HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

March 06, 2003   Hearing Room 357

1:00 p.m. Tapes 68 -  69

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Williams, Chair

Rep. Ackerman, Vice-Chair

Rep. Anderson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Barker

Rep. Jenson

Rep. Krummel

Rep. Prozanski

Rep. Macpherson

Rep. Shetterly

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Bill Joseph, Counsel

Nancy Massee, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            HB 2277 Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2645 Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2272 Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2075 Work Session

HB 2275 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 68, A

008

Chair Max Williams

Opens meeting at 1:05 pm. Opens public hearing on HB 2277.

HB 2277 PUBLIC HEARING

014

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel. Describes HB 2277 that requires party in certain domestic relations proceedings, or entity providing support enforcement services in certain cases, to state in pleadings or notices whether another support proceeding is pending involving child and whether support order exists involving child.

040

Ronelle Shankle

Child Support Program Administration, Department of Justice (DOJ). Explains why HB 2277 is needed to provide preventative action, and submits testimony  (EXHIBITS A & B). 

041

Carl Stecher

Oregon District Attorneys Association.  Testifies in support of HB 2277.

080

Vice Chair Ackerman

Asks about the number of incidents of multiple orders in child support cases.

045

Shankle

Responds explaining the complexity of coordinating child support cases.  Says the number of incidents is probably very high.

049

Vice Chair Ackerman

Asks if in all instances filing certificates is needed.

100

Stecher

Explains the administrative process is probably made easier by the certificates.

112

Layne Barlow

Oregon Men’s Association. Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2277 (EXHIBIT C).  Recommends non-joint children be included in the child support orders.

134

Shankle

Explains intent of the bill is to not create multiple orders. 

160

Chair Williams

Closes public hearing on HB 2277.  Opens work session on HB 2277.

HB 2277 WORK SESSION

170

Vice Chair Ackerman

MOTION:  Moves HB 2277 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0-3

EXCUSED:  3 - Krummel, Prozanski, Shetterly

179

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

REP. ACKERMAN will lead discussion on the floor.

182

Chair Williams

Closes work session on HB 2277.  Opens work session on HB 2645.

HB 2645  PUBLIC HEARING

185

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel.  Explains HB 2645 that provides requirements for enforcement, modification or setting aside of child support judgments.

274

Ronelle Shankle

Department of Justice (DOJ). Submits testimony and testifies in support of HB 2645 (EXHIBITS D & E).  Describes a “governing judgment.”

282

Carl Stecher

Oregon District Attorneys Association. Further explains advantages that HB 2645 will incur.

290

Chair Williams

Refers to flow charts and reiterates their meaning.

335

Stecher

Clarifies the flow chart.

384

Rep. Macpherson

Asks if  the party has the right to go to court.

394

Stecher

Answers, yes, initially they can bring action. Refers to flow chart.

400

Rep. Macpherson

Asks if an administrative resolution is more economical than going to court.

423

Shankle

Answers private parties can petition the court.  States the likelihood is that most cases will contact DOJ.

TAPE 69, A

020

Layne Barlow

Oregon Men’s Association submits testimony and testifies in opposition to part of  HB 2645 (EXHIBIT F) in its present form (EXHIBIT G).  Refers to 2-a, page 1, lines 13 and 14.  

049

Bob Whiteside

Concerned Citizen, Beaverton. Submits testimony and testifies in opposition to HB 2645 in its present form (EXHIBIT G).  Requests that the term “administrator” be defined so that the parents know who they are dealing with. States notification to parents of the governing judgment is not included in the bill. Suggests legislation that would strengthen the money judgments by naming the children and dates, and give state agencies remedies to make corrections. Says the multiple child support judgments part is unclear.     

153

Chair Williams

Responds to Mr. Barlow that ORS 416.440 lays out the support order process. HB 2645 does not create a new right, it is already in current law. Responds to Mr. Whiteside, the definition of “administrator” is in ORS 25.010.  Explains that HB 2645 assists arrearage issues. 

206

Rep. Barker

Asks if it is better to have names on money judgments.

211

Whiteside

Replies that the children’s names and dates are not on money judgments which makes it impossible to coordinate dates and timeframes.

261

Chair Williams

Explains how HB 2645 is more efficient and helpful to parents and the courts. Says HB 2645 does not administer any special rights.

280

Barlow

Says, with minor changes, the Oregon Men’s Association can support this bill.

272

Vice Chair Ackerman

Refers to Mr. Whiteside’s judgment. Says the judgment does conform to the court procedures. Describes a Support Order Abstract.

315

Whiteside

Responds that the money judgments do not seem to have conformity.

330

Vice Chair Ackerman

Explains that a child over 18 can be deemed as a judgment creditor.

338

Shankle

Responds that nothing in this bill changes the fact that the final order must be reviewed by the court.

337

Chair Williams

Closes public hearing on HB 2645. Opens work session on HB 2645.

HB 2645 WORK SESSION

340

Rep. Shetterly

MOTION:  Moves HB  2645 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  9-0

344

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

REP. PROZANSKI will lead discussion on the floor.

345

Chair Williams

Closes work session on HB 2645. Opens public hearing on HB 2272.

HB 2272  PUBLIC HEARING

422

Michael Livingston

Assistant Attorney General, DOJ.  Member of the Oregon Law Commission’s Juvenile Code Revision Work Group. Submits testimony in support of HB 2272 (EXHIBITS H & I).  Describes HB 2272 corrects a problem inadvertently included in ORS 419(B). 917.  Further explains why HB 2272 is needed.

TAPE 68, B

022

Judge Terry Leggert

Marion County.  Member of the Oregon Law Commission’s Juvenile Code Revision Work Group. Submits testimony and explains if the parents do not show up a default is taken without a hearing (EXHIBIT J).  Discusses problems of relating to families in court.

055

Livingston

Describes requirements for oral orders and written orders as the same. The oral order is a savings and also expedites proceedings.

082

Chair Williams

States that Safe Families and Adoptions Act requires action in a short timeframe to move children into permanency.

096

Chair Williams

Asks about the -1 amendments.

098

Livingston

Explains the -1 amendments (EXHIBIT K).

100

Chair Williams

Closes public hearing on HB 2272.  Opens work session on HB 2272.

HB 2272 WORK SESSION

312

Rep. Shetterly

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2272-1 amendments dated 03/04/03.

 

 

VOTE:  9-0

314

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

315

Rep. Shetterly

MOTION:  Moves HB 2272 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  9-0

317

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

REP. SHETTERLY will lead discussion on the floor.

318

Chair Williams

Closes work session on HB 2272.  Opens work session on HB 2075.

HB 2075 WORK SESSION

136

Bill Joseph

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

154

Andrew Moral

Business Law Section, Oregon State Bar. Updates committee on HB 2075.  Explains the -4 amendments (EXHIBIT L).

203

Rep. Macpherson

Agrees with the bill as amended with the -4 amendments.

208

Robert Ardt

Professor, Willamette University. Explains the changes made in HB 2075 by the amendments.

210

Rep. Shetterly

Comments that the fair process is still there.

230

Rep. Macpherson

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2075-4 amendments dated 02/18/03.

 

 

VOTE: 8-0-1

 

 

EXCUSED:  Anderson

235

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

234

Rep. Macpherson

MOTION:  Moves HB 2075 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  8-0- 1

 

 

EXCUSED:  Anderson

235

Chair Williams

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

REP. MACPHERSON will lead discussion on the floor.

237

Chair Williams

Closes HB 2075 work session. Opens work session on HB 2275.

HB 2275 WORK SESSION

260

Bill Joseph

Committee Counsel. Explains HB 2275 that prohibits unlawful discrimination based on age by place of public accommodation under certain circumstances.

270

Marcia Ohlemiller

Counsel, Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI). Submits testimony and explains the HB 2275-1, -2, and -3 amendments (EXHIBITS M, N, O, and P).  Explains the emergency clause is needed along with a retroactive amendment.

285

Vice Chair Ackerman

Asks if these cases are  tried in circuit court as well as BOLI.

290

Ohlemiller

Replies, yes, they may be.

300

Vice Chair Ackerman

Explains his concern with the cases that would not be reviewed with BOLI but may be filed with the circuit court. If the claims are reviewed, they should include both private and public defendants.

TAPE 69, B

029

Vice Chair Ackerman

Explains that public remedy is only viable if you file a tort claim notice within 180 days of the incident. Explains further, the way HB 2275 reads, this period would most likely have expired.

040

Rep Shetterly

Agrees the issue should be corrected through further drafting.

042

Chair Williams

Asks that HB 2275 be referred to Legislative Counsel for further work. Asks Ms. Ohlemiller if there were claims filed that the error caused.

070

Ohlemiller

Responds she is not aware there were claims.

085

Rep. Shetterly

Comments that tort claim notices may have been filed during this period.

090

Chair Williams

Asks that DOJ, Ms. Ohlemiller, and Counsel Joseph assist in addressing this issue.

106

Chair Williams

Closes work session on HB 2275.  Refers HB 2275 and HB 2276 to LC and DOJ for further work.  Adjourns meeting at 2:35 p.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A -  HB 2277, written testimony, Ronelle Shankle, 1 p

B -  HB 2277, Certificate report, Ronelle Shankle, 7 pp

C – HB 2277, written testimony, Layne Barlow, 1p

D – HB 2645, written testimony, Ronelle Shankle, 5 pp

E – HB 2645, multiple orders, Ronelle Shankle, 10 pp

F – HB 2645, written testimony, Layne Barlow, 1 p

G –HB 2645, written testimony, Bob Whiteside, 2 pp

H –HB 2272, written testimony, Michael Livingston, 3 pp

I – HB 2272, Majority Report, Michael Livingston, 4 pp

J – HB 2272, Minority Report, Terry Leggert, 3 pp

K –HB 2272-1 amendments, staff, 2 pp

L – HB 2075-4 amendments, staff, 14 pp

M - HB 2275, letter, Marcia Ohlemiller, 2 pp

N – HB 2275-1 amendments, staff, 1 p

O – HB 2275-2 amendments, staff, 1 p

P – HB 2275-3 amendments, staff, 1 p