ARIZONA STATE SENATE

45TH LEGISLATURE

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

 

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE ON

JUDICIARY

 

DATE:

March 27,  2001

TIME:   1:30 pm.

ROOM: SHR 1

 

 

CHAIRMAN:

Senator Richardson

VICE CHAIRMAN:

Senator Bee

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Sheryl Rabin

COMMITTEE

SECRETARY: 

Tracey Moulton

 

 

 

ASST. ANALYST:

Ethan Shaner

 

 

 

ATTENDANCE

BILLS

 

 

Committee Members
Pr
Ab
Ex
Bill Number
Disposition

Senator Aguirre

X

 

 

H.B. 2001

DPA

Senator Bundgaard

X

 

 

H.B. 2003

DPA

Senator Burns

X

 

 

H.B. 2053

DPA

Senator Cummiskey

X

 

 

H.B. 2083

DP

Senator Rios

X

 

 

H.B. 2087

HELD

Senator Smith

X

 

 

H.B. 2148

DP

Senator Bee, Vice Chairman

X

 

 

H.B. 2269

DP

Senator Richardson, Chairman

X

 

 

H.B. 2270

DP

 

 

 

 

H.B. 2283

WITHDRAWN

 

 

 

 

H.B. 2284

HELD

 

 

 

 

H.B. 2351

DPA

 

 

 

 

H.B. 2439

DPA

 

 

 

 

H.B. 2563

DISCUSSION/HELD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


GOVERNOR’S APPOINTMENTS

 

 


Name
Position
Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tape 1, Side A

 

Chairman Richardson called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. and attendance was noted.   For additional attendees, see Sign-In Sheet (Attachment A).

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Without objection, Senator Richardson moved the minutes of the January 30, 2001 and the minutes of February 6, 2001 Committee on Judiciary meetings be approved as distributed.

 

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

 

H.B. 2283 – courts; time payment fee. – WITHDRAWN

 

Senator Richardson announced H.B. 2283 has been withdrawn from the Judiciary Committee.

 

H.B. 2087 – regulated chemical; definition; drug offenses – HELD

 

Senator Richardson announced H.B. 2087 would be held.

 

H.B. 2284 – restitution; work programs; education – HELD

 

Senator Richardson announced H.B. 2284 would be held.

 

H.B. 2001 – newborn infants; safe haven; immunity – DO PASS AMENDED

 

Barbara Guenther, Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2001 exempts a person who leaves a newborn with a specified provider from criminal child abuse charges if the infant is unharmed, grants anonymity to the person surrendering the newborn and allows the person to refuse to answer questions. The bill addresses voluntary surrender, age of the infant, acceptable providers, status of the infant, provider immunity, child protective service (CPS) notification and reporting.

 

Ms. Guenther explained the Richardson amendment differs from the amendment passed in the Family Services Committee.  The Family Services amendment conforms this bill into S.B. 1076 as passed by the Senate.  The Richardson amendment allows either the parent or an agent of the parent to surrender a newborn, instead of only the birth mother.

 

Frances Ryley, representing herself, with input from other organizations, testified in opposition to the bill and opined that there is no need for the bill.  She commented that the bill is supposed to reach and help desperate women, but noted that there are already programs in place, they only need to be published for the public to be aware of and utilize them.  She remarked that any woman who is so desperate to abandon her baby could leave her child at a hospital, fire station or police station.

 

Ms. Ryley opined that the bill is not going to solve a problem, but will create many problems because of the lack of clarity, implementation of programs and practicality of the bill.  She opined that the bill also sets back adoption practices.  She questioned if the State was suggesting that it was creating a law to save the life of one baby or was it just opening the door to take away the rights of a newborn child and the rights of the parent.  For example, with this bill, the mother has to intend to not come back for the child.  Ms. Ryley stated that is arbitrary and questioned, by what authority does the State grant itself the power to take a whole class of citizens away from their parents on the supposition that the children are going to be killed anyway.  She also questioned, what authority does the State have to say that it can wipe out the genetic history of the child. This practice will not allow the child to have a modicum of history about its social, personal or medical history forever, because the parents can be anonymous.

