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.