TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 60, A

003

Chair Burdick

Calls the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and opens a work session on SB 229 and SB 234.

SB 229 & SB 234 – WORK SESSION

008

Chair Burdick

Puts the bills over until Monday, March 14, 2005.  Opens a work session on SB 232.

SB 232 – WORK SESSION

013

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 232 relating to the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect constituting insanity in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

023

Sen. Kate Brown

Senate District 21.  Testifies in support of SB 232.

038

Sen. Beyer

Asks if SB 232 had been available to Kip Kinkle, what would have changed.

043

Sen. Brown

Replies that she does not know the mental makeup of Mr. Kinkle.

050

Sen. Beyer

Repeats the question: If Kip Kinkle would have been acquitted on mental defects.

058

Sen. Brown

Comments on the rights and process for individuals, especially children, who suffer from mental illnesses.  Explains the goal of SB 232.

074

Chair Burdick

States that Kip Kinkle was tried in adult court, not in juvenile court.

078

Sen. Beyer

Inquires if passing SB 232 would allow individuals like Kip Kinkle to stay in juvenile court.

081

Chair Burdick

Responds no.

084

Sen. Beyer

Wonders about the fiscal impact of SB 232.

087

Sen. Brown

Replies that Mary Claire-Buckley of the Psychiatric Security Review Board will absorb the costs of this bill.  Discusses the other fiscal impacts of SB 232.

108

Sen. Beyer

Asks about the specific numbers for the next biennium.

109

Sen. Brown

Responds that she does not know for sure.

112

Chair Burdick

States that the fiscal statement is still in Legislative Fiscal.  Comments that the fiscal is not yet ready.

122

Sen. Whitsett

Wonders if they are underestimating the number of individuals attempting to take part in this bill.

126

Sen. Brown

Cites numbers for the fiscal impact over the next biennium.

145

Wendy Johnson

Deputy Director, Oregon Law Commission.  Gives information as to the fiscal impact discussed.  Talks about the insanity defense available to adults and juveniles.  Addresses the funding available through the federal government.

174

Sen. Brown

Brings up the issue of juveniles ending up in the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA); states there will be savings in that department.

183

Chair Burdick

Asks if they have quantified data.

187

Sen. Brown

Replies with information on the staffing and funding available to the OYA.

201

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 232 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means by prior reference.

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

203

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

206

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 232 and opens a public hearing on SB 921.

SB 921 – PUBLIC HEARING

210

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 921 relating to the petitioner for adoption being required to serve summons and motion and order to show cause on certain parents who do not consent to adoption.  Introduces written testimony from Maureen McKnight in support of SB 921 (EXHIBIT A)

221

Wendy Johnson

Deputy Director, Oregon Law Commission.  Submits the juvenile code revision work group report and testifies in support of SB 921.  Introduces the -1 amendment and summarizes SB 921 (EXHIBITS B & J).

275

Sybil Hebb

Legislative Advocate, Oregon Law Center.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 921 (EXHIBIT C).  Discusses the rights of juveniles in court cases.

328

Scott C. Adams

Attorney, adoption cases.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 921 (EXHIBIT D).  States that 90% of his law office’s business deals with adoption cases.

380

Adams

Discusses the process involved with adoption cases.  Details how the parent can have their rights taken away, but is not informed why or how it will be done, or on what timeframe.

430

Adams

Talks about the publication cases.  Comments on parents who have “disappeared” from a family, and how the lawyers should have counsel rights.

TAPE 61, A

024

Adams

Addresses the publication requirement, and giving the parents all the information possible.

030

Johnson

Points out that the juvenile court often must use publications as a method of business.  Discusses the expense of such a process.

044

Adams

Stresses the need for SB 921 with or without the amendments.

054

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 921 and opens a work session on SB 230.

SB 230 – WORK SESSION

079

Sen. Kate Brown

Senate District 21.  Discusses the appointments of guardian ad litem in the juvenile court system.

099

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Details the -1 and -2 amendments.  Brings up the issue of a possible extra amendment.  Talks about how this amendment is redundant, and offers examples why.

130

Wendy Johnson

Deputy Director, Oregon Law Commission.  Testifies in support of SB 230.  Explains the effects after passing the bill.

144

Sen. Beyer

Asks why the rules of evidence do not apply in a hearing to appoint a guardian ad litem.

147

O’Leary

Speculates why the court would not allow the rules of evidence to occur.

161

Sen. Prozanski

Explains the reasoning behind the suspension of the rules of evidence in a hearing to appoint a guardian ad litem.

184

Sen. Beyer

Inquires about the suspension of parental rights in these cases.

187

O’Leary

Replies that there isn’t anything in the bill dealing with the denying of parental rights in the guardian ad litem cases.

194

Sen. Brown

Explains the reasoning behind protecting the client’s rights.

203

Timothy Travis

Oregon Judicial Department.  Discusses the termination of parental rights, and how the guardian ad litem is not allowed to suspend those rights.  Details the situation where and why a guardian ad litem is needed.  Talks about the inclusion of hearsay evidence through these hearings.

236

Sen. Beyer

Brings up the issue of a parent not agreeing with the methods employed be removed as a guardian in lieu of a guardian ad litem.

241

Sen. Brown

Addresses the issue raised by Sen. Beyer by summarizing sections of the bill that deals with the ability of a parent to serve in the capacity as a guardian.

269

Sen. Beyer

States that the parent’s rights can get bypassed by not allowing the evidence rules.

276

Sen. Prozanski

Comments on the circumstances where the rules of evidence should be suspended, and the inclusion of hearsay allowed, for the best defense of the child.

321

Sen. Brown

Details that SB 230 provides guidance to the individuals who are appointed as guardian ad litem.

344

Sen. Beyer

Asks about the bill language relating to the appointment of guardian ad litem.

353

Travis

Discusses the evidence code applying and not applying in certain situations, and the presumption of applying or not in juvenile cases.  Talks about the code being vague when describing certain situations.  

400

Travis

Explains that SB 230 appoints a disinterested party as the guardian ad litem; never a parent or the lawyer of the client.

434

Sen. Beyer

Asks if this bill grants statutory authority to something they already done.

438

Sen. Prozanski

Replies that there will be rules and parameters to the procedure.

450

Chair Burdick

Inquires if there is a problem with grandparents stepping in as guardian ad litem.

452

Travis

Replies that over the past 10-15 years it has occurred infrequently but not rarely.

456

Sen. Beyer

Wonders why a grandparent (or other family member) shouldn’t be a guardian ad litem.

463

Travis

Replies with information on why they are not sought after as a guardian ad litem.

TAPE 60, B

021

Chair Burdick

Explains the situation relating to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

029

Sen. Prozanski

Expresses that SB 230 will not allow a possible guardian to become a guardian ad litem.

047

Sen. Beyer

Comments that it is still up to the court who will become the new guardian, not the guardian ad litem.

051

Travis

States that there is a conflict of interest in those cases.

053

Sen. Prozanski

Stresses the earlier statement that a possible guardian cannot become a guardian ad litem.

057

Chair Burdick

Acknowledges that the guardian ad litem is for the parent who is incapable of participating in their own interests.

069

Sen. Prozanski

Expresses his desire to discuss the bill with Sen. Beyer.

096

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 230 and opens a work session SB 231.

SB 231 – WORK SESSION

093

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 231 relating to requiring the court, under certain circumstances, to cause a list to be made that identifies reports or material provided to court for consideration but not admitted as exhibits.  Details that there is no fiscal impact as of yet.  Discusses the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT K).

118

Wendy Johnson

Deputy Director, Oregon Law Commission.  Testifies in support of SB 231 and discusses the effects of this bill.

136

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 231-1 amendments dated 1/31/05.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

140

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

141

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 231 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

145

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. WALKER will lead discussion on the floor.

146

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 231 and opens a work session on SB 233.

SB 233 – WORK SESSION

148

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 233 relating to the Oregon Youth Authority case planning.

164

Wendy Johnson

Deputy Director, Oregon Law Commission.  Testifies in support of SB 233 and discusses the -2 amendment (incorporates the -1 amendments) (EXHIBIT L).

179

Sen. Walker

Expresses her hesitance to move the bill today without further study and discussion.

189

Chair Burdick

Agrees that further discussion is called for, but wishes to move the bill today to the floor.

203

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 233-2 amendments dated 2/21/05.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

207

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

208

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 233 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

211

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. WALKER will lead discussion on the floor.

215

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 233 and opens a public hearing on SB 547 & SB 548.

SB 547 & SB 548 – PUBLIC HEARING

200

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 547 relating to expanding the crime of criminal impersonation of police officers, and SB 548 relating to modifying the crime of interfering with a peace officer.  Introduces the -1 amendment to SB 547 and the hand engrossed SB 547 (EXHIBITS E & F).

265

Sen. Prozanski

Submits written testimony from Tim Laue in support of SB 547 (EXHIBIT G).  Discusses the reasoning behind the need for SB 547.

293

Sen. Prozanski

Gives a brief history of SB 548 and introduces the -1 amendment and the hand engrossed version of SB 548 with the -1 amendment (EXHIBITS H & I). 

214

Gina Skinner

Oregon District Attorney Association.  Testifies in support of SB 547.  Details the effects of the bill, and the need for its passage.

355

Sen. Prozanski

Discusses the campus security officers at the University of Oregon sharing identical uniforms with the Eugene police department, and the problems this presents.

394

Chair Burdick

Asks about the practical effect from SB 547 on the University of Oregon’s campus security.

400

Sen. Prozanski

Admits there would not be much assistance from this bill and offers clarification on what they hope to accomplish with SB 547.

414

Dan Swift

Oregon State Police Officers Association.  Testifies in support of SB 547.  Addresses the uniform scenario discussed earlier, and the real effects of SB 547; details why it is vital to protecting both officers and citizens.

470

Chair Burdick

Inquires if the OSPOA has looked at the -1 amendment.

472

Swift

Replies yes.

477

Skinner

Testifies in support of SB 548.  Talks about how the security of citizens and officers will be increased after passing SB 548.

TAPE 61, B

044

Skinner

Addresses the necessary changes resulting from the -1 amendment.

066

Swift

Testifies in support of SB 548 and the -1 amendment.

082

Chair Burdick

Asks for the definition of a crime scene.

084

Swift

Gives a definition of what constitutes a crime scene.

090

Chair Burdick

Inquires if the determination is based on a case by case basis.

091

Swift

Answers yes.

094

Sen. Prozanski

Comments on the possible amendment dealing with a lawful assembly.

125

Chair Burdick

Wonders about changing the language to fix the vague language.

134

Swift

Discusses the detaining of individuals involved with a crime scene.  Points out that SB 548 is meant to make the officers’ jobs easier and people safer.

151

Sen. Prozanski

Asserts that an individual who continues to interfere, even after repeated warnings, must be punished.

170

Chair Burdick

Raises the concern of interfering with the rights of individuals.

180

Sen. Prozanski

Explains the wording of the bill that would protect such occurrences.

199

Skinner

Gives information on the process taken by peace officers before suspending their rights.

233

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 547 & SB 548 and opens a work session on SB 547.

SB 547 – WORK SESSION

241

Sen. Prozanski

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 547-1 amendments dated 3/8/05.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

245

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

248

Sen. Prozanski

MOTION:  Moves SB 547 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Ringo

248

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. PROZANSKI will lead discussion on the floor.

252

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 547 and re-opens a work session on SB 921.

SB 921 – WORK SESSION

255

Chair Burdick

Moves SB 921 to the agenda on Monday, March 14, 2005.

261

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 921 and adjourns the meeting at 2:55 p.m.