HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

January 21, 2003 Hearing Room 357

1:00 p.m. Tapes 9 - 10

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Max Williams, Chair

Rep. Robert Ackerman, Vice-Chair

Rep. Gordon Anderson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Jeff Barker

Rep. Jerry Krummel

Rep. Greg Macpherson

Rep. Floyd Prozanski

Rep. Lane Shetterly

MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Bob Jenson

STAFF PRESENT: Bill Taylor, Counsel

Craig Prins, Counsel

Ann Martin, Committee Assistant

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2069 Public Hearing

HB 2071 Public Hearing

HB 2072 Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2074 Public Hearing

HB 2095 Public Hearing

HB 2112 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 9, A
006	Chair Williams	Calls the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Opens a public hearing on HB 2069.
HB 2069 PUBLIC HEARING
023	Craig Prins	Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2069 which modifies provisions relating to motions in arrest of judgment and for new trials in criminal cases.
031	Susan Russell	Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (OCDLA). Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2069 (EXHIBIT A).
085	Rep. Prozanski	Asks if they are attempting to address any change to the 20-day time limit for the hearing.
085	Russell	Says, no. Adds that they are simply making the time frames the same as they are for a civil motion for a trial.
113	Chair Williams	Questions why there are no witnesses from the other parties that would be impacted by this change.
121	Russell	Answers that she doesn’t know why.
141	Prins	Comments that he spoke with Kevin Neely, Department of Justice, and found out about the bill late. Says that he didn’t think they were worried about it and he doesn’t know the District Attorneys Association’s position on the bill.
149	Chair Williams	Says that it would be nice to have feedback from the courts since the judges will be operatively restricted by the change. Closes the public hearing on HB 2069 and opens a public hearing on HB 2071.
HB 2071 PUBLIC HEARING
175	Craig Prins	Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2071 which requires state to notify certain defendants of presumptive life sentence for conviction of third felony sex offense.
188	Susan Russell	OCDLA. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2071 (EXHIBIT B).
253	Chair Williams	Discusses bill.
282	Jonathan Fussner	Attorney, Oregon Department of Justice.Testifies in opposition to HB 2071.
330	Rep. Macpherson	Asks if other jurisdictions that have three-strike statutes have had any kind of notice requirement
335	Fussner	Says he does not know, and that he has not researched the issue.
340	Russell	Agrees.
346	Rep. Ackerman	Asks for the status of current Oregon case law regarding the pleading in an indictment of an aggravating circumstance for a sentence.
355	Fussner	Answers to the best of his knowledge there is no independent body of Oregon case law that has dealt with that issue.
377	Russell	Says she agrees with Fussner.
390	Prins	Notes that this is only a sentencing manner.
400	Rep. Prozanski	Comments that he understands that the defense attorneys do not have the ability to tap into computer records.
394	Prins	Adds that, from his experience as a prosecutor, they normally get a copy of the criminal history.
450	Chair Williams	Believes that it would make sense to provide some sort of notice to the defendant if the district attorney was going to seek a life sentence.
TAPE 10, A
021	Fussner	Says that he is not aware that there has been a problem with judges affording criminal defendants a sufficient amount of time to prepare for trial, to consider plea offers, or to prepare for sentencing.
036	Prins	Questions page 1, lines 19-20, because it doesn’t say anything about what the state is intending to seek.
043	Russell	Explains that the concern from the defense perspective is that there have been a number of cases where, had the state reviewed the matter, they would have been aware that the individual qualified for the life provision.
060	Prins	Asks if a defense attorney would go over a written plea petition that was certified before they would enter a plea and asks if she would inform them of the maximum sentences possible.
070	Russell	Discusses the “Denny Smith” provision.
086	Rep. Prozanski	Asks if the defense, asked by letter, whether the state was going to seek this kind of sanction. Asks if he thinks that would be a good way of giving notice.
099	Russell	Says she would keep the burden on the defense and that that would be reversing the burden in this type of proceeding.
113	Chair Williams	Closes the public hearing on HB 2071 and opens a public hearing on HB 2072 and HB 2074.
HB 2072 & HB 2074 PUBLIC HEARING
150	Barnes Ellis	Chair, Public Defense Services Commission. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2072 which accelerates transfer of responsibility for indigent defense services from State Court Administrator to Public Defense Services Commission (EXHIBIT C).
229	Chair Williams	Discusses bill.
222	Chair Williams	Closes the public hearing on HB 2072 and opens a work session on HB 2072.
HB 2072 WORK SESSION
252	Rep. Shetterly	MOTION: Moves HB 2072 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means.
		VOTE: 8-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Jenson
253	Chair Williams	Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.
255	Chair Williams	Closes the work session on HB 2072.
HB 2074 PUBLIC HEARING—Re-opened
256	Peter Ozanne	Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2074 which requires Public Defense Services Commission to submit report to Legislative Assembly biennially (EXHIBIT D).
318	Rep. Krummel	Asks why they can’t have one member of the Commission be a public defender.
329	Ozanne	Defers to Ann Christian
330	Ann Christian	Director, Indigent Defense Services. States that there was a commission that studied that idea and says that the chair of the Commission believes it is best not to have an appearance of a type of conflict of interest.
353	Ellis	Comments that he supports the separation of the Public Defense Services Commission and the new Office of Public Defense Services.
363	Chair Williams	Closes the public hearing on HB 2074 and opens a work session on HB 2074. Decides to hold off on bill due to the referral to Ways and Means. Closes the work session on HB 2074.
TAPE 9, B
013	Chair Williams	Informs the committee that he has to leave and that Vice-Chair Ackerman will take over the gavel.
020	Vice-Chair Ackerman	Opens a public hearing on HB 2095.
HB 2095 PUBLIC HEARING
035	Ronelle Shankle		Department of Justice. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2095 which requires court or enforcing agency issuing child support order to direct obligor or obligee to provide health care coverage to child under health benefit plan under certain circumstances (EXHIBIT E).
116	Rep. Barker		Asks what if obligor or obligee doesn’t have health care through his employer, how can he/she provide health care coverage to child.
120	Shankle		Says that she forgot an important piece of education related to health insurance and adds that first they need to find out if health care is available through an employer or union and if it is reasonable in cost and accessible to the child.
132	Rep. Barker		Asks if one doesn’t take health insurance would they be required to take it.
141	Shankle		States that if health insurance is available to a person then they would be obligated to take it.
144	Bill Taylor		Committee Counsel. Inquires about current law in regards to bill.
155	Rep. Macpherson		Questions current federal law as it relates to this bill.
169	Shankle		Explains that the Qualified Medical Child Support Order still exists.
200	Rep. Krummel		Asks if a person ordered to provide coverage has to provide coverage even if they aren’t provided coverage.
207	Shankle		States that there are three options.
219	Rep. Krummel		Asks what if the employer does not offer health insurance.
223	Shankle		Says that they would not have an enforcement remedy available.
228	Rep. Krummel		Asks if it was not part of the child support order, will the court make them pay.
240	Shankle		Says, no and explains.
260	Rep. Krummel		Asks if it is an order that has been written by the administrative arm and ratified by the court.
267	Shankle		Explains that the administrative process is meant to be an expedited process.
281	Rep. Krummel		Asks if they can enforce a parent to provide health care to their child.
303	Counsel Taylor		Asks Ronelle Shankle to explain her agency’s responsibilities.
291	Shankle		Explains who they work with.
329	Vice-Chair Ackerman		Inquires how this process fits into the traditional divorce setting.
349	Shankle		Answers that it is common that divorce decrees often contain language that instruct child support programs to begin enforcement. Says that all orders entered in Oregon are subject to child support guidelines.
397	Vice-Chair Ackerman		Asks why existing law is inadequate.
399	Shankle		Says that the federal government is striving to have a uniform law in this area.
408	Karen Berkowitz		Legal Aid Services. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2095 (EXHIBIT F).
TAPE 10, B
006	Berkowitz	Continues her testimony in support of HB 2095.
079	Rep. Krummel	Asks a question about her written testimony, page 3, section 8. Wonders what the 50% represents.
085	Berkowitz	States that’s 50% of a person’s net income.
090	Rep. Krummel	Asks if an obligor could pay up to 65% under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act.
094	Berkowitz	Answers, yes, but the 65% depends on other matters too.
105	Rep. Barker	Asks about number 7 of her written testimony and about the obligee having the right to pick the plan.
114	Berkowitz	Answers that it is the child support agency that picks the plan and the custodial parent.
131	Rep. Macpherson	Inquires about Section 10 and civil penalties and wonders if this complies with federal law.
145	Shankle	Explains that they are in discussion with the Bureau of Labor and Industries regarding that section.
184	John Powell	Regence/Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon. Says that they have just begun to analyze the bill and are working with the Attorney General’s Office..
191	Vice-Chair Ackerman	Closes the public hearing on HB 2095 and opens a public hearing on HB 2112.
HB 2112 PUBLIC HEARING
208	Ronelle Shankle	Department of Justice. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2112 which requires state agencies, boards and commissions that issue certain licenses, certifications, permits or registrations to record applicant’s Social Security number on application for, or form for renewal of, driver license or certain permits (EXHIBIT G).
311	Rep. Prozanski	Asks if this bill requires Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to provide this information on all renewal and new license applications.
317	Shankle	Answers, yes.
319	Rep. Prozanski	Asks if there are reasons why the federal agencies are now mandating social security numbers for identification purposes.
338	Shankle	Believes that he is referring to the Privacy Act. Explains that this is not a directive to override that act. Discusses amendments added to this bill (EXHIBIT H).
370	Rep. Prozanski	Questions if a person refuses to supply their social security, would they be denied a license.
373	Shankle	States that that is not the position of the Child Support Program.
408	Rep. Krummel	Discusses identity theft and asks what steps the department is going to take to keep social security numbers confidential.
435	Shankle	Answers that their records are held very confidential.
488	Vice-Chair Ackerman	Closes the public hearing on HB 2112 and adjourns the meeting at 2:57 p.m.

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

A – HB 2069, written testimony, submitted by Susan Russell, 1/21/03, 1 pg.

B – HB 2071, written testimony, submitted by Susan Russell, 1/21/03, 1 pg.

C – HB 2072, written testimony, submitted by Barnes H. Ellis, 1/21/03, 3 pgs.

D – HB 2074, written testimony, submitted by Peter Ozanne, 1/21/03, 3 pgs.

E – HB 2096, written testimony, submitted by Ronelle Shankle, 1/21/03, 5 pgs.

F – HB 2095, written testimony, submitted by Karen Berkowitz, 1/21/03, 4 pgs.

G – HB 2112, written testimony, submitted by Ronelle Shankle, 1/21/03, 9 pgs.

H - HB 2112, DMV proposed amendments, submitted by Ronelle Shankle, 2 pgs.