SB 101-DISASTERS: DEFINITION & FUND  CO-CHAIR DRUE PEARCE called the 3rd Conference Committee on SB 101 to order at 9:37 a.m. Co-Chairs Pearce and Porter, Representatives Berkowitz and Mulder and Senator Elton were present. Representative Kapsner was also in attendance. CO-CHAIR PEARCE informed committee members that a work draft, Version C, dated 1/14/00, was before the committee for consideration. CO-CHAIR PORTER moved to adopt Version C as the working document of the committee. There being no objection, Version C was adopted as the proposed CCSSB 101 (3d CC). CO-CHAIR PEARCE asked Mary Gore to explain the changes made in the proposed CCSSB 101 (3d CC) to committee members. MARY GORE, legislative aide to Senator Mike Miller, explained that Section 4(b) on page 3 of CCS SB 101(2d CC) was longer and required the legislature to come back into session anytime a disaster is declared. At the request of House committee members on the 2nd conference committee, Section 4(b) was deleted in its entirety. Some of the language from Section 4(b) has been added to the proposed CCS SB 101(3d CC). That language follows existing statute and allows the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to notify the Governor that they do not consider a special session necessary when a disaster is declared. That language will prevent the legislature from having to convene in a special session every time a disaster is declared. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that Section 4(b) of one of the previous versions of SB 101 required the presiding officers to poll legislators about whether to convene a special session. He asked what the previous discussion was about that provision. MS. GORE thought the issue was one of timing. She pointed out that language was originally passed on the Senate side but it is one of the reasons the first conference committee report failed on the House floor. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that one problem with the language in the Z version was that the poll also required substantive discussion about the merits of a financing plan. He indicated he favors the idea of polling the members about whether a special session should occur. Number 319 CO-CHAIR PORTER said the version in front of the committee, sans the section that was not omitted due to an oversight, passed the House 40 to 0. He thought the new concerns expressed about the bill to be strange. SENATOR ELTON said he understands it is important that the conference committee address a discrete part of the bill but he does not want the conference committee to operate under the illusion that he considers this version to be a complete fix. CO-CHAIR PEARCE asked Senator Elton to explain his comment. SENATOR ELTON said he does not believe this version is a fix for how a disaster is defined. Number 415 CO-CHAIR PEARCE clarified that the question posed by Representative Berkowitz is whether or not the requirement that presiding officers have to poll their members should be put in statute. Version C requires the presiding officers to agree on whether or not a special session is necessary and so advise the governor. She stated she assumes that inherent in that requirement is the responsibility of the presiding officers to ask their members for their opinions and she suspects that always takes place. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said from a practical standpoint, the presiding officers will poll as many members as they can contact. He pointed out that during the interim it will be difficult to find all 40 members within five days therefore establishing that requirement in statute could be very problematic. He stated he agrees with that concept but he favors simplifying the requirement and supports Version C. CO-CHAIR PORTER noted the section that was deleted required the poll to be done in writing and the response to be received in writing. He maintained the disaster would be ancient history by the time the poll was complete. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the poll could be done by telephone, fax, or e-mail. Number 591 SENATOR ELTON said he does not think any Senator had a problem with that provision when it came to the Senate floor and does not recall any discussion about it. He said that nothing in the bill prohibits any member of the legislature from giving an opinion on the declaration to the presiding officer. CO-CHAIR PEARCE agreed and said that it has been her experience that the presiding officers, when presented with an issue that deals with an appropriation, talk to the Finance chairpersons first and/or to the sponsor of the legislation before any decision is made. She does not feel it is necessary to put the polling requirement in statute because she thinks a poll will take place anyway. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that the conference committee acknowledge that the intent is that the presiding officers will make an effort to communicate with the membership. CO-CHAIR PEARCE thought that would be fair and said that any presiding officer who does not do that does so at great risk. She acknowledged the arrival of Senator Pete Kelly and explained to him that the committee adopted Version C and was discussing whether it should adopt a statutory provision to be inserted on page 3, lines 10-12, that would require the presiding officers to poll their members. She said the committee has decided that inherent in this language is an expectation that the presiding officers will check with their members to see whether the members feel a special session is necessary and that is the committee's intent. There being no further discussion, REPRESENTATIVE MULDER moved the conference committee report for CCSSB 101(3d CC) to the respective bodies for approval. There being no objection, the motion carried.