 

Ms. Ryley expressed her concern that at one location the staff may be trained to give medical attention and in another location, the staff may not be able to provide that care.  She stated that in these situations the State is demanding the employees of the safe havens to act as an intermediary in a social experiment.  She remarked the amendments stipulate that an annual report will be done on the number of babies that enter into this program.

 

Ms. Ryley stated that she relinquished a baby for adoption and is aware of the adoption laws work and commented that this bill will take away a lot of safe guards because it is not known how this program is going to actually work.

 

Representative Brimhall, bill sponsor, testified that as an adoptive parent, she stated that she does not understand the rationale of the comments made by people in opposition to the bill.  She stated that the idea that any legislation is not solving a problem because the problem will not be eliminated 100% is absurd.  She urged the Committee to support the bill.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill: Tara Plese, Arizona Catholic Conference; Edwin Cook, Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council; Marjorie Mead, National Organization for Women; Shane Wikfors, Arizona Right to Life.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2001 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

Senator Smith moved the Richardson amendment dated 3/23/01, 4:55 p.m. be ADOPTED (Attachment B). The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

 

Senator Smith moved H.B. 2001 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 5-1-2 (Attachment 1).

 

H.B. 2003 – developmental disabilities division; secure facilities – DO PASS AMENDED

 

Sheryl Rabin, Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2003 delays, from October 1, 2001 to October 1, 2003, the date by which the Department of Economic Security (DES) must construct a secure facility for persons with developmental disabilities who are charged with serious felonies yet are incompetent to stand trial. In 1995, the Legislature passed S.B. 1273 that directed DES’ Division of Developmental Disabilities (the Division), subject to legislative appropriation, to construct a secure facility to house individuals with developmental disabilities who commit serious felonies and are considered a threat to public safety, yet are incompetent to stand trial. The bill required that the Division have a secure facility by October 1, 1996, for the qualifying individuals whose guardians requested this type of placement through the courts. However, because funding has not been granted for the facility, the Legislature has delayed the date by which the Division must have a facility.

 

H.B. 2003 delays, from October 1, 2001 to October 1, 2003, the date by which DES must construct a secure facility for persons with developmental disabilities who are charged with serious felonies yet are incompetent to stand trial and requires that by December 31, 2002, the Division evaluate the need for a secure facility and identify those individuals who are defined under Arizona law as “incompetent to stand trial” or as a “threat to public safety” and who are not in a safe and secure setting.  The bill also requires that if the Division identifies 25 or more individuals who meet specified criteria, funding for a secured facility must be requested by FY 2003-2004.

 

Ms. Rabin explained the Rios amendment keeps intact the delay of the secure facility requirement until October 1, 2003.  However, the amendment contains a conditional repeal, stating that if monies are not appropriated in FY 2002-2003, the requirement for DES to build the secure facility is repealed.  Additionally, the amendment requires the Division to annually evaluate the need for a secure facility.  If 25 individuals are identified, the department must request funding for a secure facility.

 

Dianne Smith, Department of Economic Security, testified that a consensus was reached regarding the concerns that were discussed in last week’s meeting.

 

Senator Rios stated that this is the bill that died last week in Committee and noted that his amendment allows and provides for the Department the ability to report back to the Legislature if they ever reach 25 developmentally disabled people to request funds for a secured facility.

 

Senator Burns expressed her support of the amendment.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2003 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

Senator Smith moved the Rios amendment dated 3/23/01, 11:15 a.m. be ADOPTED (Attachment C).   The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

 

Senator Smith moved H.B. 2003 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 6-0-2 (Attachment 2).

 

H.B. 2351 – customer records; personal information; destruction – DO PASS AMENDED

 

Ethan Shaner, Research Assistant Analyst, explained H.B. 2351 requires businesses to destroy or remove personal information from business records prior to disposing of the records.  The bill also stipulates that the penalty for a first violation resulting in financial harm is a written warning and for each subsequent violation the penalty is a $250.00 fine.  Finally, the bill classifies knowingly possessing a record disposed of by a business without the consent of the individual or the business is a class one misdemeanor.

