SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
May 25, 2005 Hearing Room 343
1:00 P.M. Tapes 146 - 147
Corrected 10/26/05
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 978 – Public Hearing and Work Session
SB 528 – Work Session
SB 1041 – Public Hearing
SB 392 – Public Hearing
SB 1050 – Work Session
SB 424 – Work Session
SB 1059 – Public Hearing and 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 146, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Burdick |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. and opens a public hearing on SB 978. |
|
SB 978 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
010 |
Rep. Dennis Richardson |
House District 4. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 978 (EXHIBIT A). Introduces written testimony from Mark Huddleston, Jackson County District Attorney (EXHIBIT B). |
|
024 |
Mary Botkin |
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 978 (EXHIBIT C). |
|
074 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 978 relating to prohibiting the disclosure of public records relating to the criminal investigation or prosecution or to confinement of persons convicted of crimes unless personal identifiers that have been deleted. Introduces and discusses the -2 and -3 amendments (EXHIBITS D & E). |
|
095 |
Botkin |
Suggests the addition of the word “home” in front of the term “address” to protect the houses of agency workers. |
|
111 |
Dan Norris |
Malheur County District Attorney, Oregon District Attorney Association. Testifies in support of SB 978. |
|
130 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Notes the specific location where the additional term “home” would be added. |
|
138 |
Taylor |
Clarifies the effect of the bill; protecting the home address and information from access. |
|
153 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on SB 978. |
|
SB 978 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
160 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 978-3 amendments dated 5/25/05. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Ringo, Walker |
|
163 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
164 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves SB 978 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Ringo, Walker |
|
166 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. SEN. PROZANSKI will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
172 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 978 and opens a work session on SB 528. |
|
SB 528 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
177 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 528 relating to decreasing the penalty for a crime of cheating to a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Introduces and describes the -10 amendment (EXHIBIT F). |
|
219 |
Chair Burdick |
Commends the work from counsel and by Legislative Counsel. |
|
225 |
O’Leary |
States that the Fiscal Impact Statement was not ready at the time of the hearing, but it will be indeterminate. |
|
240 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if the bill would trigger the local impact provision. |
|
243 |
O’Leary |
Replies that it will not. |
|
247 |
Chair Burdick |
Talks about the discussion over whether the bill should be retroactive to cases in the ‘pipeline.’ Stresses that if a case has exhausted all appeals, then Blakely will not apply. |
|
271 |
O’Leary |
Comments on the retroactivity provision in the -10 amendment. |
|
279 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about the -10 amendment representing the -9 as opposed to the -8 amendment. |
|
290 |
Chair Burdick |
Says that the -10 represents the -9 with fixes. |
|
296 |
Sen. Starr |
States that the -10 amendment replaces the entirety of the bill. |
|
300 |
O’Leary |
Declares that the -8 amendment did not apply retroactively and the -9 and -10 did. |
|
310 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Talks about the jurors required to convict and aggravate the sentence. |
|
321 |
O’Leary |
Replies that there would need to be at least 10 jurors to add an aggravated factor to the judgment. |
|
345 |
O’Leary |
Stresses that there may be further applicability resulting from Blakely and this bill. |
|
372 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Wonders if the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association supports this -10 amendment. |
|
384 |
John Hummel |
Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Declares their opposition to the retroactivity clause in the -10 amendment. |
|
403 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 528-10 amendments dated 5/18/05. |
|
405 |
Sen. Ringo |
Declares his objection over the -10 amendment. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 4-2-1 AYE: 4 - Beyer, Prozanski, Starr C., Burdick NAY: 2 - Ringo, Whitsett EXCUSED: 1 - Walker |
|
418 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
420 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves SB 528 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
424 |
Sen. Beyer |
Offers his hesitance to fully support a bill with no fiscal impact statement yet. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Walker |
|
441 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. SEN. BURDICK will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
TAPE 147, A |
||
|
010 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 978 and opens a public hearing on SB 1041. |
|
SB 1041 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
013 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 1041 relating to creating a civil action for custodial interference in any degree. |
|
028 |
Sean Cruz |
Legislative Aide, Sen. Avel Gordly. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1041 but states that there are amendments pending (EXHIBIT G). |
|
071 |
Bealisa Sydlik |
Family Law Senior Policy Analyst. Office of the State Court Administrator. Submits testimony and testifies in a neutral stance on SB 1041 (EXHIBIT H). Encourages amendments that would decrease the statute of limitations and eliminate the retroactivity in the bill. |
|
118 |
Taylor |
