HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

 

January 20, 2003   Hearing Room 357

1:00 pm Tapes 7 - 8

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Max Williams, Chair

Rep. Robert Ackerman, Vice-Chair

Rep. Gordon Anderson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Jeff  Barker

                                                Rep. Bob Jenson

Rep. Jerry Krummel

Rep. Greg Macpherson

Rep. Floyd Prozanski

Rep. Lane Shetterly

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Bill Taylor, Counsel

                                                Craig Prins, Counsel

                                                Bill Joseph, Counsel

Ann Martin, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            Measure Introduction: LC 363, 1770

                                                HB 2177 Public Hearing

                                                HB 2050 Public Hearing

                                                HB 2057 Public Hearing

                                                HB 2099 Public Hearing

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

Tape 7, A

002

Chair Williams

Calls the meeting to order at 1:24 pm.

008

Bill Taylor

Committee Counsel. Introduces Legislative Counsel LC drafts 363 and 1770 (EXHIBITS A & B).

019

Chair Williams

MOTION:  Moves LC 363 BE INTRODUCED

as a committee bill.

 

 

VOTE:  9-0

021

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

026

Chair Williams

MOTION:  Moves LC 1770 BE INTRODUCED as a

committee bill.

 

 

VOTE:  9-0

028

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

038

Chair Williams

Opens a public hearing on HB 2177.

HB 2177 PUBLIC HEARING

048

Craig Prins

Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2177 which provides that inmates may not bring civil stalking action against officer, employee or agent of Department of Corrections for official conduct of officer, employee or agent. Submits definitions (EXHIBIT C).

061

Mitch Morrow

Assistant Director, Oregon Department of Corrections. Submits testimony (EXHIBIT D) and testifies in support of HB 2177.

091

Mary Botkin

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Testifies in support of HB 2177.

110

Jeff VanValkenburgh

Department of Justice. Testifies on HB 2177.

128

Chair Williams

Asks about the case in which the judge granted the order.

135

VanValkenburgh

Discusses the case and says that in most cases an inmate’s safety is not at risk in an institution and there are other remedies available.

159

Rep. Shetterly

Asks what the other claims were in that case.

161

VanValkenburgh

Identifies the other claims of the inmate.

199

Rep. Ackerman

Asks how the order was issued.

205

Van Valkenburgh

Says that a temporary court stalking order was issued based on the allegations made.

218

Rep. Prozanski

Asks in which county the actual incident occurred and if an affidavit had to be filed.

227

Van Valkenburgh

Answers that it was issued in Marion County and does not believe there was an affidavit filed.

232

Chair Williams

Says that Judge Lipscomb was the judge that issued the order, but could not attend today. Adds that Judge Lipscomb said the wording of the statute mandated that he issue the order.

252

Rep. Shetterly

Remarks that this was not a situation they had in mind when they adopted the stalking order, and questions what other options inmates have.

269

Van Valkenburgh

Informs that prior to this remedy being available, inmates have had recourse in a variety of ways and explains.

297

Rep. Shetterly

Notes that there are state and federal remedies available for real cases of abuse to inmates.

312

Rep. Prozanski

Asks for comments from witnesses on whether there should be affidavits required to be filed to support the allegations, and if an emergency clause would be appropriate for this legislation.

332

Van Valkenburgh

Answers that the Department of Justice has no position on this bill, and adds that it is inappropriate to have this extraordinary remedy apply in a prison. Says that an emergency clause might be effective.

365

Chair Williams

Asks about the language on page1, line 14, and if it will cause problems.

382

Van Valkenburgh

Stresses that they do have some concerns and discusses them.

401

Chair Williams

Wonders if there is a way to write the language so it is not so broad.

419

Rep. Shetterly

Emphasizes that the question of this committee is: do we want to make stalking orders available as a remedy to inmates.

TAPE 8, A

002

Chair Williams

Questions if an inmate on parole is considered an inmate for purposes of the statute.

008

Van Valkenburgh

Adds that there are also criminal stalking protective statutes and that is another piece to look at.

013

Morrow

Believes that once these issues get loose throughout our institutions there will be a tumbling effect and there will be many more cases to follow.

021

Botkin

Stresses that the professional men and women that work for the Department of Corrections do not tolerate inappropriate behavior among their colleagues towards inmates and explains that she does not think this bill is necessary. 

080

Ingrid Swenson

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (OCDLA). Testifies in support of HB 2177. Points out that the stalking bill is very broad. Says that there are ways of exempting corrections officers from inappropriate efforts by inmates to take this kind of action.

132

Rep. Krummel

Wonders if this situation happens a lot and asks about corrections officers’ scope of official duties.

143

Swenson

Believes that getting rid of the right to a stalking order is not the appropriate remedy.

153

Rep. Jenson

Asks if the implication here is that the inmate’s family would not have recourse under this statute if this bill was enacted.

160

Swenson

Answers that if the expansion that was discussed was added and the limitation on page 2 was removed, then the family member of the inmate might not have an appropriate remedy.

166

Rep. Barker

Explains that if it’s outside the scope of their official duties then the corrections officer would lose his job.

178

Swenson

Says that’s true as long as the language about “official duties” stays in the bill.

193

Brian DeLashmutt

Association of Oregon Corrections Employees. Testifies in support of HB 2177. Addresses concerns of the committee.

196

Chair Williams

Asks what happens if a corrections officer takes a romantic interest in an inmate.

231

DeLashmutt

Defers question to the Department of Corrections.

241

Botkin

States that in the past the inmates were not the ones with the complaints and that the Department of Corrections does not tolerate inappropriate behavior like that.

280

Van Valkenburgh

Discusses bill and possible amendments.

282

Chair Williams

Says that they will not go into a work session today on the bill and recommends discussion of amendments and emergency clause.

316

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel. Wonders if there is a way to eliminate the automatic issuance of a temporary stalking order.

332

Van Valkenburgh

States that what this remedy does is expand remedies for inmates and they are continuing to defend this issue. Thinks they need to remove this remedy for inmates and curtail frivolous lawsuits.

361

Rep. Shetterly

Comments on the Oregon Youth Authority and county jails being included in this issue.

371

Chair Williams

Closes public hearing on HB 2177. Opens a public hearing on HB 2057.

HB 2057 PUBLIC HEARING

380

George Reimer

Deputy Director, Oregon State Bar. Testifies in support of HB 2057 which provides that election not be held for position on Board of Governors of Oregon State Bar, or for position in house of delegates of Oregon State Bar, for which only single candidate has been nominated.

TAPE 7, B

003

Reimer

Continues testimony in support of HB 2057.

010

Rep. Krummel

Asks why they picked the 6-month time period.

020

Reimer

Answers that the court might need that much time to have the case reviewed.

035

Chair Williams

Questions that if both sides decide not to have a case reviewed, then would the Supreme Court publish the notice of the decision of the Bar.

041

Reimer

Says that the decisions of the disciplinary board are published in the Oregon State Bar monthly.

055

Chair Williams

Explains that if both sides were satisfied with the result then the Supreme Court would not have to review it. Closes the public hearing on HB 2057 and opens a public hearing on HB 2050.

HB 2050 PUBLIC HEARING

090

Bill Taylor

Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2050 which expands definition of abuse for purposes of child abuse reporting.

100

Chair Williams

Discusses bill.

145

Rep. Shetterly

Wonders what level of knowledge is required for one to have to report the child abuse.

154

Chair Williams

Answers that the language used is “endangering” and acts as a qualifier. Adds that the standard is “any private or public official having reasonable cause to believe” for requiring reporting of child abuse.

175

Rep. Barker

Comments that in the summary it doesn’t mention manufactured, but just mentions methamphetamines present. Asks if the statute is more specific than that.

180

Chair Williams

Answers that the bill is broader than they want it to be and needs some revision.

187

Rep. Ackerman

Says that there may be a statutory definition for a precursor for methamphetamine.  

191

Chair Williams

States that nearly every session they redefine what constitutes a precursor for methamphetamine and that is another issue to look at.

213

Rep. Jenson

Questions if the manufacturer is under 18 (a youth) would there need to be a law in the Juvenile Code regarding this issue.

224

Chair Williams

Says that he doesn’t believe so.

234

Taylor

Explains what “endangering the welfare of a minor” means.

258

Chair Williams

Shares that they will not do anything more with the bill today. Closes the public hearing on HB 2050 and opens a public hearing on HB 2099.

HB 2099 PUBLIC HEARING

271

Andrew Aubertine

Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.Testifies in support of HB 2099 which requires attorneys for antitrust class of natural persons to notify Attorney General of filing and proposed settlement of claims under state antitrust laws.

416

Jim Gardner

Attorney representing Microsoft. Testifies in support of HB 2099.

Tape 8, B

004

Chair Williams

Asks if the Attorney General has the authority to appear and intervene in a settlement case.

014

Aubertine

Answers yes, the Attorney General already has the authority to intervene and adds that this bill is purely a notice bill.

024

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if this is a notice requirement and not a jurisdictional requirement.

025

Aubertine

Says yes, that is correct.

026

Rep. Ackerman

Explains that he is concerned about the consequences of a class action counsel in failing to comply with these provisions.

029

Aubertine

Says that that was an issue the committee members raised, but decided not to put that language in the bill.

046

Rep. Ackerman

Questions if the Attorney General’s office does not intervene does one still have authority to participate in the settlement process.

050

Aubertine

Answers yes, they feel they do have authority to participate.

059

Rep. Macpherson

Asks him to explain the scope of antitrust class action laws in Oregon.

064

Aubertine

Explains and stresses that the Attorney General is very aware of lawsuits in Oregon, but points out that it will be more difficult to track lawsuits in other states.

091

Chair Williams

Points out that there is a draft report on “Amending the Oregon Antitrust Act” that will be finalized and will become available to the committee.

109

Rep. Shetterly

Wonders if the report addresses what the committee discussed.

120

Aubertine

Answers that that point is not covered in the report, but they will include it.

127

Chair Williams

Closes the public hearing on HB 2099 and adjourns the meeting at 2:53 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – LC 363, submitted by staff, dated 1/17/03, 34 pgs.

B – LC 1770, submitted by staff, dated 1/20/03, 3 pgs.

C – HB 2177, definitions, submitted by Craig Prins, 1 pg.

D – HB 2177, memo from Benjamin de Haan, Interim Director, Oregon Department of Corrections, submitted by Mitch Morrow, 2 pgs.