HB 6-REMOVING A REGENT  2:04:15 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 6 and asked for a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), version G. 2:04:41 PM SENATOR PASKVAN moved to adopt Senate CS for CSHB 6, labeled 27- LS0027\G, as the working document. CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, version G was before the committee. 2:05:06 PM TED MADSEN, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, explained that the Board of Regents suggested the following changes to CSHB 6(JUD)am: Section 1 - Subsection (a) paragraph (3) states that it is not clear whether the Board of Regents has the constitutional authority to suspend or remove a regent. Section 1 also has one grammatical change. Section 2 - subsection (a) paragraph (4) makes the suspension procedure, in the case of a complaint of malfeasance or nonfeasance in office, more rigorous. Three things are required: 1) a sworn complaint, 2) the governor must investigate the complaint, and 3) find "probable cause" to proceed further and suspend the regent. New language in this subsection will prohibit proceedings based on political differences or the discretionary performance of a lawful act or a prescribed duty. For example, a student would not be able to lodge a complaint and have a regent suspended because he or she disagreed with a tuition increase. 2:07:01 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked if this was in response to a March 9 letter that, in his view, made good points. MR. MADSEN said yes, and the sponsor worked closely with the legislative liaison to try to accommodate the concerns. Section 2 - subsection (a) paragraph (5) requires a formal allegation or charge by a licensing board to proceed through a suspension proceeding. This makes the procedure more rigorous. Section 2 - subsection (d) requires the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearings and the administrative law judge issues the decision. This is a way to insulate the Board of Regents from political directions from the governor. Section 2 - subsection (g) paragraph (5) clarifies that a violation of a professional or occupational licensing statute or regulation that results in the revocation or suspension of a professional or occupational license that is related to the regent's ability to serve, will be grounds for suspension or removal of a regent. Section 3 is a new section. It includes removal and suspension of a regent in the list of hearings conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings. 2:09:10 PM CHAIR FRENCH reviewed the process when a regent commits wrongdoing: someone files a complaint, the governor finds there is probable cause, and the trial takes place in from of an administrative law judge. MR. MADSEN clarified that the trial takes place in front of the Office of Administrative Hearings. SENATOR COGHILL referred to page 4, lines 16-19, and asked if there was any discretion with regard to violating a licensing statute or regulation. He mentioned paying a late fee on a license as opposed to blatantly violating a licensing practice. MR. MADSEN replied it would have to relate to a regent's fitness to serve as a regent. He opined that late payment of a fee would not rise to that occasion. SENATOR COGHILL asked how serious the violation would have to be for a regent to be unfit to serve. MR. MADSEN offered his understanding that if the regent was a lawyer, for example, the violation would have to be something like a breach of trust or a crime of dishonesty that would result in the person losing their license to practice law. SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the applicability section because it would apply to conduct that occurred before the effective date. MR. MADSEN said the applicability section seeks to capture wrongdoing that was under investigation before the effective date of the Act. SENATOR COGHILL asked if a regent had ever been dismissed. MR. MADSEN said no. Several years ago, Mr. Hayes stepped down but he was not dismissed. SENATOR COGHILL said he always wonders about a fishing expedition when a bill applies to conduct that occurred on or before the effective date. 2:13:50 PM CHAIR FRENCH agreed that caution was warranted when administering a penalty for conduct that occurred before the penalty phase was laid out. SENATOR COGHILL said he'd like to know if there was a better way to word the applicability section. CHAIR FRENCH said he would hold HB 6 in committee to provide time to discuss the matter with Legislative Legal and the Department of Law (DOL).