Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/10/2003 10:10 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2003
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative John Coghill
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act excluding service contracts from regulation as
insurance; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 120(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to executive sessions of legislative
bodies; and providing for an effective date for the amendment.
- MOVED CSHCR 7(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature providing that the 2000 edition of "Mason's Manual
of Legislative Procedure" shall implement the rules; and
providing for an effective date for the amendments.
- MOVED CSHCR 16(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE:SERVICE CONTRACT SALES ARE NOT INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/24/03 0286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/24/03 0286 (H) L&C
03/05/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/05/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/12/03 (H) L&C AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/12/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/19/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/19/03 (H) Moved CSHB 120(L&C) Out of
Committee
03/19/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/03 0602 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 4DP 1NR
03/20/03 0602 (H) DP: DAHLSTROM, ROKEBERG,
LYNN, ANDERSON
03/20/03 0602 (H) NR: GUTTENBERG
03/20/03 0602 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.L&C/CED)
03/25/03 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HCR 7
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM RULES: EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/18/03 0229 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/18/03 0229 (H) RLS
04/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HCR 16
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM RULES; MASON'S MANUAL EDITION
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/04/03 0768 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/03 0768 (H) RLS
04/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
120, Representative Coghill.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal advice on HCR 7 and HCR 16.
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HCR 16, explained
difficulties related to using 1979 edition of the "Mason's
Manual of Legislative Procedure."
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. Representatives Rokeberg, Kott,
Coghill, McGuire, Morgan, and Berkowitz were present at the call
to order. Representative Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 120-SERVICE CONTRACT SALES ARE NOT INSURANCE
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act excluding service contracts from
regulation as insurance; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt CSHB 120, Version 23-
LS0537\V, Ford, 4/8/03, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version V was before the committee.
Number 0125
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill. Ms. Moss explained that HB 120
basically exempts service contracts from state statute. [The
Division of Insurance] was concerned that some premium taxes now
collected for home warranties would be lost. Therefore, HB 120
was amended such that those premium taxes on home warranties
will continue to be collected by the division, however, those
selling home warranties won't be required to be licensed to sell
insurance. She noted that there are two amendments for the
committee to consider. [Amendment 1] reads as follows:
Page 2, line 18:
DELETE: ", or a part of the household structure"
INSERT: after "system,", insert "or"
Line 18 would then read:
"limited to a household system or appliance."
MS. MOSS explained that [Amendment 1] should solve the concerns
that the Division of Insurance has with regard to conflict
between home service contracts and home warranties.
Number 0248
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MS. MOSS offered Amendment 2, which read:
Page 2, line 19.
Insert:
(3) is not a contract of insurance under Alaska law.
MS. MOSS explained that Amendment 2 adds the above provision to
explain that under Alaska law a service contract isn't a
contract of insurance. In response to Representative Berkowitz,
Ms. Moss clarified that Amendment 2 would add paragraph (3)
under Section 1 and thus Section 2 would move down.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He then inquired as to the
[definition]of a contract of insurance and asked what attaches
when a contract of insurance exists.
MS. MOSS informed the committee that [Amendment 2] was a
suggestion from an attorney who is dealing with service
contracts throughout the country. She related her understanding
that [Amendment 2] attempts to clarify that service contracts
are much different from actual contracts of insurance.
Insurance covers repair or replacement from perils such as
fires, earthquakes, et cetera whereas service contracts cover
repair or replacement from faulty parts or normal wear and tear.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that this is an explicit
clarification.
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a problem that this
legislation is attempting to rectify.
MS. MOSS replied yes. She explained that there are people
selling service contracts who are unaware of the fact that the
Division of Insurance has, for at least eight years, interpreted
service contracts as insurance and [the seller] should have a
license to sell insurance. When someone purchases an appliance
or radio from Fred Meyer and the cashier asks if the consumer
wants an extended warranty or service contract, the [business]
is actually violating state statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the special protections
that the consumer would receive when the service contract is
considered insurance.
