SENATE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
April 26, 2005 Hearing Room B
3:10 P.M. Tapes 65 - 67
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Frank Shields, Chair
Sen. Gary George, Vice-Chair
Sen. Bruce Starr
Sen. Joanne Verger
Sen. Vicki Walker
STAFF PRESENT: Judith Callens, Committee Administrator
Linda K. Gatto, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
SB 310 – 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 65, A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Shields |
Calls the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. and opens the work session on SB 310. Refers to the document titled Disputed Issue Decision Chart and invites Mr. DiLorenzo to comment. |
|
SB 310 - WORK SESSION |
||
|
022 |
John DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy (OSEP). Submits rebuttal testimony which includes correspondences (EXHIBIT A). Refers to the Disputed Issue Decision Chart (EXHIBIT A, Tab 11) and summarizes OSEP’s opposition to SAIF reconnecting with the Public Records Law and SAIF’s conceptual change to Section 6. Summarizes OSEP’s support for the -10, -4 and -11 amendments. |
|
066 |
Sen. Walker |
Notes that the -11 amendments supersede the -5 amendments. |
|
068 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Continues to summarize support for the -7, -8 and -9 amendments to SB 310 and the -1 amendments to SB 984. Adds that the conceptual change regarding the assigned risk pool study would not be necessary if SB 984 -1 amendments were adopted. |
|
100 |
John DiLorenzo Jr. |
Refers to (EXHIBIT A) and explains OSEP’s intent in regard to the rebuttal testimony from SAIF, AOI and AGC. |
|
127 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Refers to the Statesman Journal article quoting Mr. Thurber and the minutes of SAIF Board of Directors meeting on January 24, 2005. |
|
160 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Discusses questionable uses of money and concurs with Sen. George that the legislature should prescribe statutes specifying what the rules should be rather than rely on good will. |
|
164 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Reiterates opposition to SAIF reconnecting to the Public Records Law. Refers to examples (EXHIBIT A, Tab 2) and states that there should be a law regarding disclosure and advocates the -4 amendments (EXHIBIT B). |
|
189 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Discusses the SAIF contempt of court ruling and SAIF’s position regarding sovereign immunity. Concludes with discussing the -8 amendments and loss provision contracts. |
|
273 |
Christopher Davie |
Representing SAIF Corporation. Refers to the summary of proposals to SB 310 (EXHIBIT C) and the explanation of proposed amendments to SB 310 (EXHIBIT D). Reviews and explains the proposals section by section. |
|
290 |
Sen. Walker |
Notes that all the sections associated with her name were incorporated into the -11 amendments. |
|
302 |
Brenda Rocklin |
Interim President and CEO, SAIF Corporation. Commenting on the public records issue, suggests that the committee needs to determine if SAIF should be treated differently than every other state agency and public entity. Refers to the definitions of “employer account records” and “claimant files” as advised by the Department of Justice (EXHIBIT C, Page 7). |
|
339 |
Chair Shields |
Comments on the inconsistency in writing style. |
|
347 |
Rocklin |
Begins a discussion on the -1 amendments and -4 amendments regarding “sovereign immunity”. |
|
386 |
Sen. Walker |
Confirms there were two versions and the -4 amendments are the most recent. |
|
400 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Explains the -1 amendments prohibit asserting the defense of sovereign immunity. Explains that the -4 amendments say that SAIF is subject to the inherent contempt power of the court and prohibits asserting the defense of sovereign immunity. |
|
409 |
Rocklin |
Responds that the -4 amendments are unnecessary. Explains that the legal issue is whether the legislature had authorized the court to impose monetary sanctions against the corporation itself; not against particular managers that may have engaged in contemptuous conduct. |
|
TAPE 66, A |
||
|
010 |
Rocklin |
Speculates on the relationship between attorney fees the -4 amendments. |
|
020 |
Chair Shields |
Refers to sovereign immunity as related to all state agencies in SB 989 and asks why not broaden this to all state agencies. |
|
031 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Explains that the Chair of the Judiciary Committee will not hear the bill. States that SAIF is the only state agency to be found in contempt of court. |
|
040 |
Rocklin |
Refers to Section 9 of the -4 amendments states that this is not talking about future conduct; the amendments are addressing January 2004. |
|
059 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Responds that the court originally fined SAIF over $2 million but then reduced the fine to $700,000. |
|
064 |
Sen. Walker |
Responds it is not uncommon for people to come with legislation to head off court decisions. |
|
071 |
Chris Davie |
Refers to the Disputed Issue Decision Chart (EXHIBIT A, Tab 11) and reviews SAIF’s position on the different proposals. |
|
102 |
Davie |
Refers to the document that outlines the types of records that are subject or not subject disclosure under the Public Records Law (EXHIBIT E). Summarizes SAIF’s opposition to the -10 and -4 amendments, support for the -11 amendments, and opposition to the -7, -8 and -9 amendments. |
|
141 |
Davie |
Discusses the suggested amendments to SB 984 submitted by the Department of Consumer and Business Services regarding the assigned risk pool (EXHIBIT F). |
|
189 |
Sen. Verger |
States that this is a unique and separate issue pertaining to SAIF and not other state agencies. Asks why the contract was broken with regard to the magazine. |
|
193 |
Rocklin |
Answers that the contract was not really broken. Explains that last year the board of directors for SAIF Corporation had concerns about political viewpoints in addition to safety information in the magazine called Business Viewpoint. The SAIF board wanted to renegotiate the contract, while not paying for the magazine. |
|
242 |
Chair Shields |
Asks if this is still an unanswered question. |
|
243 |
Rocklin |
Answers that the negotiations are ongoing. |
|
250 |
Sen. Verger |
Acknowledges the concern. Asks have all the contracts been reviewed to determine if the elimination of some might be beneficial to SAIF. |
|
264 |
Rocklin |
Answers if there is a legitimate contract it either needs to be honored or pay a penalty and walk away. When contracts come due they are evaluated. |
|
287 |
Sen. Verger |
Suggests that as SAIF goes forward, that they become non-political. |
|
299 |
Rocklin |
Responds this is what they are trying to do in SB 310. |
|
304 |
Chair Shields |
Refers to (EXHIBIT C) and (EXHIBIT A, Tab 11) and directs the committee to address issues that they feel strongly about and discuss them. |
|
356 |
Sen. Walker |
States there appears to be consensus on the -11 amendments entitled “new section” (EXHIBIT G). |
|
443 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Refers to Section 1 and suggests changing “may” to “shall”. |
|
484 |
Judith Callens |
Committee Administrator. Clarifies that the change from "may" to "shall" means require instead of allow. |
|
TAPE 65, B |
||
|
030 |
Rocklin |
Refers to the section just above where the board is required to review and approve all contracts (EXHIBIT C, Page 1). States the intent of Section 3 is the board may approve particular contracts under certain provisions. |
|
047 |
Sen. George |
Asks if the language in the original bill is not amended would it be okay. |
|
059 |
Sen. Walker |
Inquires if the -7 amendments regarding group plans are in Section 1. |
|
063 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
States that SAIF’s handout (EXHIBIT C) includes only the amendments that SAIF is supportive of not any of OSEP’s suggested amendments. |
|
091 |
Chair Shields |
Asks what the -7 amendments add to SB 310 (EXHIBIT A, Page 57). |
|
103 |
Sen. George |
States dislike for a government entity to show preference. Supports the -7 amendments. |
|
111 |
Sen. Walker |
Concurs with Sen. George. Comments that SAIF determines who participates as a group employer. |
|
120 |
Chair Shields |
Wonders if Section 1(3) already accomplishes criteria like sound business practices, insurance principals for specified services. Asks if the committee wants to go with the -7 amendments. |
|
124 |
Sen. Verger |
Asks are these employers being rewarded. |
|
137 |
Cory Streisinger |
Director, Department of Consumer and Business Service (DCBS). Informs that there is currently statutory guidance on when groups can and cannot be formed. States the criteria is stipulated in ORS 737.316. DCBS would be uncomfortable with the removal of the regulatory guidance as implied in the -7’s amendments. |
|
158 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Explains that the -7 amendments are not designed to remove the statutory criteria. States the question is whether or not SAIF has to provide group status; currently SAIF can pick and choose. |
|
179 |
Chair Shields |
Comments that other insurers pick and choose. Asks how is this different from other insurance groups. |
|
182 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Responds that SAIF is the government, other insurers are not. |
|
186 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Inquires about groups that SAIF has denied. |
|
188 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Recalls that National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) was not permitted a group. States there are number of others and he will follow up. |
|
199 |
Sen. Walker |
States that the -7 amendments should make it clear that the group must meet the criteria of ORS 737.316 |
|
220 |
Streisinger |
States that from an insurance regulatory standpoint it would treat SAIF differently from other participants in the market. Refers to the inter-relationship between the -7 amendments and -9 amendments and expresses concern that the safety achievements of groups could be at risk. |
|
230 |
Sen. George |
Asks if the “may” in line four of the -9 amendments solves this (EXHIBIT C, Page 59). |
|
248 |
Streisinger |
Notes that line six says “may” and explains that she reads this as having loss prevention services being put out to bid. |
|
264 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Affirms, the purpose of the amendment is to address favoritism. |
|
298 |
Chair Shields |
States he does not understand what criteria would be added that is not already there. |
|
329 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
States that the intention of the amendment is to remove SAIF’s discretion to pick and choose. |
|
343 |
Chair Shields |
Ask what does this do to the insurance market environment. |
|
350 |
Streisinger |
States the issue is subjectivity versus objectivity. |
|
387 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Asks does this allow for the differences in groups of employers. |
|
361 |
Rocklin |
Responds there does not appear to be information that this is not working for SAIF under the current rules and statutes. |
|
411 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks why someone cannot form their own group without being a member of another group in order to get a special discount. |
|
427 |
Rocklin |
Responds the advantage of being part of the group is to have loss control and safety work effectively. |
|
444 |
Chair Shields |
Refers to the mobile loss control units. |
|
464 |
Streisinger |
Notes that groups are experience rated. |
|
TAPE 66, B |
||
|
011 |
Sen. George |
Comments on having fair criteria for every group. Explains SAIF’s organizational purpose of being a safe harbor for those who are having difficulty in the open market. |
|
025 |
Streisinger |
Agrees conceptually. Asks how to come up with criteria that allows groups to be creative. |
|
038 |
Chair Shields |
Comments on subjective criteria. |
|
047 |
Rocklin |
States that she is not aware of the insurance division or workers compensation divisions getting complaints of unfair treatment from unsuccessful groups. |
|
056 |
Sen. Verger |
Expresses concern regarding the audit piece, public records, and sovereign immunity. |
|
089 |
Chair Shields |
Comments that people have a sense of what sound business and insurance principals are. |
|
091 |
Sen. Walker |
Supports the -7 amendments with the change of meeting the criteria under ORS 737.316. Asks what does “supported by sound business and insurance principals” mean. |
|
099 |
Streisinger |
Explains that depending on the circumstance it will exclude entering into contracts for political purposes, exclude favoritism, and business board must have business reasons for entering into contracts. |
|
130 |
Sen. Walker |
Supports the -7 with the changes and does not support the -9 amendments. Comments that safety programs lower workers compensation rates. |
|
150 |
Sen. Verger |
Comments on the -11 amendments because it does say operations. |
|
147 |
Chair Shields |
Requests a discussion on the audit piece. (-8 amendments) |
|
153 |
Rocklin |
Refers to page one of SB 310 regarding board accountability where an audit committee composed of board members would approve a plan for internal and external audits. Discusses how the -8 amendments would affect the Secretary of State Audits Division. |
|
203 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Agrees that someone other than the Secretary of State should do this. |
|
211 |
Chair Shields |
Refers to correspondence from the Secretary of State expressing concerns with the -8 amendments (EXHIBIT H). |
|
225 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Comments that the audit provisions in SB 310 and the -8 amendments are separate and distinct. |
|
231 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
States the -8 amendments are a perfect example of the philosophical differences in approach. The statute should provide that audits be done every other year. |
|
252 |
Sen. Verger |
States a preference for an external auditor; SAIF needs to dispel any wrongdoing. |
|
261 |
Rocklin |
Responds this is the reason why SAIF has pursued an external auditor for contract review. |
|
282 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Asks why not audit after the first two years and then upon renewal. Agrees with Mr. DiLorenzo that some of the things that Ms. Rocklin is bringing to the agency should be institutionalized. |
|
296 |
Rocklin |
Responds that the intent is hold the board of directors accountable. |
|
324 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Suggests more specificity in the language. |
|
328 |
Sen. Verger |
Comments on the behavior of the past board. Acknowledges that it is unfair but the board will need to rebuild trust and an outside auditor will provide assurance that it will be done. |
|
353 |
Rocklin |
Opines that the -8 amendments do not provide the business flexibility needed in the future. |
|
363 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Asks Mr. DiLorenzo if he is willing to alter the -8 amendments to provide more specificity. |
|
368 |
DiLorenzo, Jr. |
Responds affirmatively to a willingness to work on this. |
|
370 |
Sen. B. Starr |
Agrees to referee the work group. |
|
379 |
Sen. George |
Recommends that some of the language in the -8 amendments be incorporated for accountability criteria and a significant independence of the auditor. |
|
401 |
Chair Shields |
Recaps that Sen. B. Starr will work on the -8 amendments with input from Mr. DiLorenzo and Ms. Rocklin. Returns to the may/shall question in Section 1(3) (EXHIBIT C). |
|
430 |
Callens |
Informs that according to Legislative Counsel “may” is discretionary and “shall” is mandatory. Reviews what is included as discretionary or mandatory provisions. |
|
432 |
Chair Shields |
Comments on subjective language. |
|
470 |
Sen. Verger |
Suggests “shall only” approve contracts… |
|
TAPE 67, A |
||
|
020 |
Chair Shields |
Confirms there is consensus to change “may” to “shall only”. |
|
055 |
Chair Shields |
Recaps next steps, possibly carrying some over to Thursday. |
|
058 |
Sen. Verger |
States that she wants to be satisfied about the public records law. |
|
070 |
Chair Shields |
Agrees that the public records law and sovereign immunity issue are big issues and will come back on Thursday. Adjourns the meeting at 5:15 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY