HJR 43.
SENATOR DONLEY replies he prefers SJR 2. He prefers specifications
that victims and rights be defined in statute. There is no
provision in HJR 43 defining "victim" by the legislature. Senator
Donley asks who is a victim and to whom should we extend these
rights. HJR 43 does not defer that decision to the legislature in
any way, shape, or form.
SENATOR DONLEY asks that the legislature be deferred to in defining
"victim" and "victim's rights", and that the legislature have the
ability to do so by statute.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there could possible be an adverse affect if
the legislature does not provide for those rights.
SENATOR DONLEY responds that is a danger. But by establishing
victim's rights in the constitution, a baseline would be created.
By having language deferring to the legislature in defining these
terms, the courts could look to existing statutes as the baseline.
Number 421
SENATOR TAYLOR comments he is curious about the resolution
addressing penal administration. He is trying to think of a
situation where a victim could actually be a perpetrator.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Donley if he has any objection to
incorporating section 1.
SENATOR DONLEY says he has no opposition to that.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN and SENATOR DONLEY discuss the differences between
SJR 2 and HJR 43. There are differences in the drafting style.
Number 385
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states that HJR 43 says victims are entitled to seek k
restitution, while SJR 2 says victims are entitled to restitution.
The Senate State Affairs Committee deleted the word "seek" in its'
committee substitute. The chairman thanks Senator Donley for his
comments.
Number 370
SENATOR TAYLOR expresses concern that what the legislature is
trying to do with these resolutions, should have been common sense
treatment by the enforcement arm of government. Senator Taylor
states his dissatisfaction with the District Attorney's Office in
particular. He says what the committee is really talking about is
making police and district attorney's act nicer toward victims.
Number 360
SENATOR DONLEY asks why "...the right to information about the
conviction, judgement, sentence, disposition, imprisonment,
criminal record, and release...." is not included in HJR 43.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he spoke to Representative Porter, and his
conclusion was that information is available in conjunction with
the other rights, and that it would be redundant to include that
language.
Number 348
SENATOR TAYLOR says there is a problem with the district attorney's
office not believing people were victimized.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says just the assertion by someone that they are a
victim, does not make them a victim.
SENATOR TAYLOR states he believes strongly in restitutional
sentences. However there can be problems. Senator Taylor relates
an incident to illustrate potential problems.
Number 305
CHAIRMAN LEMAN appreciates Senator Taylor's comments, and says we
need to make sure there is fairness in the system. The chairman
asks if anyone else wishes to testify on HJR 43. Hearing none, the
chairman asks the pleasure of the committee.
Number 290
SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge HJR 43 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 280
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders HJR 43 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 275
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 10:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|