Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/18/1996 03:12 PM House HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 522 - EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM                                      
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this was the second hearing on HB 522 and            
 the committee had before them a committee substitute.                         
 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 522, Version 9            
 LS1688\C, Cramer, dated 4/17/96 as the working draft.  Hearing no             
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE advised that the committee would begin taking                  
 testimony from Anchorage via teleconference.                                  
 Number 101                                                                    
 LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of           
 Alaska, testified that she had spent quite a bit of time since the            
 last hearing on HB 522 consulting with the national ACLU.  The                
 individual that works on the employment law project had some                  
 suggestions which she would convey to the committee.  First, on               
 page 5, line 26, she suggested ending the sentence after "United              
 States Department of Health and Human Services".  That way all the            
 employers would be held to the NIDA standard which is the National            
 Institute for Drug Abuse.  She thought one of the protections                 
 given to employees then is to be sure that when they are losing               
 their cause of action, the employer would need to use the most                
 highly developed testing system and the federal system is well                
 regarded even by those who primarily represent employees.  She                
 thought there was a need for more information than what she had               
 been able to gather in the last two days about the differences                
 between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services test and             
 the College of American Pathologists and what kind of state tests             
 there would be, how a laboratory would be certified and those types           
 of questions.                                                                 
 MS. STIMLER said to go along with the above, she was suggesting               
 that page 5, line 30, be changed to read to something on the order            
 of, "The second or confirmatory drug test shall be conducted in               
 accordance with the procedures approved by the United States                  
 Department of Health and Human Services."  In other words, that               
 would tie the two together.  With regard to the issue of the United           
 States Department of Health and Human Services testing as compared            
 to the American Academy of Pathology, she said there may be a                 
 state-employed physician at the Department of Health and Human                
 Services who could help with that analysis.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:17 p.m.                      
 MS. STIMLER referred to page 2, lines 20-31, and said the strongest           
 objection the ACLU has right now is the issue of doing away with              
 actions for defamation, libel, slander, and damage to reputation as           
 established by law.  The ACLU particularly objects to lines 28 and            
 29, but she thought the libel and defamation law is very strong               
 right now and strongly protects the employer already from these               
 actions.  She thought some advice should be sought from the                   
 Department of Law on the scenario where "if you have an employee              
 who ends up being one of the unlikely false positive people --                
 let's make it simpler -- he has a drug test that was legitimate and           
 he tested positive for marijuana and the employer, in a vindictive            
 or retaliatory manner, broadcasted that he drug tested positive for           
 heroin or cocaine."  She thought that under Section 23.10.610 as              
 written, the employee would have no action against the intentional            
 defamation.  She wasn't sure that was the intention of the                    
 committee, but suggested the entire subsection be reviewed by the             
 Department of Law to see if the current law is sufficient and                 
 whether there would be exceptions that the committee really                   
 wouldn't want.                                                                
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if that wasn't answered on page 2, line 5,              
 "unless the employer's action was based on a false positive test              
 result and the employer knew or clearly should have known that the            
 result was in error..."                                                       
 MS. STIMLER said it is complicated because some of the lawyers that           
 analyzed this issue think that an intentional disclosure under                
 certain circumstances would still bar the employee from suing due             
 to the way this bill is written.  She commented that the attorney             
 at the national ACLU was still reviewing the issue, but he was very           
 concerned that that standard would not bar the scenario she had               
 just presented, which was the legitimate positive marijuana test              
 but the employer broadcasted that the person was using heroin or              
 MS. STIMLER thought the committee might want to go to the                     
 Department of Law regarding the complicated area of the ADA.  She             
 said the ADA federally applies to employers with more than 15                 
 employees.  There is a section of the ADA that protects individuals           
 who are "erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but are not            
 actually engaging in the use."  What this means is that under the             
 ADA, if an employee tests positive for an illegal use of drugs, but           
 in fact isn't using drugs and can prove it, and is either denied a            
 job or discharged on the basis of the false positive, the                     
 individual is considered a victim of illegal discrimination under             
 the ADA's definition of disability.  This is sometimes called the             
 "perception exception" because although the test is false, an                 
 individual isn't really impaired but the individual is protected by           
 the ADA because the employer perceived the individual is impaired             
 and acts like that.  The ACLU sees some problems with the ADA that            
 should probably be looked at by the Department of Law.  First, she            
 said, "Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that I've                 
 interpreted the ADA right.  That means if you have a small employer           
 in Alaska, their employees aren't going to have any rate of                   
 recourse for a false positive under the statute we're putting in,             
 but someone in a larger company that's subject to the federal law,            
 would.  That probably sets up an equal protection question.  Now,             
 the other thing is there's Alaska law that mimics the ADA in many             
 ways and it provides for Alaskan companies with two or more                   
 employees under certain circumstances that fall under certain                 
 provisions of the ADA, and I don't know all the answers because we            
 haven't had much time."  She felt those were the germane issues               
 under the ADA.                                                                
 Number 641                                                                    
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY referred to the "perception exception" and asked if           
 Ms. Stimler was saying that it was after a person had a drug test             
 and their employer perceives that the person is on drugs because of           
 a disability?                                                                 
 MS. STIMLER responded yes, that's right but explained that the word           
 "perception" is used in a slang way to describe this section of the           
 ADA in the Law Review.  It means that normally the ADA absolutely           
 permits drug testing.                                                         
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the perception is for the employer              
 not the employee.                                                             
 MS. STIMLER said it's called a perception because the employer                
 makes an act based on a false perception.                                     
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she understood there was an individual that              
 ate some crackers after coming up with a false positive test.                 
 MS. STIMLER said she had asked a physician in Anchorage to do a               
 complete med line search because she believed there had been                  
 testimony from Mr. Fagnani that normal foods and drugs didn't turn            
 out false positive tests on a gas chromatography test.  She                   
 believed that Co-Chair Toohey had a copy of a medical article that            
 talks about an individual who ate a half-box of Sociable snack                
 crackers and even on the second gas chromatography set at the most            
 fine tuning, turned up positive.                                              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that Mr. Fagnani had addressed that and the              
 information that is to be distributed by the employer will include            
 a list of foods and/or over-the-counter medications that will show            
 a positive test.                                                              
 MS. STIMLER said the only problem with that is from a medical                 
 perspective, everyone knows what a drug test tests; a drug test               
 looks for the breakdown products of drugs.  For example, if a                 
 person is taking cocaine, the test doesn't say for sure it's                  
 cocaine, it looks at the metabolite breakdown.  The reason for some           
 false positives is because the breakdown product of the food or the           
 legal drug is the same as the illegal drug.  Therefore, she thought           
 it would be very difficult to come up with a complete list of                 
 everything that could turn up a false positive.                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented she would ask Mr. Fagnani who was                   
 standing by on teleconference, to address that.  She didn't believe           
 there were that many foods which would come up with a composite in            
 a person's urine that would be indicative of cocaine use.                     
 MS. STIMLER pointed out that she wasn't a doctor nor was Mr.                  
 Fagnani, so she didn't think they were the appropriate people to be           
 giving advice on that issue.                                                  
 Number 849                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG said he was curious about Ms.                    
 Stimler's remarks regarding the federal ADA and the "perception               
 exception."  He asked if the entire potential cause of action was             
 only for a previously defined disabled person or does, in fact,               
 this erroneous false positive test have the effect of creating a              
 person who would now be disabled?                                             
 MS. STIMLER noted it was a very complicated issue which was the               
 basis for her suggestion to get some advice from the Department of            
 Law.  As she understood the Law Review article, it creates a new            
 class.  The disability is because the individual is a victim of               
 illegal discrimination under ADA's definition of disability.  In              
 other words, the fact that the employer perceived them to be                  
 disabled.  Having work is considered one of the categories the ADA            
 used, so because the individual lost work due to the false                    
 positive, then the person falls into the ADA.  It's not someone who           
 needs to have any history of drugs previously.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that's a clear example of why the           
 federal law needs to be amended.                                              
 MS. STIMLER said there is an Alaska Supreme Court case, Braun v.            
 Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank, which is on point           
 that states an employer who fires an employee for testing positive            
 on a drug test is protected as long as the firing isn't arbitrary,            
 capricious, illegal or based on facts that weren't supported by               
 substantial evidence.  The point she wanted to raise for the                  
 committee is whether we really want to strip away the right of                
 employees to make a claim against an employer who arbitrarily,                
 capriciously or illegally fires an employee.  Even without this               
 legislation, the employer is already protected.                               
 MS. STIMLER expressed concern with Mr. Fagnani in that as she views           
 the situation, Allvest stands to gain quite a substantial amount of           
 business with the passage of this legislation where there will be             
 a lot more employers able to do drug testing.  She was concerned              
 about the appearance that he is giving the committee advice and               
 answering questions.  She wondered if there were other individuals            
 from the Division of Public Health or an individual from the                  
 federal government specializing in drug testing for example, that             
 could be consulted on this complicated issue.  She wasn't speaking            
 out of disrespect for Mr. Fagnani, but simply because the issue is            
 very complicated.                                                             
 Number 1038                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Ms. Stimler.             
 Hearing none, he asked Mr. Fagnani to present his testimony.                  
 Number 1054                                                                   
 MATTHEW FAGNANI, President, Allvest Laboratories, said he would               
 like to address some of the issues raised by Ms. Stimler.  First,             
 regarding the conflict of interest, he said he would agree with the           
 ACLU if he was the author of the legislation; he is only the                  
 carrier of this legislation.  He offered for the committee's                  
 information that this legislation is currently on the books in                
 Utah, Arizona and Florida; it is verbatim form that was presented             
 to the committee.                                                             
 MR. FAGNANI said he had received a copy of the draft committee                
 substitute and solicited the advice of his attorney on Section                
 23.10.600, Employer Protection from Litigation, versus the ACLU's             
 objection on Section 23.10.610, Limits on Causes of Action for                
 Disclosures.  He noted that it took some time to digest the                   
 meanings of it, but he perceptually disagrees with the ACLU's                 
 interpretation of that regulation.  Based on the ACLU, Section                
 23.10.600 sets up the acts of good faith by an employer and                   
 actually lays down why an employee cannot sue, including a false              
 positive test.  Mr. Fagnani said if Section 2 were to be                      
 eliminated, the employee's rights to sue are taken away because the           
 employer could have in Section 1 a false positive and still be                
 acting in good faith.  Therefore, the employee would not have any             
 recourse; that's why it is important to leave in Section 2 because            
 it deals directly with false positives.  In breaking this down to             
 reality based legislation, Mr. Fagnani said in his six years of               
 performing drug and alcohol testing services in Alaska, Allvest has           
 not had a false positive report issued.  He noted they have done              
 retests of original samples in alternate laboratories of the                  
 employee's choice and the results have always come out as reported            
 originally.  He commented that medical testing today has reached              
 such high tech standard.                                                      
 MR. FAGNANI applauded the ACLU in one regard; they did recognize              
 that mandatory certification was an important issue.  He said he              
 would speak to that issue later, but first he wanted to talk about            
 why the false positives don't occur as frequently as what the                 
 committee was being led to believe.  As he testified at the last              
 meeting, each of the tests that are going to be conducted by                  
 employers will have an initial cutoff level for the first test, the           
 screening test.  For instance, marijuana in this case is set at 50            
 nanograms and cocaine at 300 nanograms.  The second test, the gas             
 chromatography mass spectrometry, the cutoff level for a test to be           
 considered positive is 15 nanograms.  So Allvest goes all the way             
 down to 15 nanograms to verify the sample is positive or there is             
 a fingerprint of the drug there.  He explained the gas                        
 chromatography test actually looks for the physical molecular                 
 structure of the chemical of the drug itself.                                 
 MR. FAGNANI said with regard to the laboratory certification, he              
 again applauded the ACLU for requiring NIDA standards, but he                 
 thought employer's options for choice were being limited by taking            
 out the CAP certification.  He had requested a report from a                  
 toxicologist, Dr. Fran Urry, PhD. in anticipation of questions the            
 committee might have on analytical procedures.  He read a section             
 of the report dealing with laboratory credentials and review for              
 the committee.  Dr. Urry speaks to the substantial contribution to            
 the maintenance and quality service is the participation in a                 
 national (indisc.) employment drug testing credentialing program.             
 Dr. Urry says, "The federal government, through the Substance Abuse           
 and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), of the                    
 Department of Health & Human Services, operates a national                    
 laboratory certification program through whom laboratories become             
 certified to perform federally regulated drug testing."  Mr.                  
 Fagnani commented that is the NIDA's testing that Ms. Stimler                 
 referred to.  Dr. Urry's report continues, "The College of America            
 Pathologists operates a similar program for laboratories who want             
 accreditation from them for private sector testing.  Both programs            
 require satisfactory submission of an application and a completion            
 of three cycles of performance testing in which substances of                 
 unknown contents are sent to the laboratory and the laboratory must           
 successfully test and report them.  The laboratory is subject to an           
 on-site inspection by a field of inspectors and must pass to                  
 perfection and any deficiencies must be remedied prior to                     
 certification and accreditation."  Mr. Fagnani said the report goes           
 on to discuss the on-site inspection.  One of the requirements the            
 Department of Transportation (DOT) has as a fail safe measure to              
 make sure that false positives do not occur is that if the                    
 laboratory certified by SAMHSA were to report a test result that              
 did not re-test appropriately or properly and was reported back to            
 the employer, the re-test is taken from the original sample and               
 sent to an alternate laboratory of choice.  That is standard                  
 procedure now in the industry.  If that test result came back                 
 negative, then that laboratory by NIDA standards would be shut down           
 and would have to undergo inspection and any tests that were done             
 after the original test would be in question and would have to be             
 reanalyzed or re-collected.  He commented that was presently on the           
 federal books.  That is probably part of the reason why there isn't           
 a high degree of false positives coming out of these laboratories.            
 He thought this whole argument on false positives becomes moot                
 because in Alaska, there has never been a case where that has                 
 occurred with the use of these DOT certified labs.  He said he                
 would argue that lines 20-31 on page 2, Section 23.10.610 needs to            
 be left in because that is the employee's right to question the               
 results of the test.  He hastened to add that he is not an                    
 attorney, but he was repeating what his attorney had advised him.             
 He urged the committee to pass the bill on to the next committee.             
 He reiterated that this legislation is on the books in Arizona,               
 Utah and Florida and it is good legislation.  With regard to what             
 this does for employers, it gives the employers the opportunity to            
 establish this as part of their safety programs without the fear of           
 being litigated against.  He pointed out that in our society today,           
 anybody can litigate based on any whim.                                       
 Number 1494                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it was correct that Allvest had never had            
 a false positive test.                                                        
 MR. FAGNANI said that was correct.                                            
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Dwight Perkins from the Department of Labor             
 if there was a problem in Alaska.                                             
 Number 1510                                                                   
 DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,                
 Department of Labor, said he couldn't answer that directly because            
 he didn't know if it has been or has not been a problem.  Speaking            
 for the Department of Labor, he couldn't give Co-Chair Toohey an              
 answer because he didn't know.                                                
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the department had a list of companies in            
 Alaska that do drug testing?                                                  
 MR. PERKINS said he could get that information for the committee.             
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked him to inquire of the companies how many                
 false positive results they had had and how many people had been              
 fired because of being falsely accused of marijuana or alcohol use.           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought Mr. Fagnani had testified there               
 were no laboratories in Alaska; everything was sent outside.                  
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Fagnani if that was correct.                         
 MR. FAGNANI said that was correct; there are no longer any                    
 laboratories, other than hospitals and they don't really do                   
 workplace testing, but rather mostly medical tests or treatment.              
 There are no laboratories in Alaska doing drug and alcohol testing;           
 all the samples are sent outside to certified laboratories for                
 testing.  In response to Co-Chair Toohey's question to Mr. Perkins,           
 he could say with some certainty that there has not been a false              
 positive issued from any one of his competitors because if there              
 had been, it would have drawn national spotlight to the laboratory            
 in question and the knowledge would not have been shielded from               
 Allvest or anyone else in the industry.  To his knowledge, there              
 had not been a false positive test result issued by any vendor                
 providing similar types of services as Allvest.                               
