--
--
Mr. McCowan explained that the Gardner eight-line amendment dated 3/11/97 provides that the two
appointees to the PSRB could be from the same profession or a combination of the two professions
while retaining an additional member from the general public (Attachment 3).
Sydney Vivian, Administrative Assistant, Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB), stated that
while the Board is in support of the safety precautions of the bill, it would like to keep the existing
language for membership.
In response to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Vivian answered that the membership was changed because the
psychiatrist position had been vacant for about a year. She explained that the psychiatrist who was
appointed by the Governor had to resign because of a conflict of interest. The other individual
appointed by the Governor also resigned because of other priorities.
Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Vivian if she is advocating that membership go back to the way it was. Ms.
Vivian answered in the affirmative.
Meg Woebbels, Public Defender, Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, voiced objection to
S.B. 1307 on the basis that it allows the Board to consider the entire criminal history of the
individual. If a person has been arrested but was never convicted, a record of that arrest would be
considered under the proposed language. She maintained that this is unfair to the individual who
was not convicted of a crime. She suggested amending language to refer to "conviction."
To that point, Chairman Verkamp said he believes that amendment would be a substantive change,
and he suggested that Ms. Woebbels work with Members to draft language for a possible floor
amendment.
David Landrith, Vice President, Policy, Arizona Medical Association, spoke in support of the bill.
He expressed opposition to the proposed Gardner amendment because he said he strongly believes
there should be a psychiatrist on the membership of the Board. For proper evaluations, a team
consisting of a psychiatrist and psychologist is needed. He volunteered to help find a qualified
psychiatrist.
Chairman Verkamp queried why there is a problem in getting a psychiatrist to serve on the Board.
Mr. Landrith responded that conflicts have caused the problem, and again said he would assist in the
search.
Dr. Lauro Amezcua-Patino, President, Arizona Psychiatric Society, stated that the Society provides
names of candidates for the Governor's Office to consider. While in support of the bill, he spoke
in opposition to the amendment because he said it is a matter of fundamental issues since
psychiatrists and psychologists have different areas of techniques. He maintained that it is extremely
important that psychiatrists be on the Board because of their expertise.
In answer to Mr. Gardner, Dr. Amezcua-Patino advised that two individuals with experience in
forensic issues have been located for consideration of appointment to the Board. He said that most
psychiatrists are in private practice and are not interested in forensic issues.
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, testified in support of the bill.
He said that a recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision held that rap sheets can be considered in the
judge's determination in sentencing, and it would apply in this situation as well.
In response to Chairman Verkamp, Mr. Landau said he believes this legislation is constitutional.
Miss Voss said she thought that Decision had to do with the judge in the sentencing matter. She
pointed out that this bill speaks to the Review Board, not the judge; so the Decision may be
irrelevant. Mr. Landau declared that the Review Board is charged with determining release. In that
sense, the Board is the judge.
Ms. Voss inquired how looking at the entire criminal activity of a person relates to insanity. Mr.
Landau answered that the Review Board can look at what the person has done in the past. Criminal
history has a bearing on the propensity to reoffend.
Miss Weason brought up the issue of release and whether the individual is retried or released to the
public. Mr. Landau said he believes the person eventually gets released into the public.
Mr. Gardner stated that since there is a commitment from the Psychiatrist Society to find a suitable
candidate for the psychiatrist's position, he will not offer his proposed amendment.
S.B. 1094,
(now: school safety zones; felonies) - DO PASS AMENDED
Jim Drake, Majority Research Analyst, explained that S.B. 1094 increases the penalty for any felony
committed in a school safety zone (see Bill Summary, Attachment 5).
Mrs. Steffey questioned whether the area around a school bus is addressed in the bill. Mr. Drake
answered that it is not addressed. He said the bill speaks about the bus and the bus stop, but not
about the area around the bus.
Mrs. Steffey asked whether someone would be covered if they are standing at a bus stop. Mr. Drake
answered in the affirmative.
Joe Lester, representing himself, Tucson, testified in support of S.B. 1094. He related that he lives
behind a high school and can see the problems around the school. He declared that the issue for him
is that the safety of students seem to stop at the school fence. He said students need to be protected
when they leave the school grounds. He related that the police, the judges and the prosecutors need
to be given the tools to solve the problems around schools.
Thomas Moody, representing himself, Tucson, spoke in support of S.B. 1094. He said that he and
Mr. Lester are neighbors, and reiterated the problems expressed by Mr. Lester. He said that the
attitude of school officials appears to be that once students leave the school grounds, they cease to be the school's problem. He asserted that children should be given as much protection as possible
around the schools.
