![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
December 12-13, 2005
Room 302, State Capitol
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Senator John Hanes, Cochairman
Representative Jack Landon, Cochairman
Senator Bruce Burns
Senator Ken Decaria
Senator Tony Ross
Senator Kathryn Sessions
Representative George Bagby
Representative Ed Buchanan
Representative Tom Lubnau
Representative Ann Robinson
Representative Deb Alden
Representative Monte Olsen
Representative Stephen Watt
Representative Kevin White
John Rivera, Senior Staff Attorney
Please refer to
Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Chairman Hanes called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Minutes from the September 12 & 13, 2005 Committee meeting were approved.
Mr. Joe Evans, Director, Wyoming County Commissioners' Association (WCCA), explained the process for persons detained or hospitalized under Title 25. He understood that the Legislature intended that a county's responsibility for costs associated with an emergency detention under Title 25 were to end after the first 72 hours of detention, but that is not what is happening. Counties are continuing to pay until an involuntary hospitalization is ordered, or the person is released from emergency detention. This causes problems with counties' budgets and results in a wide variance in the quality of care provided among the counties for extended emergency detentions. He distributed Appendix 3, his written explanation of the bill, and Appendix 4, a charts of county costs developed by LSO and by WCCA, for emergency detentions. It is difficult to determine actual costs because counties use different procedures for calculating their costs, but the LSO survey and his own survey for different years are remarkably similar. Based on those surveys, the best estimate Mr. Evans is able to provide with respect to the costs that might be transferred to the State if the counties' costs end after the first 72 hours of detention is about $860,000.00. The amount is based on annual estimate of counties' costs in the neighborhood of $2.8 million and approximately 30% of those costs are for detentions beyond the first 72 hours of detention.
Mr. Richard Bohling, Albany County Attorney, explained what continued emergency detention is, and why it is necessary.
Mr. Kevin Bohnenblust, Wyoming Association of Psychiatric Physicians, expressed his organization's support for the bill. Although it is not a panacea, it does get closer to ensuring more appropriate mental health care is provided in emergency detentions.
Representative Robinson, seconded by Representative Bagby, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. After amendments were considered and voted upon, the motion carried on a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays in the Senate and 5 ayes, no nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, and Robinson voted aye. Senators Burns and Decaria voted no. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
Amendments to the bill that were adopted include:
Page 2-line 16 Delete "housing and" insert "inpatient".
Page 3-line 13 After "is" insert "initially".
Page 4-line 8 After "25-10-109" insert "(k)(iii)".
Page 4-line 15 Strike "Any" insert "All"; after "treatment" insert ", transportation and costs of continued emergency detention".
Page 4-line 16 Strike ", all".
Page 4-line 17 Strike and delete entirely.
Page 4-line 18 Delete all new language and strike "costs".
Page 5-line 8 After "ordered." strike balance of line.
Page 5-lines 9 & 10 Strike and delete entirely.
The Committee then considered a proposed amendment provided on behalf of Representative Simpson (see Appendix 5). After concerns expressed that the amendment would remove the due process rights of the person who is held under an emergency detention, the amendment was not considered further.
Ms. Brenda Lyttle, Administrator, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Family Services (DFS), explained the changes made to the bill after consideration at the September Committee meeting. She advised the discretion to send income withholding notices to employers by first class mail or by certified mail, return receipt requested would rest with DFS, because the Department has a good history of knowing which employers comply and which do not comply, the latter instances necessitating proof of delivery of the notice. Concerns were expressed about the lack of criteria to determine when a particular type of mailing would be used and the potential loss of the ability to cite an employer with contempt of court for failure to comply with a notice, if the courts were to interpret the new proposed penalty as the exclusive remedy.
Senator Sessions, seconded by Senator Burns, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. After amendments to the bill were considered and voted upon, the motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 3 ayes, 2 nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Bagby, Buchanan, and Robinson voted aye. Representatives Landon and Lubnau voted no. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
Amendments to the bill that were adopted include:
Page 2-line 1 Delete "first".
Page 2-line 2 Delete "class mail or".
Page 2-line 22 through Page 3-line 9 Delete entirely and conform the bill as necessary.
Amendments that failed include:
Page 2-lines 1 & 2 Move "first class mail or" to line 2 after "requested".
Representative Landon suggested Ms. Lyttle should review all notice requirements of the Department and propose making them as consistent as possible. Senator Sessions asked Ms. Lyttle to explore whether "first class mail with proof of receipt" would be acceptable for purposes of establishing liability and if W.S. 20-6-218(b) could be used to impose a penalty upon a payor for failure to withhold child support payments from an obligor's pay. Ms. Lyttle advised she will be looking at those and other issues and hopes the Committee will consider a draft bill containing changes she may propose for the 2007 General Session.
Ms. Iris Oleske, Deputy Administrator Office of Medicaid, Department of Health, distributed Appendix 6, a report to the Committee on the medicaid reimbursement for obstetric services, authorized in the 2004 Special Session. Without the reimbursement program, the increase in physicians providing obstetric services in the state would probably not have occurred. Costs for obstetric services in the state have increased about 16% across the board, thus requiring a larger appropriation than was needed in 2004 to continue the program. The appropriation contained in the bill before the Committee used the previous appropriation as a placeholder, but Ms. Oleske advised that the bill would need an appropriation of $3.5 million from the general fund and $3.8 million from federal funds to address the increase in obstetric care services in the medicaid program if physicians are to be reimbursed at 90% of their usual and customary charges.
Ms. Susie Pouliot, Wyoming Medical Society (WMS), said WMS strongly supports the bill to ensure obstetric services are available statewide.
Representative Robinson, seconded by Senator Sessions, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. After an amendment to the bill was considered and voted upon, the motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 5 ayes, no nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
The following motion to amend the bill was adopted:
Page 2-lines 21 & 22 Increase the general fund appropriation to $3.5 million.
Page 3-lines 1 & 2 Increase the federal fund appropriation to $3.8 million.
Ms. Lynne Weidel, Manager, Office of Rural Health, Department of Health, distributed Appendix 7, a fact sheet about the medical malpractice insurance account. She explained that, due to the short deadline for applying for loans, the program was limited in the amount of loans that have been approved and the first payments dates have not yet matured.
Ms. Pouliot advised the WMS strongly supports the continuation of the program because of inquiries received from physicians who did not know before the deadline for applying for loans that they would need tail coverage. It was the short deadline that limited participation. Representative Landon questioned whether the bill would make the program on-going, when it was originally enacted to address an emergency need for tail coverage when a major insurer left the state.
Senator Ross, seconded by Senator Decaria, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. The motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 4 ayes, 1 nay, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye. Representative Landon voted no. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
The Committee met jointly with the Joint Appropriations Interim Committee to hear a presentation on the criminal justice information sharing system. Attorney General Pat Crank advised the Governor is requesting in his budget funding for both the courts and the Attorney General's Office to implement the criminal justice information sharing system. He provided a history of the program and its current status. About $1 million will be requested to integrate into the system all municipal court and jail records as well as district court records, which currently can't be integrated effectively. The money will be used for software, hardware and 2 additional positions within the Division of Criminal Investigation. After General Crank's presentation, both committees adjourned to rooms H-10 and H-11 to watch demonstrations of how the system will work to provide criminal history information quickly to authorized participants in the system.
Chairman Hanes advised this proposed bill may form the basis for an interim topic in 2006, if approved by Management Council. He advised that the American Legislative Exchange Council is working on model legislation along the lines of Jessica's Law enacted in Florida.
Governor Dave Freudenthal appeared before the Committee in support of bills that were drafted at his request, including 06LSO-0171.W1 and 06LSO-0316.W2. The 2 issues he is primarily interested in are: stronger mandatory sentencing of sex offenders because he doesnt believe rehabilitation works for those individuals; and, protecting the public by requiring that all sex offenders register under W.S. 7-19-303 and that the information be available on the state website. While the federal sentencing guidelines may have gone too far in applying to all crimes, there are some crimes, including those involving sex offenses, that warrant minimum mandatory sentences.
Chairman Hanes advised the latter bill, 06LSO-0316.W2, Registration of offenders, and other bills drafted at the request of individual legislators were presented to the Committee too late for public review and comment.
General Crank explained the bill before the Committee for consideration. Mr. Rivera explained the purpose of the proposed amendment to the bill provided to the Committee. The Attorney General and LSO staff agree that the amendment is important to the bill.
