03/16/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB114 | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| HB175 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2011
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to an opt-out charitable giving program offered
by an electric or telephone cooperative."
- HEARD & HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Judicial Council [Continued from 3/14/11]
Donald J. Haase - Valdez
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to an appearance before a judicial officer
after arrest; relating to penalties for operating a vehicle
without possessing proof of motor vehicle liability insurance or
a driver's license; relating to penalties for certain arson
offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 175(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 114
SHORT TITLE: OPT-OUT CHARITABLE GIVING PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THOMPSON
01/21/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/11 (H) L&C, JUD
02/07/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/11 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/14/11 (H) Moved CSHB 114(L&C) Out of Committee
02/14/11 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/11 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 6DP 1NR
02/16/11 (H) DP: THOMPSON, SADDLER, HOLMES, SEATON,
MILLER, OLSON
02/16/11 (H) NR: JOHNSON
02/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/25/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/16/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
02/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/11 (H) JUD, FIN
03/09/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/09/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/11 (H) PRIME SPONSOR CHANGED: JUDICIARY BY
REQUEST
03/14/11 (H) BILL REPRINTED 3/14/11
03/14/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/14/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE GALLAGHER, Public Relations Coordinator
Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 114.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
comments during discussion of HB 114.
GENE THERRIAULT, Vice President
Resource Development
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 114.
DONALD J. HAASE, Appointee
Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC).
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 175 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, the sponsor by request.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 175.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:01 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Keller,
Pruitt, Thompson, and Gruenberg were present at the call to
order. Representatives Holmes and Lynn arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 114 - OPT-OUT CHARITABLE GIVING PROGRAM
1:34:30 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 114, "An Act relating to an opt-out charitable
giving program offered by an electric or telephone cooperative."
[Before the committee was CSHB 114(L&C).]
1:35:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, speaking as the sponsor, explained that
the concept of HB 114 was brought to his attention by the Golden
Valley Electric Association (GVEA), noting that such "opt-out"
charitable giving programs have been around for many years, and
that more than 250 electric cooperatives across the country have
implemented similar programs - generally referred to as "round-
up" programs. Such programs enable individuals to contribute
small amounts of money to help build strong, local communities.
The program proposed by HB 114 is consistent with one of the
seven principles espoused by cooperatives, that being concern
for the community, which involves working for the sustainable
development of the community through policies approved by the
membership. The proposed program would allow a cooperative to
round up a member's monthly bill to the next dollar, so the
member's monthly charitable contribution could be as low as $.01
or as high as $.99. Such contributions, though small, add up
quickly, and funds collected are dispersed to qualified
organizations and individuals within the cooperative's service
district. These organizations and individuals are encouraged to
compete and to submit written applications outlining their level
of need and the possible benefits that could be obtained through
receipt of such funding - for example, an exam table for a
health clinic, new computers for a library, a microscope for an
elementary school, a vehicle for a fire department, grants for a
recreational center, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON relayed that most cooperatives
distribute such funds via the board of a separately-created
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation; such boards represent a cross
section of the membership, with each voting district being
represented. Most of the more than 250 cooperatives with a
charitable giving program have adopted an "opt-out" program
rather than an "opt-in" program, because research indicates that
opt-out programs have significantly higher member involvement,
with [up to] 90 percent member participation. He relayed that
under the bill, members can opt out of the program at any time -
either in person, in writing, or via the telephone or Internet -
and can request a refund of their donations for the prior three
years. The changes proposed by HB 114 would clarify a potential
conflict with AS 45.45.930, which pertains to opt-out marketing
plans. The bill would require cooperatives to obtain membership
approval before implementing an opt-out charitable giving
program, and require that the amount added to the monthly bill
be clearly identified on the monthly statement along with
information on how to opt out of the program. He noted that
CSHB 114(L&C) now contains language - in Section 2 - authorizing
an electric cooperative to provide weatherization and energy
efficiency products and services to members.
CHAIR GATTO said he isn't in favor of opt-out programs because
they can be easily abused, particularly with elderly customers,
and indicated that he would be voting against the bill. He said
he feels strongly that charitable giving programs shouldn't be
an opt-out program, because a person may not be aware enough of
the situation to opt out. Under the bill, he surmised, a member
of a cooperative would have to take an additional action in
order to prevent the cooperative from taking extra money from
him/her to fund a charity of its own choosing.
1:42:26 PM
JOE GALLAGHER, Public Relations Coordinator, Homer Electric
Association, Inc. (HEA), referring to Section 2 of CSHB
114(L&C), noted that Alaska's Electric and Telephone Cooperative
Act - AS 10.25 - currently allows cooperatives to finance the
purchase of electrical and plumbing appliances, equipment,
fixtures, and apparatus, and that the HEA has established a
"line of credit" program that's been in place for at least 20
years, allowing members to finance the purchase of eligible
items under the Act. Under the HEA's existing program, members
can borrow up to $5,000, pay the same amount of interest that
the HEA pays when it borrows money, have payments deducted
directly from their bank account, and must purchase products
from a vendor located within the HEA's service area and that is
also a member of the HEA.
MR. GALLAGHER relayed that over the last couple of years, the
HEA has been very active with its membership in promoting energy
efficiency, particularly given that 90 percent of the HEA's
product is generated from natural gas and is therefore subject
to rising fuel costs. As a result of increased electrical
rates, many of the HEA's members have been taking steps to make
weatherization and energy-efficiency improvements, and have been
expressing interest in using the HEA's line of credit program to
finance those improvements. Unfortunately, because of how the
Electric and Telephone Cooperative Act is currently worded, the
program cannot be used to finance weatherization and energy
efficiency products and services. [Section 2's proposed change
to AS 10.25.20(2)] would be very good for the HEA's members, he
concluded.
1:49:36 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), in response to questions, explained
that because provisions of AS 45.45 make it illegal to offer or
engage in an opt-out marketing plan to sell goods or services,
the question was raised regarding whether charitable donations
would be considered a good or service that's prohibited under AS
45.45. [When asked by the GVEA,] the DOL issued an informal
opinion indicating that such donations probably would be
prohibited, and so the GVEA developed the concept of HB 114 -
with help from the DOL regarding specific language - in order to
resolve that potential conflict in favor of allowing opt-out
charitable giving programs.
MR. SNIFFEN said that although opt-out programs are generally
considered bad things in terms of consumer protection, the type
of program authorized by HB 114 is very different, containing
none of the ills associated with traditional opt-out programs
but providing fairly significant protections to consumers. For
example, under HB 114, if a member finds out later that he/she
has been giving money mistakenly, he/she can get a refund. In
response to a question, he offered his hope that HB 114 wouldn't
be seen as authorizing any other type of opt-out program,
surmising that any such would have to be vetted by the
legislature first. He went on to say that one of the problems
with HB 114 is that although the GVEA has given this issue a lot
of thought and is a responsible company and has a model plan in
place that it intends to go forward with, a lot of the things
that the GVEA would be doing under its plan aren't required
under the bill, and the other cooperatives might not administer
their programs in the same way, and so it could take a while to
see whether those other cooperatives were trying to abuse the
system via such programs.
CHAIR GATTO expressed disfavor with authorizing any type of opt-
out program.
1:56:07 PM
GENE THERRIAULT, Vice President, Resource Development, Golden
Valley Electric Association (GVEA), assured the committee that
the program the GVEA's membership has approved is not an opt-out
marketing plan. He relayed that the GVEA has spoken with the
sponsor of the legislation that prohibited opt-out marketing
plans selling goods or services, and the sponsor indicated that
his legislation was not intended to also prohibit opt-out
charitable giving programs. Mr. Therriault confirmed that the
DOL had issued an opinion indicating that an opt-out charitable
giving program might conflict with provisions of AS 45.45, and
relayed that the GVEA, via HB 114, is simply asking for a
clarification. He proffered that one of the things that
differentiates the proposed program from an opt-out marketing
program is that a round-up opt-out charitable giving program
such as would be authorized by the bill could only be
implemented after an affirmative response from a cooperative's
membership. In the case of the GVEA, 70 percent of its
membership voted in favor of starting a round-up opt-out
charitable giving program. Furthermore, the bill only applies
to electric or telephone cooperatives, which already have
statutory standards in place for polling members.
MR. THERRIAULT, in response to a question, indicated that the
GVEA chose an opt-out program rather than an opt-in program
because research indicated that the level of participation was
greater with an opt-out program.
CHAIR GATTO acknowledged that an opt-out program would be more
successful at raising funds.
MR. THERRIAULT, too, noted that the bill also requires a
cooperative to clearly notify its members regarding how to opt
out, and requires that a member's contributions for the prior
three years be refunded if he/she requests. He offered his
belief that the bill's requirements would ensure that only those
charities that have broad support in a community would get
chosen as a recipient by the board responsible for distributing
the funds.
CHAIR GATTO recounted how his mother, an elderly widow with some
dementia living alone in New York City, was taken advantage of
by a telephone utility through the use of an opt-out program.
His concern, he relayed, is that people won't take the steps to
opt out even though they don't want to be participating in a
particular program. Opting in is the better approach, he
opined, since even now utilities take advantage of their
customers through the use of opt-out programs.
MR. THERRIAULT offered his belief that the requirements of the
bill would limit the types of abuse that could occur. For
example, under the bill, people could either officially opt out
or just choose not to pay the extra, rounded up amount listed on
their monthly statements. In response to a question, he noted
that the bill would only apply to cooperatives, which are
controlled by their membership.
CHAIR GATTO announced that [CSHB 114(L&C)] would be held over.
^Confirmation Hearing(s):
Confirmation Hearing(s):
^Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Judicial Council
2:06:53 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the committee would next consider the
appointment of Donald J. Haase to the Alaska Judicial Council
(AJC).
2:07:59 PM
DONALD J. HAASE, Appointee, Alaska Judicial Council (AJC),
relayed that his few interactions with the courts have all been
brief and positive - two adoptions, one stint as a juror, and
one speeding ticket; that his educational background provided
him with an understanding of how the judicial system is designed
to work and sparked his interest in serving on the AJC; and that
he's gained experience participating in public meetings and at
weighing all sides of an issue through his work on the City of
Valdez Planning & Zoning Commission and is currently serving his
second term as chair, that he's recently had an opportunity to
talk with Alaskans from many walks of life while campaigning for
a seat on the Alaska State Legislature, and that he now has a
broader perspective on life than he had as a young man as the
result of his being a father. He offered his belief that as a
result of all his experience, he is now more thoughtful,
forward-looking, and inclusive.
MR. HAASE opined that it's vastly important for Alaska to have a
slate of unbiased, thoughtful, and considerate judges, and
assured the committee that if he is confirmed, that that's what
he would be striving to ensure. Referring to an issue raised
during the committee's last meeting, he again acknowledged that
during his recent campaign for a legislative seat, he'd
responded affirmatively to the following question on a
questionnaire distributed by [Alaska Family Action, the lobbying
arm of the Alaska Family Council]:
Would you support a state constitutional amendment
that would allow the Governor the same leeway for
appointing state judges as the U.S. President has for
appointing federal judges, i.e., the Governor could
nominate any candidate of his or her choosing for a
judicial vacancy, and such nominee would have to be
confirmed by the Alaska Senate?
MR. HAASE noted that several other candidates did so as well,
including several current members of the legislature. In
response to questions regarding "area representation" as
referenced in Article IV, Section 8, of the Alaska State
Constitution - the provision addressing the makeup of the AJC -
Mr. Haase offered his understanding that neither Valdez nor any
other community in the Prince William Sound area has been
represented on the AJC; that the Second Judicial District -
which spans the most northern and northwestern area of the state
- has historically had less representation than the other three
judicial districts; that the First Judicial District - which
spans Southeast Alaska - is currently represented; and that he
would be representing the Third Judicial District. In response
to comments and questions regarding political ties, he said he
doesn't consider having a partisan background as necessarily
being a problem in terms of serving on the AJC, noted that one
past member of the AJC had such a background, and relayed that
he resigned from the Republican Party's central committee in
2008, and resigned from the board of Eagle Forum Alaska in
December 2010.
2:23:19 PM
MR. HAASE, in response to further comments and questions,
assured the committee that he wants to see a balanced judiciary,
and ventured that his political views, as they relate to the
questions asked on the aforementioned questionnaire, wouldn't be
relevant with regard to his duties on the AJC because his
responses to that questionnaire only reflected what he, as a
candidate for State House, wished to see happen in the
legislature. He assured the committee that should he be
confirmed as a member of the AJC, he would put forward the names
of only the most qualified judicial candidates. He then pointed
out that in Article I of the AJC's bylaws, Section 1 -
Concerning Selection of Justices, Judges, and Public Defender -
says in part, "The Council shall actively encourage qualified
members of the bar to seek nomination to such offices, shall
endeavor to prevent political considerations from outweighing
fitness"; and that Section 2 - Concerning Retention of Judges -
says in part, "The Council shall endeavor to prevent political
considerations from outweighing fitness in the judicial
retention recommendation process".
MR. HAASE, in continued response, noted that although the AJC is
required to forward the names of at least two judicial
candidates, he would tend towards sending up more names rather
than fewer, with the main criteria being how qualified each
candidate was; that he doesn't anticipate running for a seat on
the Alaska State Legislature again, and only did so in 2010 in
order to fill a gap left by a friend of his; that while serving
on the board of Eagle Forum Alaska, he was responsible for
moderating the organization's "blog" and posting the comments of
others on it, and although he may have perhaps agreed with most
of the comments, he didn't write them himself; and that he
wouldn't characterize any of the judges he's dealt with or met
as being too liberal, nor would he be using any such criteria
when deciding which names to forward on to the governor.
2:31:45 PM
MR. HAASE relayed that what he would be looking for in a
judicial candidate would be his/her interpersonal skills,
because he wants judges who have an ability to make all sides
feel that they'd been heard and understood and were treated
fairly regardless of the trial outcome. Such an ability is much
more important than a candidate's political views, he opined,
particularly since judges don't have much power to change a
particular political situation anyway, and so his hope is that a
judge is going to make his/her decisions based on the facts of
the case, not his/her personal views. In response to further
questions, Mr. Haase indicated that when making a decision
regarding which names to forward, he wouldn't be considering
judicial candidates' political views, whether they were
divorced, what their sexual orientation was, or whether they
were male or female; instead, he would be choosing only the
names of the most qualified judicial candidates to send forward.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his hope that at some point
the interview process for judicial candidates would be held in a
public-meeting format so that the public could learn about
candidates' qualifications and what AJC members are looking for
in a candidate.
MR. HAASE offered his understanding that currently it's up to
the individual candidate to decide whether he/she wants a public
interview or a private interview, and said he tends to agree
that conducting meetings out in the open is best, though he
could understand that some candidates might be a bit shy and
feel nervous in front of a large crowd.
2:40:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Donald J. Haase as appointee to the Alaska
Judicial Council. There being no objection, the confirmation
was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR GATTO reminded members that signing the reports regarding
appointments to boards and commissions in no way reflects
individual members' approval or disapproval of the appointees,
and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:41 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.
HB 175 - COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
2:43:21 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act relating to an appearance before a
judicial officer after arrest; relating to penalties for
operating a vehicle without possessing proof of motor vehicle
liability insurance or a driver's license; relating to penalties
for certain arson offenses; amending Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
2:43:38 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), explained
that [Sections 1, 2, and 6 of HB 175 - pertaining respectively
to AS 12.25.150, rights of prisoner after arrest, AS 12.70.130,
arrest without warrant of a person charged with a crime in
another state, and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, proceedings before the judge or magistrate - would
conform those provisions of law to reflect changes made last
year via House Bill 324. Specifically, that bill last year
increased the timeframe - from 24 hours to 48 hours - in which a
person must be brought before a judicial officer after being
arrested;] unfortunately, that bill, although it changed the
court rule to reflect the new deadline, neglected to also make
conforming changes to AS 12.25.150 and AS 12.70.130. In
response to questions, she indicated that a person might have
his/her charges dismissed, depending on the circumstances, if
he/she isn't brought before a judicial officer within the
required timeframe; and relayed that law enforcement agencies
and the Department of Corrections (DOC) are still following the
statute's requirement of 24 hours rather than the court rule's
requirement of 48 hours.
2:45:41 PM
MS. CARPENETI explained that [Section 3 - pertaining to AS
28.15.131, license to be carried and exhibited on demand - would
conform that statute to current court rules - Alaska Rules of
Administration - which provide that not having one's valid
driver's license in one's possession while driving is merely a
correctable infraction, with bail set at $50, rather than a
class B misdemeanor. Section 4 - pertaining to AS 28.22.019,
proof of insurance to be carried and exhibited on demand [and]
penalty - would similarly conform that statute to current court
rules - Alaska Rules of Administration - which provide that not
having proof of insurance in one's possession while driving is
merely a correctable infraction, with a mandatory fine of $500,
rather than a class B misdemeanor with a discretionary minimum
fine of $500].
MS. CARPENETI explained that [Section 5 - pertaining to AS
41.23.220, penalty for committing violations in the Knik River
Public Use Area - would conform that statute to AS 11.46.420,
pertaining to the crime arson in the third degree. Enacted in
2006, AS 41.23.220 and associated regulations provided that
burning a vehicle in the Knik River Public Use Area would be a
violation, with a bail amount of $50; in contrast, when enacted
in 2008, AS 11.46.420 provided that burning a vehicle on state
or municipal land would be a class C felony property crime.
Under Section 5, all burning of vehicles in public areas would
be a class C felony, and this is in keeping with the latest
expression of legislative intent as evidenced by the enactment
of AS 11.46.420]. In response to questions, she indicated that
AS 11.46.420 doesn't apply in situations involving private land.
2:53:33 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
questions, acknowledging that the bill is only providing for
conforming changes to those made last year, shared his concern
that the [existing] 48-hour timeframe in which a person must be
brought before a judicial officer after being arrested could
result in the person having to remain in jail longer than
necessary, particularly in situations involving lower-level
offenses and particularly if waiting the entire 48 hours becomes
the standard operating procedure for law enforcement. He
expressed his hope that in the majority of cases, a person would
be brought before a judicial officer within 24 hours and a delay
to 48 hours would only occur in the few cases where it's truly
necessary.
MS. CARPENETI noted that the existing language of AS
12.25.150(a) - found in Section 1 of the bill - says in part, "A
person arrested shall be taken before a judge or magistrate
without unnecessary delay", and relayed that most entities
involved in the criminal justice system are already geared up to
meet a 24-hour deadline, but there are a few situations in which
that doesn't provide enough time for all parties involved in the
case, including the victim. Again, the law would still require
that no unnecessary delay occur between the person's arrest and
his/her initial judicial hearing.
CHAIR GATTO, in response to a question, expressed a preference
for not delaying the bill, given that it's only addressing
conforming changes.
3:04:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 1,
labeled 27-ls0579\A.1, Gardner, 3/14/11, which read:
Page 3, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
SEVERABILITY. Under AS 01.10.030, if any
provision of this Act, or the application of it to any
person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder
of this Act and the application to other persons or
circumstances is not affected."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that Amendment 1 would
preclude any potential problems pertaining to severability from
arising.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, indicated her belief
that Alaska's general severability clause would already apply if
the issue were raised, but acknowledged that the adoption of
Amendment 1 wouldn't hurt.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected, and expressed a concern that
adopting Amendment 1 could unnecessarily "red flag" the issue of
severability. He then removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just wants to be sure that the
court understands [it could simply sever those provisions of the
bill it finds to be unconstitutional and leave the other
provisions intact].
CHAIR GATTO, upon ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 175, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
175(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
3:07:41 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB114 Fiscal Note CS(LC)-LAW-CIV-03-11-11.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 114 |
| HB114 Supporting Documents-Article Goodcents 03-2011.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 114 |
| HB175 Proposed Amendment A.1 03-14-11.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| Donald J. Haase Campaign Information.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Eagle Forum Posts.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Judicial Council Composition.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Donald J. Haase Resume.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |