TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 22, A

004

Chair Berger

Calls the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. and announces changes in the agenda. Opens a work session on introduction of committee measures.

INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEASURES – WORK SESSION

008

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Reviews LC 2576 brought by the Library Association.

020

Chair Berger

States that support for introduction of bill as a committee bill does not indicate support for the bill itself.

021

Rep. Berger

MOTION:  Moves LC 2576 BE INTRODUCED as a committee bill (EXHIBIT A).

VOTE:  7-0-0

Chair Berger

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

026

Fischer

Reviews that LC 2775 regards unclaimed financial properties.

040

Chair Berger

Repeats that support for the introduction of the bill does not indicate support for the bill itself.

042

Rep. Berger

MOTION:  Moves LC 2775 BE INTRODUCED as a committee bill (EXHIBIT B).

VOTE:  7-0-0

Chair Berger

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

025

Chair Berger

Closes the work session on introduction of committee bills and opens a public hearing on HB 2253.

HB 2253 – PUBLIC HEARING

047

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Explains what HB 2253 does.

050

Harrison Connelly

Deputy Legislative Counsel. Explains that “local government” is a defined term and HB 2253 will conform all references to local government. 

087

Chair Berger

Closes the public hearing on HB 2253 and opens the work session on HB 2253.

HB 2253 – WORK SESSION

082

Rep. Sumner

MOTION:  Moves HB 2253 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and be placed on the CONSENT CALENDAR.

VOTE: 7-0-0

083

Chair Berger

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

086

Chair Berger

Closes the work session on HB 2253 and opens the public hearing and work session on HB 2259.

HB 2259 – PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION

091

Doug McKean

Deputy Legislative Counsel. Explains that HB 2259 corrects an error that occurred between the engrossing of the A-Engrossed version and the B-Engrossed version of HB 2241 (2003) removing language that should have been removed in the B-Engrossed version.

126

Rep. Sumner

MOTION:  Moves HB 2259 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

VOTE:  7-0-0

128

Chair Berger

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

130

Rep. Esquivel

MOTION:  Moves HB 2259 be placed on the CONSENT CALENDAR.

VOTE:  7-0-0

Chair Esquivel

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

137

Chair Berger

Closes the public hearing and work session on HB 2259 and opens the public hearing on HB 2157.

HB 2157 – PUBLIC HEARING

131

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Reviews what HB 2157 does.

154

Patricia Whitfield

Section Director Oregon State Police (OSP) Identification Services Section. Submits prepared testimony in support of HB 2157 (EXHIBIT A). Explains there are two purposes for the legislation and describes what Section 1 and Section 2 do.

216

Chair Berger

Asks would this put an umbrella over all the agencies and make a process where they can get these national background checks.

240

Whitfield

Answers yes.

241

Chair Berger

Asks does this statute mandate the background check.

243

Whitfield

Responds no, it would be up to the agency, through rule, to specify what would be subject to a background check.

258

Rep. Cameron

Notes that the Medical Board of Examiners stated that they cannot run background checks on doctors coming in. Asks would this allow them to.

260

Whitfield

Answers yes. Explains the process to incorporate language to read with this bill and adds that the language, as written, has been approved by the FBI.

261

Rep. Cameron

Asks what are the FBI rules that prevent getting permission from an applicant to do a background check.

284

Whitfield

Responds that Public Law 92544 allows for fingerprint background checks for non-criminal justice employment purposes.

319

Larry Aab

Director of Business Services for the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. States that the bulk of requests for this type of information come through the sheriff’s office. Provides examples of the types of requests they get: tax collections, employees and vendors doing work for the county.

361

Aab

Comments favorably on the destruction of fingerprint cards and the enabling process to identify who would fall under this statute.

373

Rep. Galizio

Asks if the civil liberties groups were involved in this bill.

400

Chair Berger

States that one of those groups will be addressing the committee. Asks how this bill would change the process in place now.

416

Aab

Responds that under the current draft they would seek an ordinance from the county commissioners. Adds it would not be for every employee but it would include those who work in a high level of trust, those who work with children, the elderly, the disabled and those in high fiduciary responsibilities.

442

Chair Berger

Confirms that this would require a defined set of criteria.

443

Aab

Answers affirmatively.

444

Rep. Sumner

Asks would this be retroactive to current employees or only for new hires.

453

Aab

Speculates that if there was behavior that prompted it and the statute enabled them they may choose to use it, but otherwise it would be from this point forward.

467

Rep. Witt

Asks is it the intent to run a nationwide check on each person fingerprinted.

474

Aab

Answers yes if they fall under the enabling ordinance.

476

Andrea Meyer

Legislative Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Provides a brief history on the use of fingerprinting in the use of background checks.

TAPE 23, A

033

Aab

Refers to the early 1990s regarding the finge printing of innocent people being sent off to the FBI and how that interferes with the ability of a person to move forward. Comments on safeguards such as the relationship of the facts and no permanent records on non-criminals.

070

Meyer

Refers to Section 2, line 33 the language “return or destroy.” Notes that anyone can get a criminal check on anyone without going through fingerprints or a national check. 

100

Meyer

States support for the bill to the degree that it provides some cleanup. Expresses concern about safeguards and the oversight of agency rules. Expresses strong concern about Section 1 because there are no protections for the unintended consequences throughout a community.  

133

Rep. Witt

Refers to page two, Section 2 lines 33 and 34 and asks how the state of Oregon can obligate the FBI to do anything.

147

Meyer

Answers they cannot. Reads line 35 and states they are working with the state police to ensure computer images of fingerprints are not maintained.

167

Rep. Witt

Asks if the FBI has an obligation to report to the state of Oregon a change in policy.

168

Meyer

Answers that is uncertain.

170

Rep. Buckley

Refers to Section 7 page three and asks if this would cover only state agencies and not local government.

188

Meyer

Answers that she believes cities and local entities are not covered by this. Discusses that in reference to rules changing the “may” to “shall” and that the list be included.

217

Rep. Galizio

Asks if there is any way to provide language that defines “public trust” or “sensitive information.” Expresses concern about leaving this to the agencies.

246

Whitfield

Refers to Section 1 and Section 2 not having the same requirements. Suggests asking how the cities or counties would address safeguards. Adds that “may” will be changed to “shall” and there are minimums for the agency to use in their determinations.

289

Chair Berger

Confirms that Section 7 concerns only agencies and not local government agencies. States that as currently written the Section 7 protection does not include local governments.

332

Whitfield

Answers it is hopeful that amendments will address that.

317

Rep. Buckley

Refers to the appeals process and asks are there consistent appeal processes on the local level.

360

Whitfield

Answers that this also will be addressed in the amendments.

380

Rep. Buckley

As currently drafted is there anything requiring a report back to the legislature to see how the process is working.

382

Whitfield

Answers that she is unaware of anything in place but is open to it.

391

Chair Berger

Notes for the record that the Department of Administrative Services      (DAS) has provided written testimony in support of HB 2157 (EXHIBIT D).  Closes the public hearing on HB 2157 and adjourns the meeting at 9:27 a.m.