 

Mr. Shaner explained the Richardson amendment eliminates the penalties section of the bill and stipulates instead that compliance with the requirements of the bill constitutes an affirmative defense to claims against the business.  The amendment also stipulates that the return of records to the customer is not included in the definition of dispose and includes incineration as a method of destroying personal information.  Finally, the amendment clarifies the requirements of a contracting third party for destroying personal information on business records.

 

Representative Giffords, bill sponsor, testified in support of the bill and stated that this bill was drafted because of the need to address identity theft and identity fraud.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in opposition to the bill: James Hamilton, Arizona Association of Licensed and Private Investigators; and Michelle Ahlmer, Executive Director.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2351 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

Senator Smith moved the Richardson amendment dated 3/26/01, 11:56 a.m. be ADOPTED (Attachment D).   The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

 

Senator Smith moved H.B. 2351 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 5-2-1 (Attachment 3).

 

H.B. 2053 – driver licenses (now: driver licenses; ignition interlock) – DO PASS AMENDED

 

Ms. Rabin explained H.B. 2053 makes various changes to current statute regarding driver license application, suspension, revocation and reinstatement.

 

Ms. Rabin explained the Burns amendment strikes all language in the bill except the portion of the bill relating to suspension of the driver license of a person 18, 19, or 20 years old.  The remaining language of the bill authorizes the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to suspend or refuse to issue a driver license for two years to an 18, 19, or 20 year old person who is convicted for driving a motor vehicle while there is spirituous liquor in the person’s body.  Additionally, if the court so orders, ADOT must restrict the person’s privilege to drive between the person’s home, school and place of employment during specified periods of time according to the person’s school and employment schedule.  According to ADOT, a loophole exists under current statute. Due to alcohol-related driving offenses, ADOT can suspend the driving privileges of persons under 18 or 21 and over, but ADOT has no authority to suspend the license of an 18-20 year old.  This bill, as amended, responds to that issue.

 

Representative Cooley, bill sponsor, testified that he was in support of the Burns amendment.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill: Kevin Biesty, ADOT/MVD; Steve Tyrell, Mothers Against Drunk Driving; and  Jennifer Schrader, City of Phoenix.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2053 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

Senator Smith moved the Burns amendment dated 3/23/01, 8:26 a.m. be ADOPTED (Attachment E). The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

 

Senator Smith moved H.B. 2053 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 7-0-1 (Attachment 4).

 

 

 

H.B. 2083 – protection; law enforcement; prosecutors – DO PASS

 

Mr. Shaner explained H.B. 2083 classifies any assault on a prosecutor as aggravated assault and allows a prosecutor to request that personal information contained in public records be inaccessible to the general public.

 

Jerry Landau, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, testified in support of the bill and commented that the types of criminals in the prison system are changing.  Prosecutors are seeing an increased number of verbal threats and actions of attack on law enforcement and criminal justice personnel.  Since personal information is available in many formats, it is important to be able to protect this information for people who may be at risk of harm.

 

James Hamm, Middle Ground Prison Reform, testified in opposition to one provision in the bill and commented that it does not include that the assault has to relate to the performance of the prosecutor’s official duties. He stated the content and intent of the bill is not in question, but remarked that it should be limited to those assaults that are related to the prosecutor’s official duties.

 

Edwin Cook, Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, testified in support of the bill and commented that prosecutors are on duty 24 hours a day and it was impossible to craft language that would include Mr. Hamm’s comments.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill: Jim Sawyer, Arizona Association of Counties; Eric Edwards, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police; Meg Wuebbels, Attorney General’s Office; Joseph Easton, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission; and Barbara Frerichs, Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2083 be turned with a DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 6-0-2 (Attachment 5).

 

H.B. 2563 – community transition program – DISCUSSION/HELD

 

Ms. Rabin explained H.B. 2563 creates two programs. The first program is a prerelease program  for adult offenders who will be released within 12 months from a facility under the Department of Corrections (ADC) jurisdiction. The stated purpose of the program is to provide detoxification and literacy services.

 

The second program is the community transition program for adults or juvenile offenders who will be released within 12 months from a facility under ADC jurisdiction.

 

The bill also appropriates $1.5 million in each program in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, for a total appropriation of $6 million.  Funding is appropriated from three existing funds, the alcohol abuse treatment fund, the drug treatment and education fund and the special services fund.

 

Tape 1, Side B

 

Ms. Rabin explained the Richardson amendment (Attachment F) allows the prerelease program to provide detoxification services may use natural vitamin supplements to reduce physical dependence on substances including alcohol and drugs.  The services may also include the use of calcium and mineral supplements, exercise and procedures and facilities to implement sweat treatments.

 

Representative Anderson, bill sponsor, testified in support of the bill and explained that this bill addresses a real need in the criminal justice system.  He distributed handouts entitled “Ex-Convicts Seen Straining U.S. Labor Force” (Attachment G) and “Executive Summary, The Second Chance Program, Inc.” (Attachment H). His testimony was based on the handouts.

 

Senator Smith asked if this similar to the Second Chance program.  Representative Anderson stated that the bill without the amendment leaves open any company that could compete for the inside prison drug treatment and literacy program.  He stated that the amendment is targeted for the Second Chance Program.

 

In response to Senator Smith, Representative Anderson remarked that Director Stewart from ADC has been in on the discussions of this from the beginning.

 

In response to Senator Burns, Representative Anderson commented that if the bill passes without the amendment, ADC is intended to use contracted services.  The amendment is open with the use of “may.”

 

George Weisz, Executive Assistant to Governor Hull, testified that the amendment is designed to target the Second Chance Program, even though the State has an open bid process.  He stated that he met with the Director of the program and reviewed a study that demonstrated impressive statistics of low recidivism.  He stated that he was concerned with the evaluation processes on which these results were based.  The inmates that attended the program did not re-enter  the prison in Ensenda, but they were not tracked after leaving the program.  Consequently, the low recidivism rate could be a false reading on how effective the program is.

 

In response to Senator Burns, Mr. Weisz commented that the Governor’s office has concerns with where the funds would be coming from for this type of program.

 

Terry Stewart, Director, ADC, testified in opposition to the bill and remarked that the Department is in support of transition services.  He stated that previous administration cuts targeted two transition facilities that were funded through the State.  Since the cuts, ADC has not had any transition services.  He noted that he has had many conversations with faith-based organizations to encourage them to undertake transition services.  There is a pilot project with a faith-based organization called “Along Ministries” which is a mentoring program that goes into the prison and shows great promise.  He opined that transition services are needed and would be supported by the ADC.  He commented that inmates are dropped off at homeless shelters to try to help the inmates receive as much assistance as possible.

 

Director Stewart stated when the transition concept changed, Second Chance became the program model and when the funding was withdrawn from the ADC, he immediately went to Representative Anderson and told him of his concerns.

 

Director Stewart stated that outcome standards are indicative of program success. He commented that based on the studies that have been provided by Second Chance, it would be unwise to spend $1.5 million a year on this program.  He stated that there is not one nationally recognized United States drug treatment organization that has evaluated the program or the methodologies used in their studies to indicate that it is efficacious to use that treatment modality.

 

Director Stewart remarked the philosophy of the modality of the Second Chance program is based on the secular philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard, the father of scientology.  The program is based on narconon and criminon, both based in scientology.  This program will be challenged because people will claim the State is confusing church and state, because of L. Ron Hubbard’s religious association with scientology. 

 

Director Stewart remarked that the method of treatment in Second Chance involves the ingestion of vitamin liquids, which ADC would not be able to enforce, and can cause liver damage.  He stated that this would open the door for law suits by prisoners.  Additionally, massage therapy is used, which would necessitate having the inmates effectively “treating” by each other, which is not acceptable, or hiring a masseuse.  The sauna treatment is another issue of concern for Mr. Stewart.  These treatment modalities would necessitate considerable medical follow up and Mr. Stewart noted that would be cost prohibitive.

 

On that subject, Mr. Stewart commented that according to Second Chance, the $1.5 million would treat 100 inmates for one year.  That equals $15,000 per inmate on top of the $20,000 per year for incarceration costs.  The second year of treatment would cost $250,000. 

 

Director Stewart commented that this may be a good program, but urged the Committee to take more time in evaluating the situation before making a decision.

 

In response to Senator Richardson, Director Stewart stated that ADC does not have a surplus of funds.

 

Rick Pendery, Second Chance Program, testified in support of the bill and the amendment and commented that there have been two University and Justice studies done on this program. The university studies were done in conjunction with the Mexican Criminology Society and the National Penitentiary Association.  The results of those studies are outlined in the Executive Summary (Attachment H).  He commented that the recidivism reported in the handout was based on recidivism from the entire state.

 

Mr. Pendery stated that the tracking of released individuals has not been done, but remarked that it could be done.  He stated that modality of the drug treatment offered in Second Chance is three-pronged; drug treatment, literacy and self respect module.  The remainder of his testimony was from Attachment H.

 

Senator Richardson announced the bill would be held.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill: Tara Plese, Arizona Catholic Conference; Karen Novachek, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona; Jeff Taylor, The Grace Place; Les Koel, representing himself; Suzy Stephens, representing herself; Virginia Leason, parent; and Theresa Bernard, representing herself,

 

H.B. 2439 – appropriations; domestic violence – DO PASS AMENDED

 

Ms. Rabin explained that the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault State Plan Task Force has the responsibility of developing a single statewide plan to coordinate resources used to address domestic violence and sexual assault. Because several task force members were not apponted until October of 2000, the task force was unable to complete its plan by the December 2000 deadline and is therefore seeking this bill in order to extend the reporting deadline by two years, until December 2002.

 

The bill also incorporates additional changes recommended by the task force, including legislative direction allowing the task force to create two separate plans and expanding the information required in each plan.  The bill appropriates $1.25 million in each of FY 2002 and 2003 to the DES community services administration for residential, transitional, and legal programs for domestic violence victims and their children and specifies how much of the funding is designated to each program.

 

The bill also contains an appropriation of $200,000 for FY 2002 from the state general fund to the Governor’s Office to hire an independent contractor.

 

Ms. Rabin explained the Richardson amendment adds two city prosecutors to the task force, one appointed by the Speaker of the House from a city with fewer than 1.2 million and one appointed by the President of the Senate from a city with1/2 million or more people.

 

Tape 2, Side A

 

Representative Loredo, bill co-sponsor, commented that this is two bills combined, one is the emergency shelter money for programs and services and the other component is the task force.  He commented that during the interim a task force was charged with the responsibility of looking at statewide issues of domestic violence and sexual assault.  The recommendations from the task force were drafted into a bill and were attached to this bill.

 

In response to Senator Smith, Representative Loredo replied that there are approximately 20 members on the task force and that one of the responsibilities of the task force was to identify any duplication of services within the state. 

 

Representative Somers, bill co-sponsor, commented about the percentage of women and children that are turned away from shelters and are returned to more abuse is unacceptable. She opined that this legislation is yet another step in the direction of helping women and children in crisis and urged the Committee to support the bill.

 

In response to Senator Burns, Danae Dotolo, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, replied that there was a SPAR review in 1998 of domestic violence.  The primary recommendations were to consolidate the funding sources for domestic violence.  The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) focused on consolidating those funding streams into two different state agencies.  The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning Budget (OSPB) recommendation was to keep things as they were and noted  that collaboration is increasing.  A bill followed the JLBC recommendations and during discussions, it was decided that before consolidating sources immediately, a task force would be established to get a holistic view of the funding and get a comprehensive plan of action.  The Task Force met during the interim and due to the magnitude of the situation, and the continuation of the task force and the recommendations are a result of this bill.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill:; Ron Johnson, State Bar of Arizona; Eddie Sissons, Morris Institute for Justice; Jerry Landau, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office; Edwin Cook, Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; Don Taylor, Phoenix City Prosecutor; Mark Barnes, Association of Arizona Food Banks; Mary Thompson, Maricopa Association of Governments D/V Council; Karen Novachek, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona; Evelyn Buckner, Basic Needs Coalition; Brian Balch, Arizona Coalition to End Homelessness; Kelly Carmedy, Arizona Bar Foundation; Marjorie Mead, National Organization for Women; Tara Plese, Arizona Catholic Conference; David Sands, Administrative Office of the Courts; Katie Hobbs, representing herself; Kathleen Ferraro, representing herself; Paul Denial, representing himself; Patricia Madsen, representing  herself; and Therese Neal, representing herself.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2439 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

Senator Smith moved the Richardson amendment dated 3/22/01; 8:01 a.m. be ADOPTED. The motion CARRIED by voice vote (Attachment I).

 

Senator Smith moved H.B. 2439 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 8-0-0 (Attachment 6).

 

H.B. 2148 – void contracts; internet presentations – DO PASS

 

Mr. Shaner explained that H.B. 2148 expands existing law that voids any contract with a person accused of a crime for the reenactment of the crime by including contracts for Internet or on-line presentations.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2148 be turned with a DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 8-0-0 (Attachment 7).

 

H.B. 2269 – appropriation; criminal justice records – DO PASS

 

Mr. Shaner explained H.B. 2269 appropriates $350,000 from the state general fund in FY 2001-2002 to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) to provide matching monies for a $3.6 million grant request from the Department of Justice to improve the accuracy and accessibility of criminal justice records in the State.  Initially, the monies will be used to analyze current practices and to estimate the cost of fully implementing the project.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill:  Eric Edwards, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police; Joseph Easton, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission; and Jim Sawyer, Arizona Association of Counties.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2269 be turned with a DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 8-0-0 (Attachment 8).

 

H.B. 2270 – appropriations; drug court funding. – DO PASS

 

Ms. Rabin explained H.B. 2270 appropriates approximately $2.1 million from the state general fund in FY 2001-2002 to the superior court probation services program to fund adult and juvenile drug courts and adult driving under the influence (DUI) courts. The Administrative Office of the Courts states that no current state appropriation to the drug courts is earmarked for drug treatment programs and that federal seed grant funding has lapsed or will lapse this year

 

Ms. Rabin stated that S.B. 1083 is an identical bill that was passed out of Committee and noted the appropriation on S.B. 1083 was $9 million and the bill has not been heard up in the Appropriations Committee.

 

Senator Richardson noted that this is a worthy program and opined that with a smaller appropriation it may have more success.

 

Ross Huntington, representing himself, explained that he is a graduate of this program and commented that the program has not lonely saved his life, but many others as well.  He urged the Committee to support the bill.

 

Senator Richardson expressed her appreciation to Mr. Huntington for appearing in Committee to give his testimony.

 

Senator Richardson announced the following people were present in support of the bill: Jim Sawyer, Arizona Association of Counties; George Diaz, Legislative Officer, Administrative Offices of the Courts; Edward Ballinger, Superior Court; Brian Tassinari, Yuma County; Shannon Slattery, Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office; Alan Ecker, County Supervisors Association; Page Patterson Gonzales. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; and Jerry Landau, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

 

Senator Bee moved H.B. 2270 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.  The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 6-0-2 (Attachment 9).

 

Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

Tracey Moulton

Committee Secretary

 

(Tapes and attachments on file in the Secretary of the Senate’s Office/Resource Center, Room 115.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

                        Committee on Judiciary

            4          March 27, 2001

 

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------