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.