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

 

  1. SB 324, -1 amendment, Sen. Walker, 3 pp
  2. SB 273, -1 amendment, Sen. Walker, 11 pp
  3. SB 273, -2 amendment, Sen. Walker, 1 p
  4. SB 273, -3 amendment, Sen. Walker, 11 pp
  5. SB 641, -1 amendment, staff, 1 p
  6. SB 641, -2 amendment, staff, 1 p
  7. SB 844, -2 amendment, staff, 16 pp
  8. SB 945, -3 amendment, Sen. Ringo, 1 p
  9. SB 945, written testimony, Blair Halperin, 8 pp
  10. SB 945, written testimony, Tom Bittner, 4 pp
  11. SB 920, -2 amendment, staff, 20 pp
  12. SB 920, written testimony, Gerald Watson, 4 pp