HOUSE BILL NO. 372 An Act relating to criminal sentencing and restitution. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on File]. The amendment would provide oversight to the Court System and would exempt out arson if a person had been put at risk. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that with current language, the Court would be able to define what "community" is. Representative J. Davies noted that he wanted to preclude any argument over that concern by including a definition. He reiterated that it is important that it is clarified. Representative J. Davies MOVED a change to Page 1, Line 13, adding, "In this section, community should be defined by the Court." REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON agreed that the Court would be able to define who is a "community" which would allow both sides, the perpetrator and the victim, the opportunity for input regarding the definition of community. That action would place the Court in the approving role. Co-Chair Therriault asked if there would be an expense incurred with the inclusion of "approved". Representative J. Davies acknowledged that both sides would have to agree to the process in order to move forward. Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the definition of what "community". there being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted. Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 372 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 372 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by Department of Corrections dated 3/30/00.