H.B. 2618, insurance fraud - HELD BY CHAIRMAN
H.B. 2344, diversion; drug courts - DO PASS AMENDED
Martin Gómez, Majority Intern, explained that H.B. 2344 clarifies that it is the sole discretion of the
county attorney whether to divert or defer prosecution of a drug offense (Attachment 1).
Mr. Gómez advised that the Verkamp three-line amendment dated 2/9/99 further tightens language
(Attachment 2).
Mr. Gómez explained that the Verkamp 20-line amendment dated 2/9/99 clarifies language to more
clearly delineate the rule that the prosecutor has discretion to defer or divert prosecution and the
court has the discretion to defer or divert an entry of judgment of guilt (Attachment 3).
Nancy Swetnam, Legislative Officer, Arizona Judicial Council, testified in support of H.B. 2344.
She said the courts have worked with the Maricopa County Attorney and all concerns have been
resolved with the amendments. This legislation deals with one specific type of drug court. She
related there are various models of drug courts throughout the State and they are highly successful.
She mentioned that drug courts are one of the most encouraging programs to preventing recidivism.
This legislation concerns a program where charges may be dismissed under the following conditions:
the person is found guilty of a drug offense, an entry of judgment is deferred, and probation is
successfully completed.
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, spoke in support of H.B. 2344.
He concurred with comments made by Ms. Swetnam. He stated that this bill lays out the parameters
more clearly.
Mr. Brotherton asked whether a person who washes out of a drug court program is ineligible to go
through other drug court programs. Mr. Landau clarified that the person is ineligible to go through
this specific program, not others.
Ed Cook, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council (APAAC),
expressed support of H.B. 2344.
H.B. 2094, workplace violence safety act - DISCUSSED AND HELD
Jodi Jerich, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of H.B. 2094 which permit an
employer to request the court to issue a temporary restraining order on behalf of its employee
(Attachment 5). She mentioned that a temporary restraining order currently is not codified in law
but is available through the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
Vice Chair Binder questioned what constitutes harassment. Ms. Jerich explained that harassment
is defined in statute as a series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person that would
cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed and annoyed or harassed.
Representative Lori Daniels, sponsor, testified that the purpose of H.B. 2094 is to make a safer work
place environment. She noted that there are some problems with the bill and will work with the
courts to come to agreement on language. She pointed out that the gun language needs to be
clarified.
Rena Cruse, Regional Human Resource Manager, Metro Phoenix Human Resource Association,
testified in support of H.B. 2094. She asked Members to consider the bill favorably. She said this
bill is an attempt to protect employees from people who become violent in the work place.
Chairman Verkamp pointed out that hearsay evidence will be used with this bill. He said he is
concerned because the judge will have to rely on what the person tells him.
Ms. Weason queried who pays attorney fees when the employer goes to court to represent an
employee. Ms. Cruse said she does not know.
Ms. Weason brought up the liability issue. She questioned the employer's exposure if he fails to act.
Catharine Ellingsen, representing herself, Phoenix, spoke in support of H.B. 2094. She said the
intent of the bill is to enable a victim as well as an employer to take preventive action for any threat
or act of violence. She disclosed that workplace violence is becoming a more serious issue every
year. She submitted that it is entirely voluntary for employers to act. It is an option for employers
to assist their employees to maintain a safe workplace.
Chairman Verkamp asked whether there is any problem with judges having to take the word of a
third party. Ms. Ellingsen replied that this bill provides relief for actions that take place in the
workplace. Chairman Verkamp pointed out the possible liability to an employer if he does not take
action. In addition, there may be a civil rights issue if the employer takes action for one employee
and not another. Ms. Ellingsen agreed that a civil rights issue may occur but it is covered by another
statute. If an employer acts in good faith, he will not be subject to liability.
Ms. Weason asked why language was drafted to specify clear and convincing evidence and not
preponderance of evidence. Ms. Ellingsen replied that the purpose is to bring some level of comfort.
Ms. Weason repeated her question relating to the payment of attorney fees. Ms. Ellingsen said she
does not know the answer to that.
Mrs. Gerard agreed that there is a workplace problem that needs to be resolved; however, she said
she does not believe this proposal will solve the problem. She expressed concern that the liability
language gives a blanket protection to employers. Ms. Ellingsen declared that the intent is not to
give employers blanket liability protection.