MS. MOSS answered that she wasn't sure there were any special
protections because the only folks aware that the service
contracts are supposed to be insurance is the Division of
Insurance. In further response to Representative Berkowitz, Ms.
Moss specified that this problem was brought forward by some of
the folks selling these service contracts. The sellers of these
service contracts don't feel that they are selling insurance or
covering the recovery of damages from natural disasters or other
areas covered under insurance.
CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected that this legislation is for a
service contract that has legal protections under the contract
not as insurance. This legislation attempts to draw a bright
line between what's insurance and what's a contract obligation.
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Berkowitz, explained
that the language in HB 120 is patterned after language that has
been adopted by about six states. This [delineation between
service contracts and insurance] is a nationwide trend.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he was unclear with regard to
what the term "contract of insurance" means. As a term of art,
"contract of insurance" could include product warranties, he
said.
MS. MOSS said that perhaps the language [in Amendment 2] should
say, "a service contract is not insurance in Alaska law." She
noted that insurance is regulated by Title 21.
Number 0687
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), said that the things
covered [in this legislation] for service contracts are perils
that aren't typically covered in an insurance contract, such as
wear and tear, mechanical failure, and power surges. Normally,
an insurance policy includes a list of perils that is really the
insurance contract and those perils are different than those
covered by the service contract.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ posed a situation in which a business
sought to insure its computers against power surges. He asked
if there would be a conflict if the business had an insurance
contract with an insurance company for that purpose. In other
words, would the business purchase a service contract from an
insurance company, he asked.
MS. HALL replied no. Generally, insurance specifically excludes
power surges, she noted. She agreed that there is nothing
excluding the business from purchasing insurance [that includes]
power surges. However, she said that she wasn't aware of
insurance companies that sell coverage for power surges.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that one could purchase
insurance for defects in materials, workmanship, or normal wear
and tear, all of which he characterized as fairly standard
[coverage under insurance].
MS. HALL pointed out that typically [coverage for defects in
materials, workmanship, or normal wear and tear] are
specifically excluded in a standard insurance policy. Your
personal computer would be covered under the homeowner's policy.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised that if a service contract is
defined as [specified in HB 120], would there be the risk that a
personal computer at home wouldn't be covered under the
homeowner's insurance because [the personal computer] is now
excluded as part of the service contract.
MR. HALL answered that she didn't believe that it would have an
effect on changing exclusions on a homeowner's contract.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:32 a.m. to 10:34 a.m.
Number 0885
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee that insurance
is defined in AS 21.90.900(23), which reads: "(23) "insurance"
means a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or
pay or provide a specified or determinable amount or benefit
upon determinable contingencies". He expressed concern that the
definition of the service contract excludes insurance and if
there is an inconsistency between the definitions of service
contract and insurance, there may be ambiguities in the law.
CHAIR ROKEBERG related that subsection (e) is basically the
bill. This is an attempt to define what is and is not
insurance, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that the language proposed in
[Amendment 2] is really to specify what a service contract is
not.
CHAIR McGUIRE related her initial thought to insert the phrase
"a service contract is not a contract of insurance under Alaska
law". However, now she realizes that the [language suggested in
Amendment 2] does modify the earlier definition of service
contract and thus is appropriate. She noted that she maintained
her motion to adopt Amendment 2.
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
However, he requested that the department review whether there
are legal issues that would arise from incompatible definitions
of service contracts and insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL assured the committee that if there are
incompatibilities he would work on [correcting them].
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1034
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern with regard to the
definition of household structure excluding insurance for home
warranties. She pointed out that the language seems broad and
makes her nervous.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee adopted Amendment
1, which should address her concern.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that [with the adoption of
Amendment 1] home warranty now means a warranty that covers the
entire home.
CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that [the home warranty
wouldn't include] a roof, foundation, or floor.
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that those could be service contracts
that stand alone or could be part of a home warranty. The idea
is to allow home warranties to remain as insurance products
while the component parts [falls under] a service contract.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his belief that the entire home
is an aggregate of its component parts.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the language specifies
that a service contract doesn't include the home warranty that
covers the entire home. She inquired as to the statutory
definition of "household system."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted that subparagraphs (A)-(C)
[under Section 1] describe what is intended by service contract
and thus would be the direction for determining the systems
[included].
MS. MOSS noted that there was some thought to listing household
systems. However, Legislative Legal and Research Services was
concerned that such a list might exclude something [merely] by
not including it on the list.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that this [legislation] will rely on
common sense.
Number 1296
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she understood the intent, but
pointed out that the language on page 2, lines 7-8 sort of
confuses it. She offered to work with the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered to work with the sponsor with
regard to the entire home being an aggregate of all the
household systems.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he was willing to entertain
discussions on these matters. However, he reminded the
committee that these things will be addressed in contractual
language. [This legislation] attempts to address what will be
regulated.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that on page 2, lines 26-27, "home warranty"
is not included and "home warranty" does have a statutory
definition.
Number 1906
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt the House
Rules Standing Committee fiscal note. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSHB 120, Version 23-
LS0537\V, Ford, 4/8/03, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 120(RLS) was reported from the
House Rules Standing Committee.
HCR 7-UNIFORM RULES: EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Proposing an amendment to
the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to
executive sessions of legislative bodies; and providing for an
effective date for the amendment.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Chair, House State Affairs
Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the
Chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, the sponsor
of HCR 7. Representative Weyhrauch said that he introduced HCR
7 based on his experience in the House State Affairs Standing
Committee in regard to dealing with an overview of homeland
security. In working the homeland security issue with the
committee and the administration, he said he had asked Tamara
Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, to put
together a legal basis for the House State Affairs Standing
Committee to go into executive session because there was nothing
in the legislative rules that allowed discussion of matters of
homeland security during an executive session.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH explained that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee went into executive session based on a couple
of Alaska Statutes and the desire to have a secure and
confidential overview of homeland security. The review of
homeland security issues in Alaska is a tense matter involving
almost every agency of the state as well as private sector
groups such as the pipeline, the Alaska Marine Highway System,
the U.S. Coast Guard, private security firms, power companies,
et cetera. The committee wanted to add something to the Uniform
Rules that would allow committees to go into executive session.
Therefore, HCR 7 amends Uniform Rule 22(b) to allow paragraph
(4), which reads: "discussion of a matter that affects the
security of the state or nation, or that affects the security of
a governmental unit or agency."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted his support of Representative
Weyhrauch's effort in this regard. It's preferable to provide
more clarity with regard to when committee's can go into
executive session as well as the reasons for doing so, he said.
Number 1627
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that the language of
new paragraph (4) seems fairly broad. She asked if any thought
had been given to adding the modifier "adversely" before
"affects".
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said that she wasn't sure "adversely
affects" would accomplish what Representative Kerttula wants.
Perhaps, the language should read "discussion of a matter the
public knowledge of which would adversely effect ...."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed that Ms. Cook's suggestion would
be more appropriate. She inquired as to the sponsor's reaction.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that there is an important balance
between doing the public's business in the open and having
enough information as a policy body to hear confidential matters
to make policy beneficial to the public.
Number 1789
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA discussed a conceptual amendment that
would change paragraph (4) to read as follows: "discussion of a
matter that the public knowledge of which would adversely affect
the security of the state or nation, or that adversely affects
the security of the governmental unit or agency."
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the word "adversely" isn't
necessary because there are other principles at work.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA disagreed and related her belief that
inclusion of "adversely" is important.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that paragraph (1) under
Section 1(b) uses the word "adversely". However, he wasn't
aware of areas in which a committee would want to go into
executive session when there wasn't an adverse affect with
regard to the topic of security.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that paragraph (4) could be
conceptually amended to read: "for discussion of a matter the
public knowledge of would adversely affect the security of the
state or nation or adversely affect the security of a
governmental unit or agency."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved that the committee adopt the
conceptual amendment stated by Representative Weyhrauch. There
being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 1901
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCR 7 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR 7(RLS) was
reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
HCR 16-UNIFORM RULES; MASON'S MANUAL EDITION
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 16, Proposing amendments to
the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature providing that
the 2000 edition of "Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure"
shall implement the rules; and providing for an effective date
for the amendments.
CHAIR ROKEBERG spoke as the chair of the House Rules Standing
Committee, the sponsor of HCR 16. He said that he wanted to
bring this issue before the legislature because it's very
important for members, particularly new members, to understand
the rules and procedures of the body. Chair Rokeberg explained
that currently the Alaska State Legislature is using the 1979
edition of "Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure". The 1979
edition is out of print, and therefore the legislature's Print
Shop has to print it. The 1989 and 2000 editions updated
"Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure" such that the language
is more gender neutral and deletes references to other political
subdivision bodies that may have used it. He indicated that any
resistance to adopting the new edition is perhaps related to the
comfort with the 1979 edition and reluctance to change.
Number 2029
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency,
agreed with the aforementioned difficulty in printing the 1979
edition. She noted that there is a zero fiscal note because
back in 2000 100 copies were purchased. About half of those
have been distributed; copies have been distributed to the
House, the Chief Clerk, and the Senate Secretary. The manual
still needs to be distributed to the Legislative Information
Offices (LIO) and the Senate. There should be a few extras, she
said. In checking with the National Council of State
Legislature (NCSL), there are about 70 chambers, she related,
that use "Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure". However,
Alaska is probably the only chamber using the 1979 version. In
response to Chair Rokeberg, Ms. Varni said that she didn't know
the cost of printing the 1979 edition.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that it's a fairly substantial
undertaking to print the 1979 edition.
Number 2112
CHAIR ROKEBERG highlighted that under Rule 55 of the Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, the Uniform Rules govern
and take precedent over "Mason's Manual of Legislative
Procedure". Therefore, HCR 16 actually refers to an adoption of
the changes to the Uniform Rules. He related his belief in the
importance of moving into the 21st century with the 2000
edition.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted his reluctance to change and
explained that he had tried to find any place in the 2000
edition that would have a shift in power. However, he
acknowledged that the Uniform Rules probably more specifically
address [the committee] make up. He said that to this point he
hasn't been able to find a problem with the 2000 edition. After
using both the 1979 and 2000 editions, he didn't believe that
there would be much difficulty in changing to the 2000 edition.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the article entitled "The
Thoroughly Modern Mason's Manual" reviews the changes between
the 1979 and 1989 editions, which is included in the committee
packet. This article discussed somewhat strengthening the hand
of the presiding officers, which Jack Chenoweth, Assistant
Revisor of Statutes, reviews in his January 17, 2003,
memorandum. From this memorandum, Chair Rokeberg said that he
couldn't find any significant power changes other than the snap
voting. Chair Rokeberg then referred to the [January 18, 2003]
memorandum from Ms. Cook. In that memorandum, Ms. Cook points
out that Section 650(5) of the 2000 edition adds an explicit
requirement: "The rules governing meetings of committees also
apply to subcommittees." Ms. Cook says, "Note that the
provision might have the effect of requiring subcommittees to
comply with meeting notice requirements, such as the 'preceding
Thursday' rule now normally applied only to full committee
meetings. See also paragraph (9) added in the 2000 version,
limiting the power of a committee to take up a matter referred
to a subcommittee." Chair Rokeberg expressed concern with
regard to the aforementioned change because of the possible
slowing of the process if subcommittees followed the Uniform
Rules for notification.
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, pointed out that the question of
subcommittees is currently not addressed in the Uniform Rules.
The word "subcommittee" isn't used in the Uniform Rules. She
explained that the legislature's practice has been that
subcommittees adhere to the principle of open meetings, although
subcommittees don't generally comply with Uniform Rule 23, the
notice requirements. The preceding Thursday rule is the most
difficult for subcommittees. Ms. Cook related her experience
that the legislature hasn't held subcommittees to [Uniform Rule
23] but have been held then to reasonable notice such that
members know to attend and the public following the matter have
some chance to attend the meeting.
MS. COOK pointed out that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics is charged with forming guidelines for open meetings and
have come forward with a series of guidelines. However, those
guidelines have never been adopted by the legislature. She
informed the committee that in all the guidelines she has seen,
the guidelines treat subcommittees as strictly as the Uniform
Rules are with committees. Still, Ms. Cook felt that would be
difficult for the legislature to adhere to during the press of
business. She indicated that if subcommittees follow the same
notification rules as the standing committees, it will take a
long time before the subcommittee could report back to the full
committee in order for the full committee to act on the matter.
Therefore, perhaps HCR 16 could also address the notice
requirement for subcommittees in some fashion.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted his understanding that the Uniform Rules as
well as custom and tradition of the body can take precedent over
"Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure."
TAPE 03-2, SIDE B
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that he didn't want to create tension with
the adoption of the 2000 edition. He asked if the 2000 edition
would take precedent and require that subcommittees follow the
same notice provisions as other committees if the Uniform Rules
were silent on the matter.
MS. COOK answered that the argument could be made. She echoed
earlier testimony that the Uniform Rules control. She
explained, "The question is: given the fact that the Uniform
Rules does not address the notice required of subcommittees but
does address the notice requirement of committees, can one
logically take the position that because our Uniform Rules
specifically says 'committees shall provide the following
notice' by implication that means that subcommittees do not have
to follow it, and therefore the Uniform Rules preempt Mason's."
She characterized it as a tenuous argument, although she said it
wasn't an impossible ruling to see.
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to Ms. Cook's recommendation. He
said that it's not the committee's intention to slow the
process. Should the Uniform Rules be amended to address this
issue or should the record merely be left to stand, he asked.
MS. COOK responded that if the matter is left silent, the
legislature will undoubtedly wrestle with this matter and solve
it one way or another. Perhaps the Select Committee on Ethics
will eventually develop guidelines that address subcommittees in
a more favorable fashion. If the committee is interested in
proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules, Ms. Cook proposed
amending Uniform Rule 23 saying that Uniform Rule 23 notice
requirements do not apply to subcommittees, but subcommittees
shall provide reasonable public notice under the circumstances.
Ms. Cook asked if while the notice requirements for
subcommittees are being addressed, should she also address
conference committees in the same manner. She pointed out that
conference committees do, in fact, provide reasonable notice
under the circumstances.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that would be consistent with the
legislature's practice.
MS. COOK said that she could easily draft a section specifying
that subcommittees and conference committees shall give
reasonable notice under the circumstances.
Number 2251
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment stating, "Uniform Rule 23 does not apply to
subcommittees and conference committees but that reasonable
notice will be given under the circumstances." There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced his intention to move this resolution
today and bring it before the full body. He related his
understanding from Representative Berkowitz that the Minority is
conceptually in consent [with the passage of HCR 16]. He
explained that the resolution has an effective date of July 2003
and thus taking it up this year will provide the membership an
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the 2000 edition and
transition before the next session.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted her support of HCR 16. She related
her belief that the 2000 edition is reflective of how
legislatures currently conduct business.
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that staff had suggested that perhaps
an immediate effective date [for the change to] Uniform Rule 23
would be appropriate. However, he said he didn't believe it
would be necessary because there shouldn't be any problem with
the current rules. The issue would be created after the
adoption of the 2000 edition.
MS. COOK agreed.
Number 2110
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCR 16 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR 16(RLS) was
reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|