Asks about if she means conviction when she states “prosecution.” Inquires about the filing by either a District Attorney or a private citizen. |
|
113 |
Sydlik |
Replies that the filing of a case might constitute prosecution, and the District Attorney needs to accept the case. |
|
129 |
Sen. Ringo |
Inquires about if the crime of custodial interference requires intent. |
|
132 |
Taylor |
Responds that it does require intent. Addresses the legality of the issue. |
|
143 |
Sen. Ringo |
Comments on the term “protracted period” of time. |
|
185 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks about the typical custodial interference case. |
|
188 |
Sydlik |
Replies with information on custodial interference cases. |
|
200 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Discusses the concerns raised by Sen. Ringo. |
|
215 |
Sybil Hebb |
Oregon Law Center. Testifies on the issue of custodial interference. |
|
239 |
Sen. Starr |
Agrees that work needs to be done on this issue. |
|
261 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing on SB 1041. Asks for a suspension of the rules to allow Sen. Walker to vote on SB 528. Opens a work session on SB 528. |
|
SB 528 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
270 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves to SUSPEND the rules for the purpose of allowing Sen. Walker to vote on SB 528. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Prozanski |
|
272 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
275 |
Sen. Walker |
Votes Aye. |
|
280 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 528 and opens a public hearing on SB 392. |
|
SB 392 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
283 |
Sen. Westlund |
Senate District 27. Testifies in support of SB 392. Tells a story involving family murder that would be addressed by SB 392. |
|
348 |
Chair Burdick |
Commends Sen. Westlund for bringing this issue to light. Asks about the exception in the bill relating to individuals pressuring another to get around the bill. |
|
364 |
Sen. Westlund |
Details the rational process that needs to be followed before any exemptions would be allowed or assets signed over. |
|
385 |
William E. Taylor |
Addresses current slayer laws. |
|
416 |
Chair Burdick |
Inquires if an exemption exists for people under the age of 18. |
|
425 |
Sen. Westlund |
Talks about the proceeds resulting from the death of a person; what would occur if a trust would be setup for underage individuals in these situations. |
|
444 |
Taylor |
States that, if the younger person would die, then the property would go to other family members: with this bill, the assets would not go to the family member convicted of the slaying. |
|
TAPE 146, B |
||
|
011 |
Taylor |
Comments on the guardian status in relation to blood relatives. |
|
033 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing on SB 392 and moves SB 1025 to Tuesday, May 31, 2005. Opens a work session on SB 1050. |
|
SB 1050 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
048 |
William E. Taylor |
Counsel. Describes SB 1050 relating to modifying the requirements for eligibility of a child 18 years of age or older and under 21 years of age to receive child support while attending school. Introduces and describes the -3 amendment (EXHIBIT I). |
|
067 |
Ronelle Shankle |
Attorney General’s Office, Department of Justice. Testifies in support of the SB 1050 with the -3 amendment. |
|
086 |
Shani Fuller |
Department of Justice, Oregon Child Support Program. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1050 (EXHIBIT J). Talks about the -3 amendment. |
|
130 |
Fuller |
Addresses the emergency clause in the bill. |
|
133 |
Sen. Starr |
Inquires if this bill applies to intact families. |
|
135 |
Fuller |
Replies that it does not. |
|
145 |
Sen. Starr |
Declares that he does not believe these opportunities should be offered to families that have been broken up if they are not offered to intact families. |
|
164 |
Shankle |
Stresses that this bill does not affect the support entitlement for these children. Talks about the effects of the bill. |
|
174 |
Taylor |
Asks how long this law has been on the books. |
|
177 |
Shankle |
Replies that it has been on the books for many years, but she is not sure about the exact date it was created. |
|
181 |
Chair Burdick |
Inquires if the obligation to pay for a child’s college education is determined by the divorce decree. |
|
186 |
Shankle |
Reports that this is not a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement of educational expenses; requires a dissolution or administrative order (support order). |
|
192 |
Chair Burdick |
Wonders if this bill only applies to supporting the child; not obligating individuals to pay for college tuition, etc. |
|
196 |
Shankle |
Replies that it does not obligate others to pay for tuition. |
|
224 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 1050 and opens a work session on SB 424. |
|
SB 424 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
227 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 424 relating to giving the court discretion in awarding temporary custody of parties’ children when the court issues restraining orders under the Family Abuse Prevention Act. Introduces and describes the -1 and -2 amendments (EXHIBITS K & L). |
|
268 |
Bealisa Sydlik |
Family Law Senior Policy Analyst. Office of the State Court Administrator. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 424 (EXHIBIT M). |
|
300 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks how many of these types of cases are brought before judges in Oregon. |
|
307 |
Sydlik |
Replies that these cases do not occur often (5% of the cases brought before judges, roughly), and reports with information on the statistics for these cases. |
|
314 |
Chair Burdick |
Wonders about the tight requirements in the -2 amendment. |
|
319 |
Sydlik |
States that the judge would need additional information before seeking this method. |
|
330 |
Sybil Hebb |
Oregon Law Center. Submits testimony and FAPA Custody Changes and testifies in a neutral stance on SB 424 and support the -2 amendment (EXHIBITS N & O). |
|
380 |
Hebb |
Talks about the -2 amendments and the support for the bill. |
|
400 |
Hebb |
Declares their support of the current state of the law, but if the bill would move, to include the -2 amendment with their support. |
|
425 |
Hebb |
Strongly urges the committee provides direction for the department when this clause would be used. |
|
TAPE 147, B |
||
|
022 |
Sen. Walker |
States that taking a child away from a parent is something that needs to be heavily discussed before it is done; declares that the problem needs to be fixed. |
|
039 |
Sen. Walker |
Stresses that a -3 is needed. |
|
049 |
Sydlik |
Talks about the commitment to increase department training on this issue. |
|
080 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Talks about the lack of an emergency clause, discloses his hesitance to support a bill that clearly has issues. |
|
102 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Comments on the judicial power to make an informed decision. |
|
111 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 424 and moves SB 1047 to another day. Opens a public hearing on SB 1059. |
|
SB 1059 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
124 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 1059 relating to providing that a person under 18 years of age who is found guilty except for insanity of a crime may be committed to a secure intensive community impatient facility. Introduces and discusses the -1 and -2 amendments (EXHIBITS P & Q). |
|
164 |
Sen. Beyer |
Asks if this bill has a similar effect as another they had heard earlier in the session. |
|
165 |
O’Leary |
Talks about the different bills relating to this subject that the Senate Judiciary Committee has heard this session. |
|
187 |
Bill Bouska |
Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1059 with the -1 and -2 amendments (EXHIBIT R). |
|
214 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks if this bill is a result of closing Ward 40. Asks when the new program started, and if all the adolescents from Ward 40 are in the Corvallis secure adolescent program. |
|
215 |
Bouska |
Replies yes. States that the new program began in early March and that all adolescents are in the Corvallis program. |
|
244 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires as to where they received the statutory authority to move these adolescents. |
|
247 |
Bouska |
Responds with information on where in Oregon statutes (161.370) they received the authority to accomplish this relocation of adolescents. Talks about the different options available to the court to deal with these younger offenders. |
|
274 |
O’Leary |
Addresses Sen. Beyer’s concern on statutory authority and the example the witness discussed. Discusses the lack of flexibility of the Psychiatric Security Review Board to manage these issues. |
|
314 |
Mary Claire Buckley |
Director, Psychiatric Security Review Board. Testifies on the legal options for conditionally releasing these adolescents into the new programs. |
|
338 |
Sen. Beyer |
Asks if any of the patients who were recently moved considered dangerous. |
|
346 |
Buckley |
Replies that there were dangerous offenders moved to the new program, but there are very secure methods used by the program to eliminate any threat these individuals may pose. |
|
359 |
Sen. Beyer |
Stresses that he does not like adapting law to fit the methods already used by different agencies that are bending the current statute. |
|
369 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Clarifies the effects of SB 1059. Declares that they have not broken the law, violated the statutes, or are outside their statutory authority. |
|
393 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on SB 1059. |
|
SB 1059 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
399 |
Sen. Walker |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 1059-1 amendments dated 5/18/05. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Starr |
|
404 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
405 |
Sen. Walker |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 1059-2 amendments dated 5/18/05. |
|
409 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Declares his support for the emergency clause for the bill. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Starr |
|
416 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
418 |
Sen. Walker |
MOTION: Moves SB 1059 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
424 |
Chair Burdick |
Declares a potential conflict of interest. |
|
427 |
Sen. Beyer |
States that there has yet to be a fiscal for the bill. |
|
429 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Stresses that there will need a -3 amendment which will then receive a fiscal. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Starr |
|
450 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. SEN. WALKER will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
453 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 1059 and re-opens a work session on SB 1050. |
|
SB 1050 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
457 |
Sen. Walker |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 1050-3 amendments dated 5/19/05. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 5-1-1 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Ringo, Walker, Whitsett, Burdick NAY: 1 - Beyer EXCUSED: 1 - Starr C. |
|
461 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
466 |
Sen. Walker |
MOTION: Moves SB 1050 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
472 |
Sen. Beyer |
Talks about how this is bad law and will not support the bill. |
|
489 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Declares a potential conflict of interest. |
|
|
Chair Burdick |
VOTE: 5-1-1 AYE: 5 - Prozanski, Ringo, Walker, Whitsett, Burdick NAY: 1 - Beyer EXCUSED: 1 - Starr C. |
|
494 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. SEN. BURDICK will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
502 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session on SB 1050 and adjourns the meeting at 3:03 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
EXHIBIT SUMMARY