Paul Enniss, member of NAILEM, testified that members of this statewide neighborhood
organization support this legislation. He related that children go to school and become prey for some
of the gangs in the area. Gangs recruit members right outside schools. This legislation will help law
enforcement and the communities.
Donna Neill, co-founder of NAILEM, stated that she totally supports this bill. She said that
members of her organization are fighting desperately to save their streets, their communities and
their children. Children need to be protected. They need to know that adults and the State care; and
they need a safe place around their school, their school stops, and their buses.
Senator Elaine Richardson, sponsor, advised that she has worked with the courts and school districts
in drafting S.B. 1094. She noted that the language of the bill is permissive. The question is whether
the State is serious about keeping children safe. This bill sends the message that if one is going to
commit a crime, he should stay out of a school zone.
Mr. Newman referred to language of the bill which considers the impact of school district
employees, rules and building projects on all persons who reside, do business or hold a real interest
in a school safety zone. He asked why this language was included.
Keeley Varvel, Research Analyst, Senate Democratic Staff, replied to Mr. Newman's question. She
said the intent is to take into consideration the impact of the community.
Mr. Lester further explained that this particular language tries to put the school on notice that they
are part of the solution.
Mr. Newman questioned the need to put this in statute. He asked the sponsor if she would object
to striking that language from the bill. Senator Richardson replied that she prefers to leave it in.
Miss Voss voiced concern with the broad language of "bus that transports pupils." She noted that
some students use public transportation, and that this verbiage might cause problems. Senator
Richardson said she would be amenable to an amendment. Miss Voss recommended striking "that
transports" and inserting "contracted to transport."
Mr. Newman again asked Senator Richardson if she would object to striking language on page 5 that
he previously referred to. Senator Richardson stated that she prefers leaving that language in the bill.
Ms. Weason commented that drug dealing on a public bus is just as egregious as dealing drugs on
a school bus. She expressed support of the bill because she said that children should be protected
as much as possible, and this language is consistent with the drug-free school zone language.
Senator Richardson indicated that many children who live in small rural communities have to rely
on public transportation to get to school. They should be protected as much as any student that rides
on a contracted bus.
Mr. Anderson expressed concern with the definition of "school safety zone." He said the language
is broad. It will mean any place that a public bus is driving around the city will now be a school
safety zone. Senator Richardson advised that the language was modeled after the drug-free school
zone language.
Page 1, line 22, strike "THAT TRANSPORTS" insert "CONTRACTED TO TRANSPORT"
Mr. Hanley spoke against the Voss amendment. He said he prefers to keep the language the same
as the drug-free school zone.
Mr. Anderson spoke in support of the amendment. He said the purpose is to make this as clear as
possible.
S.B. 1219, domestic violence; misdemeanor enhancement - DO PASS
Page Patterson, Assistant Majority Research Analyst, explained that S.B. 1219 mandates that a
person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense must complete a domestic violence
offender treatment program (see Bill Summary, Attachment 7).
Hank Barnes, Director, Governor's Office for Domestic Violence Prevention, advised that this
legislation comes from the Governor's Commission on Violence. The bill was originally designed
to increase penalties for repeat domestic violence offenders. The purpose is to break the cycle of
violence by early intervention with treatment. She stated that the Governor's Office is concerned
with cost, and this bill now recommends that a Joint Legislative Committee study the fiscal impact
for the proposed enhanced penalty.
TAPE 1, SIDE B
Mr. Gardner asked what the consequences are if someone is ordered to go through the program and
then does not go. Ms. Barnes answered that the goal is to provide them with the opportunity to
attend the program prior to receiving an enhanced penalty. She noted that what the enhanced penalty
will be will depend on the fiscal impact.
Mr. Newman queried the cost of the program and brought up the point of people who cannot afford
to pay. Ms. Barnes related that the cost of the offender program is attributed to the offender. She
said she does not know how much the cost of the program will be.
Mr. Newman pointed out that everything in the bill is mandatory, and he asked how this will affect
indigent people. Ms. Barnes advised that the judge will have the discretion to waive fees. Mr.
Newman replied that there is nothing in the bill about waiver of fees. Ms. Patterson revealed that
waiver language was included in the bill before it was amended in the Senate. Mr. Newman insisted
that waiver language should be in the bill, and that leaving it out is a glaring omission. He
maintained that financial problems may be caused for people who are below the poverty level.
Senator Elaine Richardson, sponsor, testified that the waiver language was removed by the Senate
Staff Attorney who said that the judge could waive treatment costs. She advised that the bill was
turned into a study committee because of the funding aspect. She asserted that the bottom line is to
put a stop to battering. This legislation relates to someone who is convicted. The language is strong
in order to stop the practice of battering.
S.B. 1026, liens against public officials - DO PASS AMENDED
Jim Drake, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the Bill Summary to S.B. 1026 relating to liens
against public officials (Attachment 9). The bill defines the filing of a lien against a public official
without an accompanying order from a court of competent jurisdiction as a "nonconsensual" lien.
Mr. Drake explained that the 22-line amendment dated 3/18/97 clarifies that liens issued by certain
governmental entities or agencies and specific private entities do not have to have a court order
attached in order to be valid (Attachment 10). The amendment also makes technical changes.
Ms. Weason referred to language relating to public officer, public official or employee. She asked
whether there is a difference in definition. Mr. Drake replied in the negative. He said he does not
see a problem with the definition.
Jim Sawyer, Legislative Affairs, Office of the Attorney General (AG), related that the intent of the
legislation is to apply to elected or appointed officials as well as governmental employees.
John Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General (AG), advised that there is
no definition of public officer or public employee in statute. How they are defined would be based
on where their authority comes from. He said he does not believe public official is defined in statute.
In response to Mr. Newman, Mr. Evans replied that a nonconsensual lien is a lien against a person's
belongings because of a personal loan, when in fact, the individual has not signed or consented to
the loan. The person filing the lien has either forged the individual's signature or claimed that they
have the person's power of attorney.
Mr. Newman asked if this is what some of the militia groups are doing. Mr. Evans replied in the
affirmative. He said it is called soft terrorism.
Mr. Hanley asked the reason for making the penalty a class 5 felony. Mr. Evans answered that the
sponsor requested a class 5 felony.
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had Request to Speak forms from the following people who
are in favor of Senate Bill 1026:
Linda Reithmann, Business Services Director, Secretary of State
Ed Cook, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council (APAAC)
Shawn Lyons, Executive Director, Arizona Association of Counties
Mr. Drake explained that the amendment specifies that certain governmental agencies do not require
a court order attached to file a valid lien.
S.B. 1180, appropriation; obscenity prosecution - DO PASS AMENDED
Jim Drake, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of S.B. 1180 which appropriates
$375,000 from the State General Fund to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) for
prosecution of obscenity crimes and crimes involving sexual conduct with a minor (see Bill
Summary, Attachment 12).
Mr. Drake explained that the four-line amendment dated 3/18/97 strikes language allowing the ACJC
to grant monies to aid in the prosecution of crimes involving sexual conduct with a minor, and
restores this section of the bill to its original form involving obscenity crimes only (Attachment 13).
Senator David Petersen, sponsor, distributed a packet to Members (Attachment 14). He read his
letter dated March 14, 1997 addressed to the Judiciary Committee. He pointed out the article, "Last
Adult Bookstore Closes" which appeared in a Fort Wayne, Indiana newspaper. He said he would
like to see that headline in Arizona newspapers one of these days. He declared that this legislation
will help that happen.
Mr. Newman inquired whether the sponsor conferred with the Director of ACJC about changing the
money around. Senator Petersen replied in the negative.
In response to Mr. Newman, Senator Petersen replied that this legislation will give additional money
to ACJC from the General Fund.
In answer to Mr. Newman, Senator Petersen advised that the Senate Appropriations Committee
overwhelmingly approved this legislation.
Scott Coverdale, representing himself, Tucson, testified in support of S.B. 1180. He referred to a
letter directed to the Arizona State Judiciary Committee which states that he and more than 9,000
citizens are committed to rid Tucson communities of illegal pornography (see packet, Attachment
14). He stated support of the Anderson amendment.
Len Munsil, President, Center for Arizona Policy, testified that this legislation does not change the
strong obscenity laws already in existence. The bill provides for and authorizes funding specifically
for the enforcement of these laws.
Mr. Gardner asked the purpose of the amendment. Mr. Anderson replied that the intent is to focus
the money specifically for obscenity prosecution. He advised that money already is available for
prosecution of crimes involving sexual conduct with a minor. The point of this amendment is to get
these resources to where there is not any.
S.B. 1178,
(now: legislative committee; sex offender treatment) - NO TIME
S.B. 1390, unlawful sexual conduct - NO TIME
S.B. 1233, peace officer due process - NO TIME
Chairman Verkamp announced that Senate Bills 1178, 1390 and 1233 will not be heard due to lack
of time.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
_________________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
(Attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
Click here to return to the A.L.I.S. Home Page.