Nancy Swetnam, Legislative Officer, Arizona Judicial Council, divulged that the courts are working
with the sponsor to address concerns. She stated support for the intent of what is trying to be
accomplished. She related some of her concerns: the penalty for violation is a class 6 felony which gives a higher penalty than for a violation of an order of protection, also that the defendant may not
be heard.
Craig Schill, Human Resources Area Coordinator, State Human Resource Management State
Council and Northern Arizona Human Resource Association, spoke in support of this legislation.
He advised that employers have a current program to help respond to violence in the workplace.
Rabeya Sen, Public Policy Advocate, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified that
the Coalition recognizes that violence is a major issue, but has concerns about the employer's ability
to get an order without the victim's consent. She said this may create more violence.
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had Request to Speak forms from the following people who
are in favor of House Bill 2094:
Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Landis Aden, Legislative Liaison, Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association (ASRFP)
Angela Williams, Metro Phoenix Human Resources Association and Arizona Society for Human Resource Management
Karoline Jones, Human Resources Generalist, Metro Phoenix Human Resources Association
Virginia Kail, Human Resources Manager, Metro Phoenix Human Resources Association
Deborah Wahl, Chair, Legislative Action Committee, Metro Phoenix Human Resources Association
Brett Jones, Director, Governmental Affairs, Arizona Contractors Association
H.B. 2414, ombudsman-citizens aide; duties - FAILED
Jodi Jerich, Majority Research Analyst, explained that H.B. 2414 expands the ombudsman-citizen
aide's scope of authority to conduct investigations, and expands the number of people who are
exempt from investigative authority (Attachment 6).
Ms. Jerich explained the Wong nine-line amendment dated 2/1/99 reduces the expansion of the
ombudsman's oversight authority to what is currently in statute, and eliminates the exemption from
the ombudsman's oversight for all chief advisors (Attachment 7).
Mrs. Gerard queried whether there is an appropriation in the bill to cover this expansion. Ms. Jerich
replied in the negative.
Mrs. Gerard commended the ombudsman's work; however, she said she is uncomfortable with
bringing all political subdivisions under the State level.
Miss Voss asked whether this bill includes the ombudsman participating in appeals court cases. Ms.
Jerich replied that it never did.
In response to Chairman Verkamp, Ms. Jerich disclosed that the amendment excludes the courts.
Mr. Keith Crandell, representing himself, Mesa, testified in support of H.B. 2414. He said he
believes expanding the reach of the ombudsman is a good thing. He expressed support for the
expansion.
Chairman Verkamp commented that he wants to insure that the ombudsman's office has enough
resources. This legislation imposes the State on lower political subdivisions. He suggested that they
set up their own ombudsman's offices. Mr. Crandell agreed that it is appropriate for political
subdivisions to do so.
Tom Chabin, County Board of Supervisors, Coconino County, spoke in opposition to H.B. 2414.
TAPE 1, SIDE B
Mr. Chabin said he would like the opportunity to hear about complaints to see whether the system
is working. He said he works hard to resolve County issues. He mentioned there may be resentment
in rural counties if someone from the State comes in to investigate issues that the County has
resolved. He asserted that problems should be addressed at the county level.
Sandra Junck, representing City of Phoenix, expressed the City's opposition to the bill. He said the
City receives approximately 55,000 calls per month. Individual Council members have staff to
address problems at their own level. She maintained that problems are better taken care of at that
level.
Kent Fairbairn, Assistant Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns, spoke in opposition to H.B.
2414. He related that mayors and council members throughout the State are ombudsmen for their
constituencies, and most of the large cities have constituent services.
Mrs. Gerard stated that she does not like imposing anything on cities and counties. She suggested
encouraging local programs. She said that if cities and counties have their own programs, they do
not need to be under the State.
Pat Shannahan, Ombudsman, Office of Ombudsman-Citizens' Aide, testified that the Ombudsman's
Office is under the Legislative branch of State government. It helps people who have problems with
State agencies. He advised that four services are provided: information, referrals, assistance, and
investigations. He said his Office works for the Legislature and will do what the Legislature directs.
Chairman Verkamp said he believes this bill will expand the work load of the Ombudsman's Office.
Mr. Shannahan agreed. He asked for additional resources if the bill passes.
Mrs. Gerard questioned what is done if a county or city has a complaint. Mr. Shannahan disclosed
that about 20 percent of complaints are out of his jurisdiction. He can only direct the complaints to
the appropriate local office. Mrs. Gerard said it sounds like there is a need that should be addressed
in these other jurisdictions. Mr. Shannahan said the question is whether it should be a centralized office or a decentralized office. He said that if the Legislature wants to encourage cities and counties
to develop their own ombudsman offices, it would be a good idea; but there should be some
standards to insure that they will be effective.
Mrs. Jarrett expressed concern that the Ombudsman Office has not been given additional resources
with this legislation. She opined that this bill needs more work.
Nancy Swetnam, Legislative Officer, Arizona Judicial Council, testified in opposition to the bill.
She said she does not understand the need for this proposal. There are mechanisms in place in the
court system to address concerns.
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had Request to Speak forms from the following people who
are opposed to House Bill 2414:
Jerry Orrick, Executive Director, County Supervisors Association
Jeff Kulaga, Government Relations Director, City of Scottsdale
Patrick Kraus, Intergovernmental Liaison, City of Chandler
Jim Huling, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Tempe
Jim Sawyer, Executive Director, Arizona Association of Counties
Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Mrs. Jarrett said she would like to see the bill held so she could talk to the sponsor to address
problems.
Mrs. Gerard said she cannot vote for the bill as drafted.
Mr. Wong advised that he will not offer his nine-line amendment dated 2/1/99 (Attachment 7).
Instead he offered the following verbal amendment:
Discussion ensued on the Wong verbal amendment.
H.B. 2585, school procurement reform - DO PASS
Jodi Jerich, Majority Research Analyst, explained that H.B. 2585 makes several changes to the
financial reporting requirements for school districts, charter schools and school district purchasing
cooperatives (Attachment 9).
Mr. Wong stated that the bill is needed because of substantial mismanagement and gross violations
by some school districts in the last few years. He disclosed that this proposal is a work in process.
The bill provides for greater oversight of procurement practices, training to assist in compliance by
schools, control of gratuities by vendors, stiffer penalties, and the establishment of an investigative
unit by the Department of Public Education (DOE) in order to have a place to register complaints.
Chairman Verkamp asked whether the investigative unit was disbanded at the State Department of
Education. Mr. Wong replied that the five-position unit was disbanded by the Superintendent.
Ms. Weason commented that the bill is very strict on gifts by vendors, and it is a violation with a
high penalty to accept anything. Mr. Wong agreed. He raised the issue of who will police gift
giving and wondered who defines what a nominal gift is. He said it is cleaner to have a zero policy.
Ms. Weason said that may be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Ms. Weason noted that currently, the law allows charter schools to enjoy several exceptions that are
required by public schools. Under this legislation, she asked whether they will lose these exceptions
or will they be grandfathered in. Mr. Wong speculated that area will be of great debate.
Mr. Brotherton questioned whether a person will be guilty of a class 4 felony if he does not complete
training. Ms. Jerich replied in the affirmative. Mr. Wong disclosed that will be an issue that has to
be fine tuned. He said it is not the intent of the bill for a person to be guilty if training is not
completed
Tee Lambert, representing herself, Phoenix, testified in support of H.B. 2585. She said she supports
charter schools following the same rules as public schools. She said she also likes the idea of
segregating the duties in the procurement process and education for Board members. She said
random audits that check procedures are critical. She contended that present procurement procedures
are cumbersome and suggested evaluating them.
Sandra Junck, representing Mohave Educational Services Cooperative, testified that the Cooperative
is neutral on the bill. She related concern that public monies are spent in a responsible manner. She
stated that she does not know whether this bill meets those needs. Concerns include the training
provision and the provision that five different agencies will have responsibility for school
procurement: Department of Administration, County Attorneys, Auditor General, Attorney General,
and Department of Education. She offered her services to resolve issues raised.
Chairman Verkamp commented that he thinks it is interesting that this bill is going through the
process and that the Department of Education recently disbanded its audit group.
George Graham, Special Audit Manager, Arizona Auditor General's Office, said he believes there
are some limitations on the Auditor General's Office on reviewing complaints from individuals
because of legal considerations. He said another issue is that there is a gap in obtaining all
documents from school districts. He said it will be very helpful to his office to be able to retrieve
data from the school districts.
Stephen Dichter, President, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice (AACJ), spoke in opposition to
H.B. 2585. He distributed a letter to Members expressing his concerns (Attachment 10). He stated
that there are no standards in the bill.
TAPE 2, SIDE A
Mr. Dichter commented that this legislation is a work in process; however, he stressed that a lot
more work needs to be done on it. He maintained that the criminal arena is not the place to try out
untested, vague and undefined terms. The Legislature must define those terms. He said that if
properly developed, there are many elements in the bill that would be of benefit; however, ACCJ
opposes the bill in its present form.
Mr. Wong stated support for a balanced approach. He said he would be pleased to continue dialogue
to improve the provisions in the bill.
Patrick Cunningham, Chief Counsel, Criminal Division, Attorney General's Office, concurred with
the comment made by Mr. Dichter that the term "knowingly" should be in the felony statutes.
Ms. Weason queried whether charter schools will lose their exceptions, such as financial
requirements, procurement rules, audit requirements, etc., under this legislation. Mr. Cunningham
replied that they will be on a level playing field with this proposal.
Mrs. Gerard questioned whether Mr. Cunningham disagrees with comments made by Mr. Dichter.
Mr. Cunningham answered that Mr. Dichter made several good points.
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had a Request to Speak form from the following person who
is opposed to House Bill 2585:
Greg Harris, representing Arizona Association of School Business Officials
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had a Request to Speak form from the following person who
is in favor of House Bill 2585:
Jay Kaprosy, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education
H.B. 2220, laser scopes; criminal offense - DO PASS
Martin Gómez, Majority Intern, explained that H.B. 2220 makes it a class 2 misdemeanor to draw
or exhibit a laser scope against a person in a manner that causes apprehension or fear of injury or
death (Attachment 12).
Mr. Wong advised that he introduced this bill because it has been brought to his attention by law
enforcement that more people have access to these kinds of devices. He asserted that it is
unacceptable behavior to have these devices directed at law enforcement officers. He asked
Members to move this legislation through the process so it can be worked on further.
Mrs. Jarrett said this proposal can have unintended consequences because of mandatory sentencing
laws. She said she has a real concern about this.
Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police
Department, spoke in support of H.B. 2220. He said this legislation relates to the assault statute
which requires touching with intent to provoke injury. He stated that intent is the highest culpable
mental state. The person's state of mind must be shown, and if it could not be proven that the person
intended to injure or provoke, no criminal charges could be filed.
Mrs. Jarrett said that does not address her concern. She stated that in trying to deal with crime in the
State, the Legislature has set up a series of laws that are totally unforgiving.
Mrs. Gerard queried whether the penalty is a class 2 felony. Mr. Edwards replied that it is a class
3 misdemeanor.
Mr. Edwards said this issue is a great concern to law enforcement because there is no way to tell if
the laser is attached to a weapon or not.
Mrs. Gerard maintained that this bill goes too far.
Chairman Verkamp commented that law enforcement still has to show culpable mental intent.
Mr. Brotherton queried whether these lasers are dangerous. Mr. Edwards replied in the affirmative.
He said that even weak ones can cause eye damage or blindness.
Terry Sills, President, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and Arizona Professional Police
Officer Association, testified in support of H.B. 2220. He advised that in the last three weeks, four
police officers have drawn their weapons on children who were pointing lasers at them. He said this
is a very serious problem for law enforcement.
Mr. Brotherton said he understands the concern but asked whether that would change the officer's
response if he had a beam directed at him. Mr. Sills said this legislation is trying to bring an
awareness to people that this is a serious problem and the possibility of preventing use. He said it
may change the way people think about playing with these devices.
William Kohn, Director, Transportation, Scottsdale Public Schools, spoke in support of H.B. 2220.
He advised that lasers have to be confiscated 10-12 times a month from children who shine them in
rear-view mirrors, blinding drivers.
Mrs. Jarrett questioned how intent can be proven. Chairman Verkamp agreed that it will be difficult.
He said it will depend on each circumstance.
H.B. 2091, polygraph examinations and equipment; prohibition - FAILED
Martin Gómez, Majority Intern, summarized the provisions of H.B. 2091 which prohibits the use
of polygraph machines by employers, the courts and outpatient treatment of sexually violent persons.
The bill further prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession of polygraph machines
(Attachment 14).
Mr. Gómez explained that the Brotherton four-line amendment dated 2/4/99 repeals sections of the
bill which would prohibit the use of polygraph machines by public sector employers and the general
prohibition to possess or sell a polygraph machine (Attachment 15).
Fritz Tuffli, representing himself, Tempe, testified in support of H.B. 2091. He stated that the
purpose of the bill is to eliminate polygraph use only in the public sector. He asserted that a
polygraph is worthless and produces random results. He said the bill is badly needed. He quoted
excerpts from news articles and from data collected by David Lykken questioning the validity of
polygraph testing (Attachment 16).
In response to Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Tuffli replied that polygraph testing is limited to use by the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). He said that State employees could be compelled to take a
polygraph test. He said it could affect a person's future.
TAPE 2, SIDE B
In response to Mrs. Gerard, Chairman Verkamp explained that a polygraph test is only admissible
in a criminal case if it is stipulated by both parties. Under this legislation, it cannot be used even if
both parties request it. Mrs. Gerard said that since that is governed by Rules of the Court, the courts
may have a problem with the Legislature telling them what they can do. Chairman Verkamp agreed.
Terry Sills, President, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and Arizona Professional Police
Officers Association, testified in opposition to H.B. 2091. He explained that polygraph testing is
a tool used in hiring practices. He stated that it is not an absolute science; it is just a tool.
Nancy Swetnam, Legislative Officer, Arizona Judicial Council, spoke in opposition to H.B. 2091.
She said that the courts use polygraph testing when screening probation officers and volunteers for the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. It is also used for proper supervision in
treatment of sex offenders. She said the courts are opposed to the bill.
Mr. Brotherton queried whether failure of the test will eliminate a probation officer from being hired.
Ms. Swetnam replied that it would not necessarily mean that. She said that it is one tool used, and
is a reason to look deeper into that person's background.
Rod Covey, Executive Director, Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST),
testified in opposition to H.B. 2091. He said that polygraph testing is used extensively in hiring
practices to screen police officer applicants. He stated that it is a useful tool. He advised that some
law enforcement agencies require either drug testing or polygraph testing. He submitted that there
should be a rule requiring all police officers to have a polygraph test. It is not designed to eliminate
a background check. He maintained that if testing is eliminated, it will have disastrous effects on
the integrity and quality of police offices.
Thomas McMahon, Past President, Arizona Polygraph Association, spoke against H.B. 2091. He
declared that this legislation is anti-law enforcement and anti-criminal justice. He advised that a
person cannot be denied employment solely on polygraph testing. He opined this bill will hurt
Arizona.
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had Request to Speak forms from the following people who
are opposed to House Bill 2091:
Joel Jahnke, representing himself, Glendale
Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police Department
Patrick Cunningham, Chief Counsel, Criminal Division, Attorney General's Office
Jeff Kulaga, Government Relations Director, City of Scottsdale
Patrice Kraus, Intergovernmental Liaison, City of Chandler
Jack MacIntyre, Intergovernmental Relations Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Buren Enger, representing himself, Phoenix
John Blackburn, Jr., Lieutenant, Mesa Police Department
Kent Fairbairn, Assistant Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Jim Huling, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Tempe
Ed Cook, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council (APAAC)
Rick Knight, Lieutenant, Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Gary Remeikis, Manager, Administrative Investigations, Department of Corrections (ADC)
Roger McFarin, Polygraph Examiner, Department of Corrections (ADC)
William Foster, Polygraph Supervisor, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
Chairman Verkamp announced that he had a Request to Speak form from the following person who
is in support of House Bill 2091:
David Mendoza, Legislative Director, Arizona Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Representative Debra Brimhall, sponsor, reminded Members that it has been proven that polygraph
tests are invalid. She said they are not reliable and are not cost effective. She submitted that these
tests are replacing background checks, and that more reliance is on polygraph testing instead of
background checks. She said that most of the people who have failed are Hispanic and this causes
her concern.
Mr. Brotherton reviewed his amendment which strikes the use of a polygraph test as a condition of
employment. He said his amendment also strikes language making it unlawful to use a polygraph.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
_________________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
(Attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
Click here to return to the A.L.I.S. Home Page.