Representative Landon expressed concern that the Committee hasn't spent enough time on the issue and had a fear of rushing too quickly into a solution that is harsh without considering if there are any alternatives to harsher penalties.
Representative Robinson, seconded by Senator Sessions, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. After amendments to the bill were considered and voted upon, the motion carried on a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays in the Senate and 4 ayes, 1 nay, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Decaria, and Sessions and Representatives Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye. Senators Burns and Ross and Representative Landon voted no. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
The following amendment to the bill was adopted:
Page 1-line 4 Before "and" insert "repealing a provision;".
Page 5-After line 11 Insert "Section 2. W.S. 14-3-105(b)(ii)(C) is repealed.".
Page 5-line 12 Delete "2." insert "3.".
The following amendment to the bill failed;
Page 2-line 19 Before "life" insert "not less than forty (40) years nor more than".
Mr. Richard Jamieson stated he has been disappointed since the September meeting of the Committee. Though there was some initial support for formation of a risk retention group in Casper, there hasn't been any support from the medical community throughout the state. Mr. Skip Wallace, Trean Corporation, did meet with the WMS, but did not receive any support from the organization. As of the previous week, Trean Corporation has made a decision that it will not spend any more money to establish a risk retention group in Wyoming unless there is a showing of sufficient support for the concept. Mr. Jamieson still believes a mutual self-insurance program within the state is the best way to address affordable medical malpractice insurance, particularly when in times of economic downturn when other insurers may leave the state.
Ms. Pouliot advised the WMS had tried to get physicians to participate in the meeting with the Trean Corporation, but encountered difficulty in getting participation from physicians. Mr. Wallace did not respond to questions asked by the WMS at the meeting. Physicians members of the WMS do not want to enter a new insurance program until the legal climate in Wyoming changes. Senator Ross and Representative Landon were concerned that physicians are resisting consideration of alternatives without first getting the cap on economic damages that voters in Wyoming have already rejected.
Ms. Holly Hansen, Court Administrator, Wyoming Supreme Court, explained that W.S. 7-11-303(c) requires mental health evaluations to be conducted by the Wyoming State Hospital, to determine fitness to stand trial and whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the alleged criminal conduct. The Board of Judicial Policy is requesting this bill to require the latter evaluation only if requested by the court. Senator Decaria asked Ms. Hansen to provide the Board's rationale for only wanting the former evaluation as standard procedure and wanting the latter evaluation to be conducted only upon request.
Representative Lubnau, seconded by Representative Bagby, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. The motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 5 ayes, no nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
Ms. Hansen explained this bill is intended to provide notice to attorneys who may be considering application to fill a judicial vacancy. With the proposed language, those attorneys should understand that newly appointed judges are subject to the judicial retirement plan created in Title 9 of the Wyoming Statutes and not to the old retirement plan in title 5. No retired judge and no one currently serving as a supreme court, district court or circuit court judge, would be affected by this bill.
Senator Burns, seconded by Representative Bagby, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. The motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 5 ayes, no nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
Mr. Eric Easton, Director, Medical Review Panel (MRP), distributed Appendix 8, providing a snapshot of the status of the MRP since its inception on July 1, 2006 through the date of this presentation. He also distributed Appendix 9, a case checklist that is used for each case brought before the MRP. There have been 6 cases filed since the creation of the MRP. The first was scheduled for hearing last week, but was postponed because the main witness for both parties was ill. There will probably be 2 hearing scheduled for January, 2006. Mr. Easton is surprised by the low number of cases filed with the MRP, but the program is still relatively new. He has a large number of attorneys, some medical specialties and lay panelists who have agreed to serve on individual panels. As a result of a claim against a chiropractor, he has had to add chiropractors to his list of panelists. As other claims are filed against practitioners in other medical specialties, he may have to expand his list to include persons with the appropriate expertise in those specialties. His only recommendation for amending the program is perhaps to allow the director to conduct the hearings. Current law only allows one of the panelists or someone from the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing as chairman of the panel.
The Committee recessed at 4:30 p.m.
Chairman Landon called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Mr. Rivera explained the Select Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has considered several draft bills for sponsorship in the budget session. He listed those that have been approved for sponsorship by the Select Committee and two other bills that are currently being considered. Senator Ross added that the Select Committee will be seeking reauthorization to continue its study because of the magnitude of the issues and the scope of the study are too large for the study to be completed in a single interim.
Representative Lubnau explained the changes that were made to the bill as a result of concerns raised at the September meeting of the Committee. Senator Ross questioned the grammar of W.S. 1-39-110(c)(ii) and (iii) in light of the introductory paragraph and the intent of paragraph (d)(v) of that section. Representative Lubnau advised that the bill would place an absolute cap on both economic and noneconomic damages, but the cap would be $1 million dollars each for the doctor and the hospital and adjusted annually for inflation.
Mr. Dan Perdue, Wyoming Hospital Association (WHA), did not know how many hospitals would take advantage of this proposed legislation. Of the 26 acute care hospitals in the state, 22 could qualify under the Governmental Claims Act, but many of these have chosen to purchase private insurance, rather than rely upon governmental immunity. He is concerned that a hospital has to make specified findings before entering into a contract with physician under the act. Those findings could prove to be too onerous and the bill is not clear in terms of who would determine the adequacy of the findings. There may be other questions that have to be answered before WHA can endorse the bill.
Ms. Pouliot supports the effort to maintain accessibility of health care, but agrees that this bill is not a panaçea. Problems identified include the need to define what would constitute a windfall; if the requirement to provide services to patients under government-funded programs would prevent a physician from accepting private pay patients; the absence of tail coverage under the bill; the need for criteria to clarify what monies a physician would have to repay upon default; and, if the procedures under the Governmental Claims Act would extend the statute of limitations otherwise applicable to health care providers.
Mr. Tom Jubin, Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association (WTLA), expressed his appreciation that Representative Lubnau was willing to think outside the box to propose a solution, but Mr. Jubin cannot think of a way to make the proposal work. The basis for governmental immunity is to allow the provision of indispensable services only the government can provide. He is concerned with the proposal because it would allow private providers to benefit from governmental immunity.
Mr. Bob Kidd, WHA, also applauds Representative Lubnau for thinking outside the box. He stated that physicians are the only health care providers who can choose whom they want to serve. This bill would alter that concept for physicians who participate because they would be required to accept government-funded patients in the hospital setting, but could refuse to see those same patients in his private office. If Mr. Kidd was a hospital administrator, he would not contract with a physician because it is important to have control over the physician's activities in the performance of his duties to the hospital.
Ms. Marcia Shanor, WTLA, was concerned with the new language on page 3 of the bill, but with the assistance of several attorneys still couldn't find any language to resolve those concerns regarding separation of the liability of the hospital from the liability of the physician.
Representative Lubnau advised that the "windfall" language comes directly from federal law and there is substantial case law addressing the term. Tail coverage is not considered in the bill because the Governmental Claims Act is an occurrence-based coverage and the physician would be responsible for obtaining other coverage for his prior acts.
Since the bill was not drafted as a Committee bill, the Committee declined to consider the bill further in light of the concerns expressed by persons who testified against the bill.
Mr. Rodger McDaniel, Director, Department of Family Services, advised this bill is a product of the children and families initiative study authorized by 2004 House Bill 33. The initiative had 3 basic themes, including commitments to: prevention/early intervention; community empowerment and involvement; and, personal responsibility. Director McDaniel distributed Appendix 10, an article from the National Drug Court Institute assessing drug and problem solving court programs in the country. The proposed legislation makes the creation of problem solving courts voluntary because not all judges support the concept. There are currently 20 drug courts operating in the state. A study by the University of Wyoming found that the courts are effective in addressing community safety. The Governor's budget contains $1,050,000.00 to fund the start-up of these courts.
Representative Osborn, described the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee's efforts. 05LSO-0213.W1 was that Committee's first look at the proposal and the Committee's staff has since drafted 05LSO-0213.W2, based on directions provided by Representative Osborn (see Appendix 11). The legislation is the culmination of 2 years of work by Director McDaniel and Ms. Marilyn Patton. The revised version of the bill would retain the drug court name to use continue the existing entity, rather than to create a new entity to make the same decisions. The bill has been shortened from 13 pages to 7 pages. The Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee will meet again in January, 2006, to consider the bill if that Committee still retains responsibility for the bill, including any changes the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee may offer.
Senator Ross was concerned the bill retains the drug court name and framework and only adds minimal language to expand the court to a problem solving court. While he supports the drug courts, he does not support the creation of problem solving courts since that is the function of existing courts. Expanding the drug courts' authority will only dilute its ability to deal with drug offenders. Senator Hanes agreed that returning to the drug court name while expanding the scope of the courts' activities was problematic.
Senator Decaria was concerned about a potential separation of powers issue if the money is provided to the Department of Health to create a court that is administered by the judicial branch. Courts might be more willing to support the concept if they had control over those courts.
Director McDaniel explained the reason for the proposed structure was because the money is intended to be used primarily for the purchase of services, not for the functioning of the courts. He stated that the Legislature chose the structure for the drug courts and the decision was made to use that accepted approach for the problem solving courts.
Mr. Bob Lampert, Director, Department of Corrections, said his private and professional opinions conflict on this issue. He believes the suggested approach could be beneficial if it uses research-based practices to find solutions to problems it addresses.
Mr. Kurt Zunker, Laramie County Drug Court Coordinator, stated the recidivism rate for drug offenders in regular courts is between 40-60%, but the rate is only 20% in drug courts because there is more interaction between the court and the offender. Eighty-five percent of the funding for drug courts in directed toward treatment, not for judicial functions.
Ms. Heather Babbitt, Drug Court Coordinator, Substance Abuse Division, Department of Health, advised the Division would have to revise its rules and regulations if this bill were enacted into law. She stated that the cap of $200,000.00 for each drug court in W.S. 5-10-102 would have to be raised and the language requiring compliance with the United States Department of Justice drug court guidelines would have to be removed. She believes the proposed program is important to the state. The Department of Health has not yet needed to establish a funding formula for drug courts because there has been sufficient monies to fund all drug courts established thus far. If more funding requests are received or more money is made available, a funding formula may have to be established.
Honorable Ed Grant, First Judicial District Court Judge, attended a district court judges meeting last week and the judges rejected without vote a resolution in support of the proposed problem solving courts. While there was no unanimity in support of the concept, there appeared to be unanimity in opposition to the concept. A major concern is with the vagueness of the proposal for a problem solving court. For example, could obesity be a problem brought before the court? Also of concern was the possibility that judicial immunity could be abrogated if a judge acts for this court in a nonjudicial capacity. If the proposal is intended as a funding mechanism for services, the funds should be better directed at the agencies that purchase those services.
Further discussion on the matter was suspended until after lunch, while the Committee toured two facilities operated by Frontier Corrections, Inc. Upon return from the tours and lunch, discussion continued.
Ms. Susan Pauling stated that domestic violence doesn't fit within the drug court process. There are no domestic violence experts on the drug court panel. The bill also doesn't address how the domestic violence offender would be accountable to the problem solving court.
Ms. Lisa Velker, Park County Crisis Intervention Services, advised she is the only domestic violence expert in the state who also sits on a drug court panel. She is concerned that there is no judicial immunity for drug court panel members who are not judges. While a drug court participant is on a self-destructive path, the domestic violence offender poses a risk to other victims and those victims may be placed at further risk of harm, depending on the success of the offender in his treatment program. Victim safety and offender accountability are the paramount issues the proposed problem solving courts need to ensure. To Ms. Velker's knowledge, Sheridan County courts have a quasi-problem solving court process, using funds for intensive supervision services and paying overtime to law enforcement and probation officers.
Ms. Chesie Lee, Converse County Coalition against Domestic Violence, said that a domestic violence offender is unlikely to have incentives to participate in the problem solving court process because he is unlikely to face any jail time, unlike the drug offender. She recently attended a national conference where is was explained that problem solving courts work best in large urban areas where the court becomes a unique court with specialized expertise.
Ms. Sheryl Schmidt, Homeschoolers of Wyoming, said she is watching the bill, but has no position on the proposal yet. She wants to ensure participation in the problem solving court process is voluntary and that an accused person has the opportunity to challenge an accusation.
Representative Bagby, seconded by Senator Decaria, moved Committee sponsorship of 06LSO-0213.W1. After substantial discussion, the motion failed on a vote of 2 ayes and 3 nays in the Senate and 1 aye, 4 nays, with 4 excused in the House. Senators Decaria and Sessions and Representative Bagby voted aye. Senators Hanes, Burns and Ross and Representatives Landon, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted no. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Watt and White were excused.
Chairman Landon turned the chair over to Cochairman Hanes for the remainder of the meeting, then proceeded to explain the purpose and structure of the bill. He advised of a summary prepared by Senator Sessions (see Appendix 12), in which she listed the common findings of several studies relating to the juvenile justice system that have been conducted in recent years. The Committee discussed current studies that are being conducted currently and recent studies that have resulted in significant legislation in the last few years.
Ms. Donna Sheen, Department of Corrections, stated that while recent legislative changes have improved the juvenile justice system, there is a lingering problem with jurisdiction. Different courts have different resources available to them. There are no objective standards for prosecutors to address how and where to deal with juveniles. The Governor's Council on Juvenile Justice only meets 4 times a year and its primary recommendation has been for the state to comply with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). She requested that the bill be amended to include a representative from the Department of Corrections on the task force.
Representative Lubnau questioned whether the November 1, 2006 deadline for submission of the proposed task force's report would allow the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee enough time to act before the start of the General Session in 2007. Representative Landon agreed that the deadline should be moved to an earlier date and that the study by the task force should be limited to a single issue, rather than try to make comprehensive recommendations in the time it has available. For example, perhaps the study should look at developing a gatekeeper function since that need appears to be a consistent recommendation of studies that have already been conducted.
Senator Hanes suggested that, if the study is limited in nature, the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee could potentially do an interim study itself. Senator Sessions agreed that the Committee could probably address a single issue and gain the knowledge to support any legislation that might be forthcoming from the study, or that more members of the Committee serve on the task force.
Mr. Bob Mayor, Executive Director, St. Joseph's Home, stated he is a member of the State Council on Juvenile Justice. The primary issues the Council has identified as necessary are the gatekeeper function and ensuring that juvenile offenders are handled in the appropriate court of jurisdiction. The turnover that has occurred on the Council is generally attributable to a frustration that its recommendations are ignored. The Council is currently working with the University of Wyoming Statistical Research Center and with the Wyoming County Commissioners' Association on projects relating to juvenile justice. The Council hasn't made a compilation of its efforts in the annual reports to the Governor. He offered to provide the Committee with compilations of the Council's reports.
Ms. Hansen advised that municipal courts are not under the supervision of the Wyoming Supreme Court and suggested that the proposed appointments of the judges by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should contain language making the appointments subject to recommendations by each of the respective associations representing the judges at the various levels of jurisdiction, similar to language for the appointments the Governor will make.
Representative Lubnau, seconded by Senator Burns, moved for Committee sponsorship of the bill. After amendments to the bill were considered and voted on, the motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes and no nays in the Senate and 4 ayes, no nays, with 5 excused in the House. Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan and Lubnau voted aye. Representatives Alden, Olsen, Robinson, Watt and White were excused.
Amendments to the bill that were adopted include:
Page 3-line 23 Delete "One (1) member" insert "Two (2) members".
Page 4-line 2 Delete "One (1) member" insert "Three (3) members".
Page 4-After line 4 Insert a new paragraph appointing the director of the department of corrections or his designee to the task force; insert a new paragraph appointing a representative of the state advisory council on juvenile justice to the task force.
Page 5-lines 2 through 16 Delete entirely and insert "(i) The jurisdiction and gatekeeping functions for juvenile justice prosecutions, the services received while in the juvenile justice system, the length of time in the juvenile justice system before the offender is released and the preferred outcomes for juvenile offenders.".
Page 5-line 19 Delete "November" insert "October"; after "governor" insert ", the chief justice of the Wyoming supreme court".
Page 7-line 5 Delete "forty thousand dollars".
Page 7-line 6 Delete "($40,000.00)" insert "seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00)".
Chairman Landon directed that staff send a copy of the revised bill to all members of the Committee when it is prepared.
There being no further business, Chairman Hanes adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Senator John Hanes, Cochairman Representative Jack Landon, Cochairman