 MR. PERKINS shared a personal experience with committee members of            
 when he was working in the private sector and was required to take            
 a urine test.  The manufacturer had a bad batch and a positive                
 result came back from Seattle and the employer had another test               
 done.  However, because everyone was coming up positive, they                 
 started doing some checking and found that one part of the test got           
 mixed up with another part of a different test so they weren't of             
 the same box.  It had nothing to do with the tester or the                    
 employee, but human error.  He pointed out that happened in Juneau            
 and it was not in the national spotlight.                                     
 Number 1680                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Fagnani to comment on Mr. Perkins'                  
 MR. FAGNANI inquired as to what year that incident incurred.                  
 MR. PERKINS said it was three years ago in Juneau.                            
 MR. FAGNANI responded he would venture to say the laboratory that             
 did the original testing was not a CAP certified lab and was not a            
 NIDA or SAMHSA certified lab.  There are laboratories that are not            
 certified and he once again pointed out the importance of having              
 the laboratories certified.  It's for that reason alone, that a               
 certified scientist or laboratory manager would have recognized               
 that it was a bad batch of reagents.                                          
 MR. PERKINS noted that Bartlett Memorial Hospital in Juneau had               
 done the testing for the employer, and he assumed the hospital did            
 use a certified testing facility in Seattle.                                  
 MR. FAGNANI said they may or may not.  He added it was important to           
 keep in mind that whenever a laboratory analysis is done there is             
 a positive and a negative sample on the instrument along with the             
 regular sample.  As long as the positive and negative samples react           
 the way the manufacturer's reagent intend it to, then there would             
 be a proper test.  He commented there are 100 war stories that                
 people can attest to testing positive for marijuana by taking                 
 ibuprofen, but unless a person dates some of these incidents and              
 knows what the laboratories were years ago, people could test                 
 positive for marijuana by taking ibuprofen but it could not be                
 confirmed by using gas chromatography.  He said now we're into the            
 ninth or tenth generation of testing for reagents and that is no              
 longer an issue.                                                              
 MR. PERKINS said the reason he shared his personal experience was             
 not to argue with Mr. Fagnani or speak negatively on Allvest's                
 testing, but to point out that human error does happen and it did             
 not draw national attention.                                                  
 Number 1798                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought Mr. Fagnani had said it would bring national           
 attention to the laboratory.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if under this legislation an employee              
 could sue a laboratory.                                                       
 MR. FAGNANI said he didn't know the answer, but he imagined they              
 could sue anybody they wanted.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the employers are being held                   
 harmless, but he questioned if the labs were being held harmless.             
 MR. FAGNANI replied not under this language.  Mr. Fagnani said as             
 a provider of these services, Allvest provides a $1 million binder            
 per incidence from the lab and the physician that reviews their               
 results.  That is on file in their office because they are held to            
 the highest standards, so they know the lab is adequately (indisc.)           
 to defend their results.  He added that as a provider of these                
 services, under federal law he has to submit 3 blind samples for              
 every 100 tests Allvest does and 25 percent of them have to be                
 spiked with an known quantity of drugs.  They are sent to the                 
 SAMHSA certified labs and to date they have not had one come back             
 that was not supposed to come back the way it was originally sent             
 DIRK NELSON, Licensed clinical social worker and licensed marital             
 and family therapist, said over the last two years he'd had a                 
 significant amount of development in policies and procedures manual           
 issues as an ex-city employee regarding proposed drug testing                 
 policies.  He commented there were a number of previously existing            
 cases at the state Supreme Court level, and he was concerned if               
 this legislation would be consistent with the state Supreme Court's           
 finding regarding safety sensitive positions which is also the                
 national Supreme Court's finding that this has not necessarily been           
 opened up carte blanche.  Rather it seems to have been stated that            
 people testing must rely upon a safety sensitive issue without                
 there being probable cause in that the court has also concluded               
 that urine analysis is search and seizure.  He wondered if there              
 were violations of the Fourth Amendment issues by an employer.  In            
 other words, testing is done on persons who are not legally                   
 eligible to be tested or otherwise unjust search is conducted.  He            
 asked if those employees would be barred from seeking civil damages           
 for violation of their federal Fourth Amendment issues?  He thought           
 this was a question that should be presented to the Department of             
 Number 1958                                                                   
 MR. NELSON said he, too, had some concern about Mr. Fagnani's                 
 interest in that he believed Representative Kott wrote this                   
 legislation for someone whom his office would not state who the               
 constituent was requesting it.  He didn't believe Allvest was as              
 detached from this legislation as they might otherwise present.               
 MR. NELSON commented that the Alaska State Constitution's privacy             
 section is one of the strongest, if not the strongest in the                  
 Nation.  There was a decision in 1975 that has never been                     
 overturned and currently cases are being dismissed from court                 
 regarding possession of small amounts of marijuana in the home.               
 That came up in Lukey v. Nabors and the only reason that wasn't an          
 issue was because of the safety sensitive nature of their position.           
 Mr. Nelson said that gets into the area of disparity in treatment             
 between alcohol testing and drug testing in that the Federal Drug             
 Free Workplace Act focused on impairment on the job.  It was very             
 specific in that regard.  The breathalyzer process is used with               
 alcohol testing which clearly ascertains current impairment.  At              
 the employee's request, a more reliable test may be sought such as            
 a blood test; however, that cannot be put upon a person because of            
 the medical procedure violation regarding Fourth Amendment issues.            
 He commented that with urine analyses, however, we're no longer               
 talking about current impairment, but metabolites that might simply           
 reflect what an employee did five days ago.  Clearly, it has                  
 nothing to do with impairment on the job and yet this person's                
 livelihood may be severed for engaging in an activity on a Saturday           
 night at home that the state Constitution says is acceptable.  In             
 many cases, it's being inferred that the person is impaired because           
 of the metabolites.  He encouraged the committee to read some                 
 writings of Dr. John Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology at New York            
 City of Medicine dealing with the significance of metabolites.  He            
 also mentioned the federal Department of Transportation's study               
 entitled "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" which indicates           
 that marijuana-influenced drivers came out responsible for fewer              
 lethal accidents than drug free drivers.                                      
 Number 2145                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Fagnani if he could identify the                    
 metabolites in urine after five days?                                         
 MR. FAGNANI said no he couldn't.  He went on to explain that drug             
 testing shows evidence of use; it doesn't show levels of                      
 impairment.  The tests are based on anything greater than the                 
 screen.  He could not attest to how much marijuana makes a person             
 act silly or not.                                                             
 Number 2170                                                                   
 MR. NELSON said with regard to the accuracy of testing, it's                  
 accepted that if a person was clean of all substances for two                 
 months, the person could smoke a joint on the way to a drug testing           
 and test negative.  Likewise, depending on the degree of use, a               
 person could test positive five days after the fact and any where             
 up to 30 days after the fact depending on upon the amount of fatty            
 tissue in a person's body.  Obese people will tend to test                    
 positive, particularly for marijuana, much longer than people who             
 are not overweight because PHC metabolites adhere to fatty tissues            
 in the body.                                                                  
 Number 2203                                                                   
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed the meeting to public testimony.  He noted              
 that questions had been raised regarding legal issues which were              
 beyond the parameters of this committee.  Therefore, if committee             
 members decided to move the bill out of committee, he would like to           
 confer with the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the                  
 Judiciary Committee to determine if they would entertain referral             
 of this bill to the Judiciary Committee.                                      
 Number 2244                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would move CSHB 522(HES) with                 
 individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from the HESS                 
 Committee with the understanding that the Labor & Commerce                    
 Committee would request and receive testimony from the Department             
 of Law regarding the issues that were raised.                                 
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.                              
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought this bill had great merits, but needed                
 additional work.                                                              
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a motion had been made to move CSHB 522(HES)              
 with individual recommendations.  Hearing no objection, it was so             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects