Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
01/24/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB5 | |
| SB19 | |
| SB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 19 | ||
| = | SB 20 | ||
SB 20-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
3:00:41 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 20.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS motioned to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
25-LS0161\E.1, as follows:
Amendment 1
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "a dividend"
Insert "dividend income in excess of $1,000"
CHAIR FRENCH said the amendment clarifies that the dividend
received also has to be in excess of $1,000 in order for there
to be a reporting requirement. "If you get a $50 dividend, $500
dividend, you don't have to report it, just like your income.
But if the dividend is over $1,000, then, just like your income,
you have to report the name and address of the source of the
income."
Amendment 1 was adopted without objection.
3:01:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH questioned the reporting requirements in SB 20. He
asked if lines 2-5 would require a doctor to report patient
names.
DANIEL WAYNE, Counsel, Legislative Legal, said there is a
superseding law to protect patient confidentiality. He said he
thinks that it is called HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996].
CHAIR FRENCH surmised that a doctor will not be required to
report patient names.
MR. WAYNE said he doesn't think it is necessary to describe
every exception like that one. Under HIPAA, a federal law, a
doctor is prohibited from disclosing patient names. "I think
that courts interpret laws in a way that's reasonable to avoid
those kinds of ridiculous outcomes."
3:04:02 PM
SENATOR LESIL McGUIRE said there are some ridiculous outcomes,
but there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding in this
area of the law. The law will also apply to spouses and
children, she noted. She said she would like to see guidelines
making the provision very clear. Not everyone will know about
the exceptions that supersede the law. Certain attorneys have
talked about the reporting provision hindering their ability to
practice law, and she gave examples of divorce and custody
cases. Perhaps the drafter could provide an addendum listing the
exclusions, she said.
MR. WAYNE suggested including: "except as prohibited by other
laws." It would be difficult to find all exceptions. The Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics has dealt with some of the
exceptions, including coming out with the opinion that attorneys
must reveal the names of their clients. He said he could provide
a partial list.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that Senator McGuire may be dealing with
the wording in her committee.
3:06:54 PM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT said the duty is to make a good faith
effort to get the information from spouses, "but if they refuse
to give it to you, you've done what you can." He said he
controls his own actions and not the actions of his wife or the
partners in her law firm.
CHAIR FRENCH said "amen."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said sometimes he has been able to get that
information and sometimes not. "I have a duty, though, to make a
good faith effort to get it."
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI asked for an elaboration on the
opinion regarding attorney reporting requirements. There has
been a requirement, but the bill expands it to include hours and
income received, and whether there is attorney/client privilege
involved.
MR. WAYNE said he didn't have the details but he could provide
them. He recalled that lawyers working as legislators had to
disclose their client list. He noted that one legislator
disclosed a lot of clients and a brief description of the type
of work involved.
3:09:42 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said his understanding is that SB 20 does not
require a lengthy description of the work an attorney is doing,
because it is under a professional license.
MR. WAYNE read: "a sufficient description to make clear to a
person of ordinary understanding."
CHAIR FRENCH said that is followed by an "unless" clause.
MR. WAYNE said yes. It is followed with: "unless those services
require the issuance of a state or federal professional
license." He added that an attorney could argue he or she didn't
need to give a description because a state license is required.
CHAIR FRENCH said he didn't think there was any intent to lessen
reporting requirements. "The idea is to heighten them with
respect to folks that don't have those licenses." He added that
the "unless" clause only pertains to "with sufficient
description to make clear to a person of ordinary
understanding." It does not modify the nature of the services
performed.
MR. WAYNE said that for a lawyer disclosing the name of a
client, a person of ordinary understanding could probably deduce
that legal services are being provided. Another person who
provides a service that doesn't require the issuance of a state
or federal professional license will need more description of
what services are being performed.
3:12:08 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said she will offer an amendment to strike
"unless those services require the issuance of a state or
federal license" for the reason that the law ought to apply to
all. "I don't think that we can make the kind of leaps that we
used to that if you are a lawyer, by definition, you are doing
legal services, or if you are a real estate agent, by
definition, you are doing that." The license doesn't mean that
that is the service being supplied. "Go ahead and take on that
obligation--we all will--to describe what it is you're doing."
MR. WAYNE said he wasn't arguing one way or another, but was
relaying the rationale for the language in the bill.
3:13:10 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he was stuck on the same thing and
agreed with Senator McGuire that it may be a loophole. He said
the language could be construed as getting out of the disclosure
requirement for anyone with a license.
SENATOR HUGGINS questioned why there should be an exception for
a concert promoter. He asked if a legislator who is a family
practice lawyer who goes before state agencies is on a higher
playing field.
CHAIR FRENCH said it is a thorny issue.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his concern, as an attorney, is that
sometimes people don't want the nature of their business
disclosed, putting the lawyer in a "very precarious position."
He expressed concern regarding striking the aforementioned
language.
SENATOR HUGGINS said an attorney might need a disclaimer telling
clients that a legislator needs to make the disclosure.
CHAIR FRENCH said it may restrict the practices of some
legislators.
SENATOR McGUIRE offered Amendment 2 as follows:
Page 2, line 8-9, delete "unless those services
require the issuance of a state or federal business
license".
Page 2, lines 24-25, delete.
SENATOR THERRIAULT offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 2
to also delete line 23 on page 2.
3:17:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected. He said that he didn't think the
type of law he practices will be impacted by the bill, but
private attorneys, accountants, and physicians could make their
clients unhappy.
SENATOR McGUIRE said she doesn't disagree, but the ethics
opinion will already require that. The amendment is intended to
keep from muddying the water. "As Senator French said, he only
wants it to apply to the description of services performed, so
it's not really a wholesale exception anyway, but I think
there's confusion about whether it is or isn't. We know it
isn't. The law is already just what you said, and I think it
does require some discussion at some point about what kind of
privileges we'll allow. But this Amendment simply requires a
description the way you do. And that way it's clear. That way
nobody has to wonder, 'am I licensed or not?'" She said it
applies to everybody equally.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2. Senators McGuire,
French, Therriault, and Huggins voted in favor of the amendment
and Senator Wielechowski voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
2, as amended, was adopted.
3:20:09 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted the amount of income on line 12 of SB 20. He
said this is a new requirement. He said he is a landlord with 24
tenants, and he has had to supply a list of those names, but now
he will have to disclose the amount of money as well. It could
become onerous, he said, and asked if it is meant to be a "to-
the-penny calculation," or only within $100.
MR. WAYNE said it would be interpreted through a filter of what
is reasonable. If a landlord knew the exact amount, it should be
reported. If it involves numerous adjustments, calculations and
judgment, then it would need to be reasonable.
SENATOR McGUIRE said she agreed, but there is room for mischief.
She gave a hypothetical situation of a legislator giving a deep
discount to renters in his or her district.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved SB 20, as amended, with attached fiscal
notes from committee with individual recommendations. There
being no objection, CSSB 20(JUD) moved from the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|