01/28/2004 02:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 2004
2:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
H. Conner Thomas - Nome
Ann Rabinowitz - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED [See 1:35 p.m. minutes for this
date]
HOUSE BILL NO. 398
"An Act relating to domestic violence fatality review teams."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 398
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW TEAM
REPRESENTATIVE(s): DAHLSTROM
01/23/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/04 (H) JUD
01/26/04 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/26/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/28/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 398.
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 398 related that DPS
certainly supports the concept of victims' rights and anything
that can be done to improve on mistakes.
TAMARA de LUCIA, Associate Victims' Rights Advocate
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR)
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 398 does comport with what
has worked in other states as long as one remembers that the
best successes have come when localities are able to spearhead
the team.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Holm, Ogg, Samuels, Gara, and Gruenberg were
present at the call to order.
[For the confirmation hearing for the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, see the 1:35 p.m. minutes for this date.]
HB 398-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW TEAM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 398, "An Act relating to domestic violence
fatality review teams."
Number 0091
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HB 398, paraphrased the following sponsor statement
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 398 is legislation empowering municipalities and
cities throughout Alaska to create a Domestic Violence
Fatality Review Team.
A growing number of homicides in Alaska are domestic
violence related. In the year 2002 11 out of 18, or
61% of the homicides in Anchorage were a result of
domestic violence.
This legislation authorizes the State of Alaska and
its municipalities to [empower] teams to
systematically review facts of escalating cases of
domestic violence and protocols leading to the
prevention of such crimes.
This legislation would provide state and local
governments with additional tools to gather
information on many aspects of domestic violence.
This information could then be used to create
legislation to combat domestic violence.
With the creation of such review teams the legislature
will help stop devastating crimes.
Number 0245
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska
State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, informed the
committee that DPS certainly supports the concept of victims'
rights and anything that can be done to improve on mistakes. In
reviewing HB 398, Lieutenant Storey pointed out that there
really isn't a triggering mechanism with regard to how the teams
would come together. Furthermore, on page 1, line 9, the
language "has been terminated by law enforcement" should
probably be worded as follows: "has been adjudicated by the
court" because he didn't believe the intent was to have a review
process before the case has been adjudicated through the court
system.
Number 0419
REPRESENTATIVE GARA questioned whether [it would be appropriate]
to delete the word "trooper" and insert "adjudicated". He asked
if there are cases that should be reviewed under this
legislation that might be dismissed. He recalled when he
practiced in the criminal area that sometimes in a domestic
violence case one drops the prosecution due to some extenuating
circumstance.
LIEUTENANT STOREY related that he believes in such a case it
would be considered to have been adjudicated at that point,
although he said it would probably depend upon the circumstances
under which the case was dropped.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that once the statute is
[passed] it is the policy. Therefore, he suggested that the
following language: "when an investigation has been completed
or adjudicated" in order to provide the department the
flexibility to determine when the trigger [to form a team] would
occur.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he would follow-up on
Representative Gara's points regarding the trigger for convening
the hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if the use of "adjudicated" refers to
[hearing the case] through the final appeal process.
Number 0616
LIEUTENANT STOREY related his belief that the intent was for it
to refer through the sentencing process not the full appeal
process, which could last for years. Furthermore, the appeals
process wouldn't necessarily impact the core adjudication of the
case.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that his concern was that it could
drag out for a number of years, and therefore he suggested that
perhaps when the legislation discusses adjudication it should
refer to sentencing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed hope that these comments
could lead to a committee substitute (CS) that could be before
the committee on Friday. Representative Gruenberg asked if the
legislation specifies who convenes the team.
LIEUTENANT STOREY answered by pointing out that the language
says, "The commissioner of public safety may establish" such a
team.
Number 0707
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the commissioner should
have the ability to form a team at the close of the appeal
because there may be an important legal point during an appeal.
Furthermore, he related his belief that the commissioner should
have the authority to promulgate regulations to carry this out.
He suggested that regulations should be promulgated for the
issue of privacy and defining what other agencies [as related to
the language on page 2, lines 19-20] would be appropriate [to
include]. Representative Gruenberg said he believes that
defense organizations might be an appropriate group to include.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to page 2, line 31,
and informed the committee that "or" should be "and". On page
3, line 11, he suggested the need to change "damage" to
"damages". He also suggested that on page 3, line 11, after
"performance" the language "or nonperformance" should be
inserted. Although the drafter may say that "or nonperformance"
is implied, he expressed the need to raise the issue with the
drafter.
Number 0903
LIEUTENANT STOREY noted that there has been some discussion with
regard to having these teams involved with "near-fatal
incidents" and whether it would be too broad and too large of an
effort. The advocacy groups involved with this tend to agree
that including "near-fatal incidents" would be too broad.
Therefore, he questioned whether the committee would be
interested in limiting that or having some flexibility with
aggravated situations involving "near-fatal incidents".
LIEUTENANT STOREY, in response to Representative Holm, said that
there isn't a clear definition of "near-fatal incidents" for
legal purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that everyone has heard stories of
women who have been beaten soundly and [no legal action]
occurred, and ultimately the women is killed. Perhaps there
could be a pre-condition for understanding why this occurs.
Therefore, he suggested reviewing the aforementioned or
determining whether this "mechanism" could do that.
LIEUTENANT STOREY pointed out that the Office of Victims' Rights
(OVR) already exists so that [victims] can approach for help in
clarifying why things didn't work in certain situations and what
could be improved upon. He noted that there are often many
variables in these situations that would be necessary to know in
order to address what is wrong and what can be improved upon.
Therefore, aggravated near-fatal incidents are worthy of review
by these teams. However, the question as to how one defines a
"near-fatal incident" remains.
LIEUTENANT STOREY turned attention to page 2, line 13, and
related that there has been discussion of changing the reference
to "the chief medical examiner" to "the chief medical examiner's
office". The aforementioned change would allow another
representative in the chief medical examiner's office to be
involved in the process. There was also the recommendation to
include the definition of domestic violence in this proposal.
He noted that the definition of domestic violence found in AS
18.66.990 would be appropriate for this situation.
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out that there seems to be the
possibility for dual fatality review teams to operate in the
same area. On page 1, lines 6-7, the language refers to the
ability of the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
to establish domestic violence fatality review teams for areas
in the state while also allowing a municipality the ability to
establish such a team in a municipality. Representative Ogg
expressed the need for there to be clarity with regard to which
entity has dominance. He then turned to Representative
Gruenberg's suggestion to change "or" to "and" on page 2, line
31, which he believes would require the addition of the language
"of" before "its members".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to Lieutenant Storey's
suggestion to limit [the formation of a team] to fatalities. If
one is investigating and reviewing [the process] in order to
improve response, then it seems that whether the incident was
fatal or not might not be the best triggering mechanism because
the fatality could be determined by whether the offender was a
good shot. Therefore, Representative Gruenberg expressed the
need for there to be the authority to convene a team for any
domestic violence case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that non-fatal incidents
usually end up in family court. He mentioned that if the victim
is dead, there may be a custodial fight between the parent, who
was the perpetrator, and others in the family who would be
potential custodians. Therefore, the convening authority who
deals with the systemic aspects of [the process] should also be
able to deal with the judges, family lawyers, and others left to
deal with the children.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that Representative Gruenberg's comments
return to the question of how broad this should be made. The
focus has been on the fatalities, which isn't to say that the
other incidents aren't unfortunate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the [team] wouldn't focus
on what would be done with the survivors, such as the children,
who are also victims.
CHAIR McGUIRE related her belief that there are other ways and
places to deal with [the surviving victims]. She noted that she
didn't support making the legislation broader.
LIEUTENANT STOREY commented that his feeling is that the intent
of the legislation is to simply examine situations that didn't
go as they should have in order to determine what went wrong.
Furthermore, [the legislation] would empower these teams to have
access to information that they wouldn't normally such as police
reports and information from women's shelters and other
organizations. The aforementioned information would be used to
improve the process related to domestic violence so that fewer
people become victims of domestic violence.
Number 1398
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out that the fatalities [of
domestic violence] don't happen often and thus these teams could
focus on the issue. However, if the team is dealing with a
daily occurrence, then [the team] becomes part of the
bureaucracy. Therefore, he surmised that the sponsor intended
for these teams to not meet on daily occurrences.
Representative Samuels suggested that if this proposal works,
then perhaps the line [regarding what to include in the team's
purview] could be drawn lower.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that the fatality
review concept is developing into almost a science at this
point. Therefore, he suggested not including in this process
new ideas that have not been tested. He noted his concern that
by expanding the scope of the review too far that the team may
not be able to achieve its original intent. The original
intent, he specified, being how and why domestic violence
fatalities are occurring. Although Representative Gara
expressed his desire to keep the scope of the review team
narrow, he said he did like the notion of allowing law
enforcement authorities the option of also [creating a review
team] for near-fatal incidents. Representative Gara specified
that [the committee] needs to be sure that using the language
"fatal and near-fatal" [incidents] isn't interpreted to mean all
near-fatal incidents or none. Therefore, he suggested including
the following language: "at their discretion, near fatalities
as well".
LIEUTENANT STOREY, in response to Representative Gara, informed
the committee that there are a large number of other states that
do have such review boards. Furthermore, the [division's]
domestic violence coordinator does have a lesson plan with
regard to how to create these teams and direct the focus of
these teams. If this legislation passes, there are organized
processes that can be followed. Lieutenant Storey agreed that
these teams should have the ability to review near-fatal
incidents as deemed appropriate.
Number 1620
TAMARA de LUCIA, Associate Victims' Rights Advocate, Office of
Victims' Rights (OVR), Alaska State Legislature, [drew upon her
experience in attending a national workshop that addressed what
fatality review teams have tried in other states]. Ms. de Lucia
informed the committee that 25 states have passed laws to
authorize fatality review teams across the country. Generally,
the most effective statutes have been those that were broad at
the state level, and therefore allowed the localities to
determine the specifics regarding how a team would be
coordinated. These review teams provide the means for the
collective development of additional ways of understanding the
dynamics of domestic violence, why deaths [resulting from
domestic violence] occur, and how these deaths can be prevented.
Ms. de Lucia specified that the teams should focus on reviewing
a case and examining the possible points of intervention prior
to a fatal incident. Furthermore, these teams should focus on a
public health approach to family violence while emphasizing
prevention. She pointed out that a fatality review allows
community practitioners and service providers to identify
homicides resulting from domestic violence and to examine the
events leading up to the death, specifically to identify gaps in
service delivery and to improve preventative intervention.
Fatality review can reveal trends, lead to changes in the
system, and prevent future fatal incidents.
MS. de LUCIA turned to Representative Gara's earlier question
regarding whether the investigation would be completed or a case
adjudicated [before the team is empanelled]. She highlighted
the importance of allowing the commissioner to have discussions
and defining adjudicated to not include a final appeal but
rather just sentencing because sometimes the appeal process is
lengthy. The focus of these teams should be to review how the
social service process, not necessarily the judicial process,
might have failed the victim in order to implement changes to
prevent future problems. Ms. de Lucia agreed with
Representative Gruenberg that the commissioner could be given
the authority to promulgate regulations governing how the teams
operate. With regard to the matter of fatal versus near-fatal
incidents, Ms. de Lucia informed the committee that there is a
definition of "serious physical injury" in AS 11.81.900, which
could be helpful in defining a near-fatal incident. The
definition of "serious physical injury" in AS 11.81.900 is the
same used by the criminal code to define "serious physical
injury" for purposes of felony level offenses.
MS. de LUCIA said that she has reviewed the statutes of the 25
states [with a similar provision]. She opined that Tennessee
and Michigan have good laws. Ms. de Lucia informed the
committee that Neil Wessdale (ph), the recognized authority on
fatality review teams, is going to be in Anchorage in April.
She mentioned that after speaking with Mr. Wessdale, she would
say that this legislation does comport with what has worked in
other states as long as one remembers that the best successes
have come when localities are able to spearhead the team
necessary to suit the particular community.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether, given the budget
circumstances at the state and local levels, there would be the
ability to convene many of these fatality review teams. In
Anchorage, it's reported that most of the sexual assault cases
aren't even investigated.
MS. de LUCIA informed the committee that one impetus for this
legislation is the Anchorage Domestic Violence Caucus, an
informal gathering of practitioners who meet monthly to address
issues important in the domestic violence community. As part of
one's regular duties [with OVR] one attends these meetings,
which could be the case with these teams. Ms. de Lucia pointed
out that police officers, prosecutors, and district attorneys
are concerned about reducing crime and the incidence of domestic
violence, particularly fatal incidents. She opined that having
an individual who was part of a domestic violence investigation
participate in a meeting on the topic would be a productive use
of the employee's time. Therefore, she believes this
legislation would carry a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that the legislation should carry a
zero fiscal note because it's discretionary whether a team will
be formed in any case. However, he questioned whether money
would ultimately be necessary to make this work. He related his
understanding that a fatality review team performs a very
substantial investigation that takes much more time than an
hour.
MS. de LUCIA said that she didn't believe Representative Gara
was wrong with regard to the intensiveness of the fatality
review team. However, it is a question of degree. She related
that when she attended the national conference on this she
talked with groups that have been doing this on an informal ad
hoc basis, without [enabling] legislation in the state. She
also talked with groups that have been doing this with very
formal legislative teams. She recalled the collective agreement
to be that [tasks related to the fatality team] are a reasonable
extension of the workday of those on the team. If a fatality
team meets once a month, getting through only 10 fatalities a
year would track trends and review policies that could change
the way this issue is addressed in the state. Furthermore, the
aforementioned could change the way crime prevention works to
help stop domestic violence. However, Ms. de Lucia remarked
that only time will tell the degree of time necessary. Still,
this wouldn't need to be a financial drain, especially when
there are very interested and dedicated practitioners who want
this to succeed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out that according to
Representative Dahlstrom's numbers, there were 11 fatalities in
Anchorage in 2002. One of the worst things that can happen in a
community is a murder, he commented. Although some of the
suggestions from the fatality review team may need funding, he
hoped that municipalities would prioritize this proposal, which
he didn't believe to be that time cumbersome.
Number 2074
DENISE HENDERSON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety,
announced support for HB 398. With regard to the financial
aspect of this discussion, Ms. Henderson related that if there
is any need for funding, some of the federal funding received by
the council could be used for these [fatality review teams].
The council and its staff will be more than willing to work with
the commissioner to generate any reports that are required.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted his appreciation for the offer.
Assuming this legislation passes, he expressed the hope that the
legislature would be made aware if there are any needs for
funding from the legislature. Representative Gara noted that
one can't ignore the reality that the team members will be
people who have other jobs for the state or city. He posed an
example in which a prosecutor who is already working 60 hours a
week is asked to join a fatality review team. He suggested that
the prosecutor may actually shift 10 hours of work to someone
else. At some point that extra 10 hours of volunteer time might
not be available and thus funding may be required.
CHAIR McGUIRE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:43 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.
Number 2178
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9,
Delete "terminated"
Insert "completed or adjudicated"
Insert after "enforcement," the words "or
earlier"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the committee ask the
bill drafter whether the word "damage" on page 3, line 11,
should be "damages", which could be corrected for the
forthcoming CS. Similarly, Representative Gruenberg requested
that the bill drafter be asked whether the word "or" on page 2,
line 31, should be "and".
Number 2262
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled earlier testimony suggesting
the need to define domestic violence as it is in AS 18.66.990.
Therefore, he [moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, which
would insert a definitions section that specified that domestic
violence is defined as under AS 18.66.990]. There being no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 2289
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, in response to Representative
Gruenberg, noted her agreement in defining "near-fatal incident"
[as a serious physical injury as defined in AS 11.81.900] as a
friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed concern with regard to [how
many cases would be involved] if the definition of "serious
physical injury" is used because he didn't want to expand [the
purview of these teams] such that there would be so many cases
as to cause a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the committee be
provided with a copy of the definition of "serious physical
injury."
CHAIR McGUIRE related her understanding that the adoption of
Amendment 3 would change the scope of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 3.
Number 2386
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt new
Amendment 3, which would provide the commissioner of DPS the
authority to promulgate regulations to carry out this new
Article 4A.
TAPE 04-6, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected. Representative Holm said that he
has a real problem with passing laws that don't carry the
regulations that will make them work.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he had envisioned two areas,
one of which would allow the commissioner to promulgate, as
necessary, regulations concerning the methods of preserving the
confidentiality of the records. He specified that the
aforementioned can be found on page 2, line 6. The second area
was to list the other organizations on page 2, lines 19-20, that
could participate. Representative Gruenberg explained that he
had wanted to do the aforementioned things in regulation so that
it would be a formalized process with public notice.
CHAIR McGUIRE, recalling her time chairing the Joint Committee
on Administrative Regulation Review, informed the committee that
the commissioner of DPS already has the authority to promulgate
regulations on this matter whether the legislation specifies it
or not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to the definition of "serious
physical injury" in AS 11.81.900[(b)](55) and related his belief
that using that term would probably necessitate changing the
term "near-fatal incident" on page 1, line 8, to "serious
physical injury".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, upon Representative Ogg's questioning,
clarified that he had withdrawn new Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 4, which would on page 1, line 8, change the language
"near-fatal incidents" to "serious physical injury" and add the
definition of "serious physical injury", as specified under AS
11.81.900, to the new definition section created by the adoption
of Amendment 1.
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected, noting that he didn't necessarily
disagree. However, he said he wasn't sure that there is enough
knowledge to change the entire fatality review concept to make
it broader. He noted his desire to hear from someone with more
familiarity with the fatality review team concept before
broadening it such.
MS. de LUCIA said that limiting the scope to fatal incidents of
domestic violence would address the fear that there would be too
many meetings and too many reasons to call the teams to order as
well as reduce the fear that there would be the need to define
an unknown. Of the 25 states, the majority of them confined the
review to fatal incidents. However, Ms. de Lucia said she did
see merit in reviewing near-fatal incidents because domestic
violence can result in maiming or almost killing someone.
CHAIR McGUIRE highlighted that on page 1, line 6, the [verb] is
"may" and thus none of this is mandatory. Chair McGuire
emphasized that she liked including the "near-fatal incidents"
language because there may be a time when the situation is so
egregious that the municipality or state wants the ability to
form these teams. She said she didn't see any harm in including
the "near-fatal incidents" language.
MS. de LUCIA agreed.
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred with earlier comments
regarding not locking in the commissioner or law enforcement to
have to form the teams, and therefore he liked the "may"
language. He noted his further agreement with including the
"near-fatal incidents" language, which would allow more latitude
in the investigation should the fatality review team be
implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated the need to have some expert
advice on this to be sure that the committee is doing the right
thing. He inquired as to Ms. de Lucia's opinion regarding the
adoption of the "serious physical injury" concept, which would
also allow the departments and the municipalities to decide
which cases warrant forming a team. Although Representative
Gara said he didn't know whether it's a good idea to expand it
further, he said he didn't understand why an expansion [to
include near-fatal incidents] wouldn't also include serious
physical injury because he didn't see a logical dividing point.
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the motion before the committee is
to keep the concept of "near-fatal incidents" in the
legislation, but to change it to "serious physical injury."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that with the adoption of
Amendment 4, the language on page 1, line 8, would read as
follows: "The investigation of fatal incidents and incidents
involving serious physical injury."
Number 1950
MS. de LUCIA agreed that "near-fatal incidents" isn't defined in
the statutes whereas "serious physical injury" is already
defined in the criminal code. Furthermore, "serious physical
injury" already has criminal repercussions associated with that
definition.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew his objection to Amendment 4.
CHAIR McGUIRE, upon determining there was no further objection,
announced that Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1890
REPRESENTATIVE OGG recalled the testimony that these fatality
review teams in other states were more effective at the
municipal or local level. Therefore, he requested that the
sponsor clarify that municipalities have precedent if the
municipality had a domestic violence fatality review team.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested inserting the word
"unorganized" on page 1, line 7, before "areas", which would
place the commissioner of DPS in the unorganized areas and the
municipalities in the organized areas.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned the existence of second class
cities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a situation in which the
individual [victim] is in Anchorage and DPS wants to convene a
fatality review team. He said he didn't see why that couldn't
occur. Representative Gruenberg agreed that it's already
implied.
Number 1809
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed the hope that someone let the
committee know if later it's determined that a different tact
than "serious physical injury" should've been taken.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed to work on that.
Number 1772
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved that the committee adopt Amendment
5, as follows:
Page 2, line 13, after "the"
Insert "office of the"
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 398 would be set aside, awaiting
the CS.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|