SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
April 13, 2005 Hearing Room 343
1:00 P.M. Tapes 106 - 108
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair
Sen. Charles Starr, Vice-Chair
Sen. Roger Beyer
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Charlie Ringo
Sen. Vicki Walker
Sen. Doug Whitsett
STAFF PRESENT: William E. Taylor, Counsel
Joe O'Leary, Counsel
Dale Penn, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
SB 324 – Public Hearing
SB 198 – Work Session
SB 243 – Work Session
SB 273 – Work Session
SB 641 – Work Session
SB 844 – Work Session
SB 945 – Public Hearing
SB 920 – Public Hearing
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 106, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Burdick |
Calls the meeting to order as a subcommittee at 1:14 p.m. and opens a public hearing on SB 324. |
|
SB 324 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
006 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 324 relating to removing the exceptions requiring confidentiality under certain conditions for the terms of settlement or compromise of action involving a public body and the terms of mediation agreement involving the public body. Introduces the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT A). |
|
027 |
Sen. Vicki Walker |
Senate District 7. Testifies in support of SB 324. Discusses Ward 40 at the Oregon State Hospital that is infamous for abuse cases. |
|
078 |
Sen. Walker |
Details the available exception for sex abuse cases presently under current law. |
|
088 |
Pete Shepherd |
Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice. Testifies in support of SB 324. States that settlement lawsuits are required to be non-confidential. |
|
118 |
Shepherd |
Addresses the -1 amendment dealing with provisions that would permit the court to determine whether a case should be confidential. |
|
140 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if the wording in the draft would protect the person in the lawsuit. Inquires about the protections of the bill for people under 18 years of age. |
|
145 |
Shepherd |
Replies that the redaction of information in certain cases involving personal privacy would be addressed on a case by case basis. Declares that the -1 amendment would only apply to individuals under 18. |
|
172 |
Chair Burdick |
Wonders about changing the language of the bill to better protect the victims of rape. |
|
179 |
Sen. Walker |
Replies that she would be agreeable to making such a change. |
|
175 |
Chair Burdick |
Agrees that there is some vital information pertinent to be disclosed to the public. |
|
200 |
Shepherd |
Points out that they would be happy to work with Sen. Walker to address these issues. |
|
213 |
Sen. Walker |
Inquires about if the Chair is looking to protect sex abuse victims exclusively or all victims in the new drafting language. |
|
216 |
Chair Burdick |
Replies that all victims must be protected. |
|
240 |
Sen. Walker |
States that she will be happy to work with the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to fix these issues. |
|
247 |
Sen. Beyer |
Asks what this bill aims to fix. |
|
250 |
Sen. Walker |
Responds that the bill was based on a story which brought to light corruption and sex abuse scandal at the Oregon State Hospital. |
|
277 |
Sen. Beyer |
Wonders if the language in the bill addresses everyone. |
|
294 |
Shepherd |
States that the language covers pretty much anyone who would bring a court case against the state. |
|
323 |
Kristy Munson |
League of Oregon Cities. Addresses the statutes cross referenced by SB 324. Testifies in a neutral stance on the bill; definitely not opposed. |
|
331 |
Sen. Beyer |
Lists several groups of people who would be covered by the bill. |
|
336 |
Munson |
Responds that any government official or agency is covered by the bill. |
|
354 |
Taylor |
Reads and discusses the statute under question relating to the use of state funds for any use other than what it is intended for. |
|
379 |
Chair Burdick |
Talks about settlements in her school district. |
|
398 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing on SB 324 and opens a work session on SB 198. |
|
SB 198 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
403 |
Chair Burdick |
Moves SB 198 to Thursday, April 14, 2005. Closes the work session on SB 198 and opens a work session on SB 243. |
|
SB 243 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
411 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 243 relating to modifying the conditions of post-prison supervision or parole for persons convicted of a sex crime. Discusses the proposed -2 amendment. |
|
457 |
O’Leary |
Talks about the places where convicted sex offenders would be prohibited from visiting. |
|
494 |
Sen. Prozanski |
States that these amendments have addressed the issues he had earlier. |
|
TAPE 107, A |
||
|
046 |
Michael Washington |
Chair, Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. Discusses the reasoning behind designating the areas where minors congregate. |
|
069 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about possible drafting choices for the definition of these areas. |
|
071 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Declares that there needs to be caution when limiting an individual’s ability to be at institutions where children might be present (public library, hospital, etc.). |
|
084 |
Darcy Baker |
Parole Board. Hesitates to support any language that opens the door for sex offenders to visit areas where children are predominately present. |
|
101 |
Washington |
Talks about the methods of enforcing and addressing convicted sex offenders who visit certain areas where children might be present (young-adult/children section of the public library as an example). |
|
122 |
O’Leary |
Addresses the drafting confusion by stating the proposed -3 amendment would create a stricter listing of areas off limit to the convicted sex offender. |
|
134 |
Chair Burdick |
Agrees with the expansion of the definition for the areas barred to sex offenders. |
|
141 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Inquires if the Parole and Probation officer is carefully explaining the specific areas off limit to a sex offender. |
|
147 |
Washington |
Responds that they do offer this information to the offender. |
|
160 |
Baker |
Desires the ability to limit the locations where a convicted sex offender to visit. |
|
165 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Explains that the proposed -3 amendment will address this issue to an acceptable degree. |
|
175 |
Chair Burdick |
States that defining the drafting language will help with this issue. |
|
185 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Brings up the example of a convicted sex offender not being able to visit a mall due to the area having a children’s toy store. |
|
194 |
Washington |
Talks about their issue with the drafting choices. |
|
212 |
O’Leary |
Reads the legal definition of the drafting language under question. |
|
221 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 243 and opens a work session on SB 273. |
|
SB 273 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
235 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 273 relating to increasing the homestead exemptions from $25,000 to $50,000 for a single debtor, and from $ 33,000 to $75,000 for join debtors who are members of the same household. Discusses the -1, -2 & -3 amendments (EXHIBITS B – D). |
|
263 |
Sen. Walker |
Talks about the work group formed to address the problems with the bill. Details the creation of the -2 and -3 amendments. |
|
277 |
Sen. Walker |
States that about every 12 years they raise the exemptions. |
|
332 |
Sen. Walker |
Explains that the creditors agreed to the -2 amendment. Comments on the bankruptcy reform bill facing congress this year. |
|
363 |
Chair Burdick |
Points out that the amendments are justifiable. |
|
377 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 273-2 amendments dated 4/1/05. |
|
381 |
Sen. Ringo |
Discusses the inflation rates as an impetus to raise these rates. |
|
398 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Expresses his opposition to the -2 amendment and the bill in itself. |
|
404 |
Sen. Walker |
Talks about the choice for these amendments to current law. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-2-0 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Ringo, Starr C., Walker, Burdick NAY: 2 - Beyer, Whitsett |
|
441 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
443 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves SB 273 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-2-0 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Ringo, Starr C., Walker, Burdick NAY: 2 - Beyer, Whitsett |
|
462 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. SEN. WALKER will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
468 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 273 and opens a work session on SB 641. |
|
SB 641 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
470 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 641 relating to creating a crime of possessing dog fighting paraphernalia. Introduces the -1 and -2 amendment (EXHIBITS E & F). |
|
TAPE 106, B |
||
|
029 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about the -1 amendment. |
|
031 |
O’Leary |
Discusses the -1 amendment. |
|
041 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 641-1 amendments dated 4/6/05. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Ringo, Walker |
|
043 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
043 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 641-2 amendments dated 4/7/05. |
|
046 |
Sen. Beyer |
Explains his opposition to the -2 amendment. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-1-1 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Starr C., Walker, Whitsett, Burdick NAY: 1 - Beyer EXCUSED: 1 - Ringo |
|
058 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
059 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves SB 641 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
062 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Explains the intent of the bill, for the record, that the intent must be proven that the owner is intending to use the dog for fighting. |
|
071 |
O’Leary |
Describes the legislative intent of the bill. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-1-1 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Starr C., Walker, Whitsett, Burdick NAY: 1 - Beyer EXCUSED: 1 - Ringo |
|
081 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. SEN. DECKERT will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
086 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 641 and opens a work session on SB 844. |
|
SB 844 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
088 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 844 relating to increasing the penalty for dog keepers who maintains a public nuisance by keeping a dog that bites people. Introduces and discusses the -1 and -2 amendments (EXHIBITS G). |
|
119 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about the effects of the -2 amendment. |
|
132 |
Suzie Funkhouser |
Legislative Aide, Sen. Deckert. Explains the -2 amendment. |
|
144 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Inquires about the -1 amendment. |
|
148 |
O’Leary |
Addresses a misdemeanor offense already on the books relating to this issue. |
|
163 |
Sen. Beyer |
Wonders about the current statute and how it is altered with the passage of this bill. |
|
176 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Talks about the ordinances in the counties and the methods employed by those groups during occurrences of dog attacks. |
|
186 |
O’Leary |
Points out that a Class C misdemeanor is created under current law in these situations. |
|
203 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Discusses the need for a standard throughout the state for this type of violation. |
|
213 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Brings up the issue of a dog attack on the premises of the owner. |
|
229 |
O’Leary |
Comments on the drafting language relating to the dog attack occurring on the owner’s land. |
|
254 |
Funkhouser |
Talks about the scenario brought up by Sen. Whitsett dealing with a dog attack occurring on the owner’s property. |
|
270 |
Sen. Starr |
Tells a personal story involving a dog attack. Addresses the issue of dogs attacking together. |
|
321 |
Chair Burdick |
Points out that the situation described by Sen. Starr is directly impacted by the amendment. |
|
336 |
Sen. Ringo |
Tells a story involving a client who owned a dog involved in an attack, but who had secured the animal and warned the public. |
|
365 |
O’Leary |
Talks about the scenario brought up by Sen. Ringo. |
|
389 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about repeat offender dog attacks. |
|
402 |
O’Leary |
Offers information on the repeat offender animals. |
|
410 |
Sen. Whitsett |
States that he would not support any legislation that would possibly make the use of guard dogs illegal. |
|
430 |
Starr |
Expresses his belief that guard dogs are covered under the bill and not made illegal. |
|
447 |
Funkhouser |
Points out a section on page 1 of the bill dealing with dogs used in this manner. |
|
463 |
Beyer |
Brings up a possible conflict in the drafting of the bill. |
|
484 |
O’Leary |
Agrees with the conflict discovered by Sen. Beyer, and states that this needs to be fixed before they can pass the bill as it is intended to work. |
|
518 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 844 and opens a public hearing on SB 945. |
|
SB 945 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
TAPE 107, B |
||
|
040 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 945 relating to prohibiting the court from reinstating transitional spousal support or spousal maintenance after court has terminated those types of support. Introduces the -3 amendment (EXHIBIT H). |
|
052 |
Blair Halperin |
Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 945 (EXHIBIT I). |
|
082 |
Halperin |
States that currently, when someone is re-married, their spousal support is then cancelled. |
|
126 |
Halperin |
Details his personal story involving the court reinstating spousal support after it had been terminated. |
|
162 |
Sen. Ringo |
Commends the witness for coming forward with this. |
|
173 |
Tom Bittner |
Family Law Section of the Oregon State Bar. Submits testimony and testifies in opposition to SB 945 (EXHIBIT J). |
|
187 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks about the scenario where an individual’s spousal support payments were initially terminated due to a marriage; restarted when that marriage dissolved. |
|
207 |
Sen. Ringo |
Inquires about the same scenario. |
|
211 |
Bittner |
Addresses the scenario listed above, and states that the 1991 legislature wanted to make sure emergencies with the spouse did not adversely affect a person’s ability to live safely. |
|
230 |
Beyer |
Asks if the termination of spousal support rights is automatic at marriage. |
|
232 |
Bittner |
Replies that they are not immediately suspended. |
|
266 |
Bittner |
Discusses the policy reasoning behind their opposition to the bill. |
|
296 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Talks about the -3 amendment facing the committee relating to a spouse reinstituting their spousal support rights. |
|
317 |
Bittner |
States that there has been no real outcry against the current statute and it does not need major amending. |
|
335 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing on SB 945 and opens a public hearing on SB 920. |
|
SB 920 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
341 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 920 relating to revising the laws relating to execution sales. Introduces the -2 amendment (EXHIBIT K). |
|
364 |
Gerald Watson |
Oregon Law Commission. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 920 (EXHIBIT L). |
|
404 |
Watson |
Addresses the summary of SB 920 in his testimony. |
|
450 |
Watson |
Talks about the changing economy requiring an update of this issue. |
|
480 |
Dave Heynderickx |
Legislative Counsel. Talks about the methods and processes behind execution sales. |
|
TAPE 108, A |
||
|
040 |
Heynderickx |
Stresses that this isn’t just a clean up bill, and it changes several problems that have yet to be statutorily addressed (substantive changes). |
|
058 |
Marshall Ross |
Multnomah County Sheriff Office. Testifies in support of SB 920. |
|
073 |
Mark Comstock |
Marion County. Testifies in support of SB 920. Talks about the clarifications with the -2 amendment. |
|
102 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing on SB 920. Puts SB 850 until Thursday, April 14, 2005 and adjourns the meeting at 3:10 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
EXHIBIT SUMMARY