Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
05/01/2005 04:00 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB125 | |
| SB127 | |
| SB186 | |
| SB187 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 187-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS/MEETINGS
9:00:04 PM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 187 to be up for consideration. The
committee is working off Version \Y.
9:01:37 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved Amendment 1. Adopt similar language in
SB 186 with regard to the $5,000 fine. Replace the language on
Page 1, line 10. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
9:03:51 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Chair Seekins whether the underlined
language on Page 1, line 14 and Page 2, lines 1 and 2 was
current law.
CHAIR SEEKINS:
My understanding, Senator French, is that the
constitutional right and responsibility of the
Legislature to adopt it's own uniform rules cannot be
subject to statute. It is a constitutional provision
that has been given to the Legislature and only to the
Legislature and a statute adopted by a Legislature
that would affect the uniform rules would only be in
effect for the term of that Legislature because no
future Legislature can be bound by the current
Legislature. Uniform rules have to be adopted by each
Legislature on its opening day. This is only meant to
clarify the statute. Current law cannot trump uniform
rules.
9:06:14 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked wouldn't the statute be same thing as an
amendment to the uniform rule.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded yes but the uniform rules say that the
uniform rules can be changed by majority of the Legislature at
any time. So that statute would only be in existence as an
amendment to the uniform rules until the legislative body
decided to change it.
SENATOR THERRIAULT read from Mason's Manual. Section 13:
The power of a house of a legislature to determine its
rules of proceedings is a continuous power. It can
always be exercised by the house and is absolute and
beyond the challenge of any body or tribunal if the
rule does not ignore constitutional restraints or
violate fundamental rights. Rules of procedure passed
by one legislature or statutory provisions governing
the legislative process are not binding on a
subsequent legislature. Rules of procedure are always
in control of the majority of a deliberative body and
may be changed at any time by a majority vote.
9:11:02 PM
CHAIR SEEKINS said rules adopted by a state Legislature expire
with the convening of the subsequent Legislature. SB 187 is
trying to clarify it so that there is no conflict that has no
basis in law or under the uniform rules.
SENATOR FRENCH said the argument is sound, however statutes pass
for a reason. He expressed concern the bill would attempt to
supersede a statute by the application of uniform rules.
CHAIR SEEKINS:
Well, I think it's only a restatement of a truism and
I think that would be a great test case for someone to
bring. So far the state Supreme Court has commented
and the state supreme court basically says, Article 2,
Section 12, for example the Malone vs. Meekins case,
the supreme court has said, "We can think of few
actions which would be more intrusive into the
legislative process than for a court to function as a
sort of super parliamentarian to decide the varied and
often skewed points of parliamentary law which may be
raised in the course of the legislative day. Thus even
though the uniform rules may have been violated such
violation is solely the business of the legislature
and does not give rise to a justice-able claim."
If the Supreme Court can't intervene in the uniform
rules, and there's another rule, Senator, that is very
interesting and it says that for example Section 51,
"A public body cannot delegate its powers, duties or
responsibilities to any other person or groups,
including a committee of its own members. However, a
legislative body may delegate by rule such procedural
powers as appointment of members of standing, special
and conference committees as well as the power to
refer bills to committee to a constitutional presiding
officer who may or may not be a member of the body."
A statute that would delegate this responsibility to
others other than the member is a violation of the
rules. So there's the problem. It is constitutional
that we adopt our own rules and that when we adopt
those rules it requires that we are the ones who would
investigate violations and determine whether or not
they were. That's not meant to be argumentative,
punitive, or anything else but merely to clarify the
issue.
9:15:00 PM
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 2. Delete the underlined and bold
language starting on Page 1, line 14 and ending on Page 2, line
2.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Senator French to clarify whether he
thought the language was true yet superfluous.
SENATOR FRENCH replied there could be a case where the public
passes a statute through an initiative process, which could
require that the uniform rules be changed by a super majority.
CHAIR SEEKINS:
It would violate the constitutional right of the
Legislature.
SENATOR FRENCH:
We don't exist to enforce our own rights. We exist to
serve the will of the public. I would say we should
bow before the will of the public.
CHAIR SEEKINS:
The Constitution very clearly says that is the
responsibility of the Legislature, to adopt its own
uniform rules.
SENATOR THERRIAULT:
Even through initiative, because of the separation of
powers issue, the people cannot pass a law to throw
more power to the court system or strip the
Legislature of power and throw it to the governor.
9:17:22 PM
Roll call proved Amendment 2 failed with Senators Huggins,
Therriault, and Chair Seekins dissenting.
CHAIR SEEKINS advised Section 3 addresses the open meetings
section. Section 4 concerns diversity.
SENATOR FRENCH asked the number of public members that are
currently employed by the state.
CHAIR SEEKINS said two.
SENATOR FRENCH asked the affect of this law on their membership.
CHAIR SEEKINS said nothing. They would have to come up for re-
confirmation and one would have to go.
SENATOR FRENCH stated whichever one comes up first would have
the advantage.
CHAIR SEEKINS said there are currently three lawyers and two
teachers. There is no current process for diversity.
9:21:44 PM
CHAIR SEEKINS explained Section 5 changes the structure of the
alternate member.
SENATOR FRENCH pointed out the weakness is a member may vote on
a matter without hearing any of the discussion. He suggested
tightening it so a member could only vote on matters they have
participated in.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Senator French why that should be
treated differently than how the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee operates.
9:24:35 PM
SENATOR FRENCH answered the main reason is because the select
committee is only hearing complaints and they are highly fact
specific.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Senator French whether he has had
conversations with the chair of the commission about the impact.
SENATOR FRENCH said no. He also advised he may prepare an
amendment for the section.
SENATOR GUESS asked Chair Seekins to explain the idea behind the
last two sentences of Section 6.
CHAIR SEEKINS said except as provided in the chapter, an
advisory opinion is confidential.
9:27:30 PM
CHAIR SEEKINS explained Section 7 and Section 8 remove redundant
language on confidentiality. Section 9 relates to the committee
issuing a decision explaining the dismissal order.
9:30:18 PM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 187 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|