HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

 

February 12, 2003   Hearing Room 357

1:00 p.m.  Tapes 32 - 33

 

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 Joseph, Counsel

Ann Martin, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2075 Public Hearing

                                                HB 2204 Public Hearing

                                                HB 2269 Work Session

 

 

 

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 32, A

004

Chair Williams

Calls the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

HB 2075 PUBLIC HEARING

011

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2075 which revises laws relating to form of business entities.

020

Andrew J. Morrow, Jr.

Oregon State Bar. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2075 (EXHIBIT A). Discusses -2 and -3 amendments (EXHIBITS B & C).

068

Robert C. Art

Oregon State Bar. Professor, Willamette University Law School. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2075 (EXHIBIT D).

112

Chair Williams

Asks if it is difficult for Oregon to keep up with the Model Business Corporation Act since the Legislature meets every other year.

137

Art

Responds that he has not experienced a difficulty.

146

Morrow

Believes that there have been some difficulties. Says that the liability provisions that are in the Oregon Statute have been most dramatic in the differences among the states, but they have been doing a good job at keeping current.

169

Chair Williams

Wonders if most states follow the “model act” or do they watch Delaware more closely.

174

Morrow

Says that the corporation acts of most states tend to follow the model act.

189

Rep. Shetterly

Asks for clarification of the new language on page 4, Section 3, subsection (b).

215

Art

Answers that his interpretation is that the person who makes the request revokes the request.

218

Rep. Shetterly

Wonders when there are hundreds of shareholders requesting a special meeting, how is it clear that those same shareholders have to revoke the request.

230

Morrow

Says that the process of getting a written request makes it final. 

262

Chair Williams

Explains that you cannot revoke what wasn’t yours in the first place.

271

Rep. Shetterly

Says he understands, but thinks it needs some clarification.

287

Morrow

Replies that he would not object to the clarification.

297

Rep. Macpherson

Comments on the language used on page 4, section (b) of the bill.

300

Rep. Krummel

Thinks that the language is very confusing regarding revocation and the timing.

331

Rep. Shetterly

Talks about how the language is passive, not active.

337

Chair Williams

Asks Professor Art if the language is modeled after the Model Business Corporation Act.

338

Art

Answers that he is fairly certain that this is “model act” language, but adds that it would not be objectionable to change the language.

359

Rep. Jenson

Questions the language “fair” on Page 5, Section 5, subsection (3).

374

Art

Agrees that “fair” is a very open-ended term and explains reason for that term.

380

Chair Williams

Discusses the language of “fair”.

TAPE 33, A

003

Morrow

Summarizes the -2 amendments (Exhibit B).

018

Jack Evans

Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association (ORECA). Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2075 (EXHIBIT E).

051

Chair Williams

Discusses Section 3 of the bill and talks about making a -4 amendment. Closes the public hearing on HB 2075 and opens a public hearing on HB 2204.

HB 2204 PUBLIC HEARING

077

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel. Introduces HB 2204 which expands crime of criminal trespass in first degree to include entering and remaining unlawfully on private premises that have been closed to protect water quality.

090

Gregg Cline

Department of Forestry. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2204 (EXHIBIT F).

142

Rep. Prozanski

Inquires why they are changing the charge to a Class A misdemeanor.

152

Cline

Answers that it provides the landowner with a little more leverage for detour unauthorized road use.

161

Rep. Prozanski

Asks if current statute has not been effective in detouring individuals from violating that law.

167

Cline

Answers that he doesn’t have that quantified and needs to work with the other agencies to verify that there is an issue.

176

Rep. Prozanski

Describes the difference in the penalties for Class A and Class C misdemeanors.

198

Cline

States that in Eastern Oregon there is a growing concern with many landowners of private property rights and the change in the law would be helpful.

204

Vice-Chair Ackerman

Asks what the definition of a motor propelled vehicle includes.

210

Cline

Says that would include all motorized vehicles.

218

Vice-Chair Ackerman

Asks what happens if the driver doesn’t see a sign.

222

Cline

Answers that he doesn’t know, but thinks that would be an “out” for the defendant.

231

Vice-Chair Ackerman

Asks why the date October 1 is in the bill.

240

Cline

Says that they are focusing on the rainy season that starts in late October through the winter.

248

Rep. Macpherson

Wonders how a private landowner can elevate the criminal sanction without any approval process for water protection.

259

 Cline

Answers that those roads would have to be approved through an agency.

282

Rep. Barker

Comments that the penalty is really extreme.

290

Rep. Jenson

States grave reservations about the proposed legislation and wonders what the reason is for the landowners to be provided signs.

305

Cline

Explains that they could apply for a grant for the production of signs if necessary.

327

Rep. Jenson

Says that he is concerned about the issue of the timing of the protection during the winter months because of hunting season. Questions why this legislation did not appear in a natural resources committee.

355

Chair Williams

Answers that he thinks it’s because this bill creates a new crime. Discusses potential referral to the Water Committee.

397

Rep. Jenson

States that he would like a possible referral of the bill to the Water Committee.

TAPE 32, B

001

Rep. Prozanski

Comments that the bill is very broad.

007

Cline

Says that the intent was only to post signs on those roads that would significantly have an impact on water quality.

012

Rep. Prozanski

Suggests amendments that will set criteria to designate land or roads as sensitive areas for protecting water quality.

020

Rep. Macpherson

Suggests confiscation penalty related to vehicle.

027

Chair Williams

Stresses that criminal forfeiture is no longer easy to do and it would not be worth the effort.

045

Vice-Chair Anderson

Wonders about forest-land property owners as related to this bill.

055

Cline

Says that they would still have the trespass law in place for those people.

062

Rep. Barker

Says that the bill is too broad and doesn’t see how it will protect water.

070

Cline

Reports that the bill was supposed to be specific for a specific problem.

080

Chair Williams

Closes the public hearing on HB 2204 and opens a work session on HB 2269.

HB 2269 WORK SESSION

082

Chair Williams

Discusses the -1 amendments (EXHIBIT G).

090

Rep. Shetterly

Says that the amendments add an emergency clause. Explains the bill which establishes rules governing operation of nontestamentary trusts.

124

Rep. Shetterly

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2269-1 amendments dated

02/06/03.

 

 

VOTE:  8-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Barker

125

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

126

Rep. Shetterly

MOTION:  Moves HB  2269 to the floor with a DO PASS AS

AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  8-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Barker

128

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

MACPHERSON will lead discussion on the floor.

156

Chair Williams

Closes the public hearing on HB 2269 and adjourns the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2075, written testimony, submitted by Andrew Morrow, Jr., Oregon State Bar, dated 2/12/03, 4 pgs.

B – HB 2075, -2 amendments, submitted by staff, dated 2/4/03, 7 pgs.

C – HB 2075, -3 amendments, submitted by staff, dated 2/12/03, 7 pgs.

D – HB 2075, written testimony, submitted by Robert Art, Professor, Willamette University College of Law, dated 2/12/03, 4 pgs.

E – HB 2075, written testimony, submitted by Jack Evans, ORECA, dated 2/12/03, 1 pg.

F – HB 2204, written testimony, submitted by Gregg Cline, dated 2/12/03, 2 pgs.

G – HB 2269, -1 amendments, submitted by staff, dated 2/6/03, 1 pg.