Committee Meeting Information

August 24 & 25, 2006

Room 302, State Capitol

Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Senator John Hanes, Co-Chairman

Representative Jack Landon, Co-Chairman

Senator Bruce Burns

Senator Ken Decaria

Senator Tony Ross

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative George Bagby

Representative Ed Buchanan

Representative Tom Lubnau

Representative Monte Olsen

Representative Ann Robinson

Representative Kevin White (Thursday only)

 

Committee Members Absent

Representative Deb Alden

Representative Stephen Watt

Representative Kevin White (Friday only)

 

Legislative Service Office Staff

John Rivera, Senior Staff Attorney

 

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

 

 

Executive Summary

The Committee met for two days at the State Capitol.  The Committee considered numerous draft bills relating to sex offenses, as well as bills relating to judicial retirement and compensation for senior status judges, lien amendments, creation of a Wyoming Unitrust Act, Uniform Trust Code amendments, creation of a probate task force, child support enforcement and payments as conditions of parole.  The Committee took final action on some bills and deferred final consideration on other bills that may be further amended.  The Committee also voted to have bills drafted for consideration at the next meeting relating to creation of a lien study task force and codification of judicial salary increases that were funded in the 2006 Budget Session.

 

The Committee will meet again on November 20-21, 2006, in Casper to consider pending draft legislation.

 

Call To Order (August 24, 2006)

Chairman Landon called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.  Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

 

Approval of Minutes

Minutes from the May 22-23, 2006 Committee meeting were approved. The minutes were amended to reflect that Representative Alden was not present at the meeting.

 

07LSO-0010.W2, Crime of Harboring a sex offender

Mr. Christopher "Kip" Crofts, Governor's Office, advised that he would be presenting on behalf of Attorney General Pat Crank with respect to the draft legislation that would be considered in the morning .  Attorney General Crank had a conflict that prevented his appearance in the morning.  Mr. Crofts distributed Appendices 3-7, consisting of Governor Freudenthal's written comments to the Committee at its May meeting; the Governor's written comments for this meeting; miscellaneous notes concerning the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (hereinafter referred to as Adam Walsh);  a comparison of categories of offenses under Adam Walsh and existing offenses under Wyoming law; and, a comparison of sex offender registration requirements under Adam Walsh and under Wyoming law.

 

Mr. Crofts expressed concern that the penalty for harboring a sex offender who fails to register is greater that the penalty that could be imposed on the sex offender for the failure to register.  Mr. Mike Blonigen, Natrona County District Attorney, stated the crime under this legislation is broader than the crime under W.S. 6-5-202. 

 

The Committee discussed various approaches to tie the punishment to the crime. After discussion about ways to address the penalties and make them commensurate with the offense, Chairman Landon asked Representative Buchanan to work with staff to amend W.S. 6-5-202 to incorporate his suggestions.  Representative Lubnau suggested that it might be well to address some privileged communications that may be implicated in harboring a sex offender.  Senator Ross was concerned that the Committee may be going beyond its original purpose in considering the bill if general offenses are going to be amended to address concerns with the specific statute proposed for creation by this bill. 

 

Representative Buchanan moved to make a sex offender's failure to register a felony and to make the penalties harboring a sex offender who fails to register commensurate with the penalty for the underlying offense, i.e., the penalty for the first violation should be one to five years imprisonment, a five thousand dollar fine, or both, and a second or subsequent conviction should be one to ten years imprisonment, a fine of ten thousand dollars, or both.  The motion carried on a voice vote.  Chairman Landon directed staff to incorporate the changes into the bill for consideration at the next Committee meeting.

 

07LSO-0011.W1, Incest-increase in penalties

Mr. Blonigen stated the Wyoming Prosecutors Association supports the bill.  This crime occurs much more frequently than the public is aware.  Prosecutors usually charge under other statutes because the incest statute does not have severe enough penalties.

 

Chesie Lee, Converse County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, expressed her support for the bill.

 

Representative Lubnau, seconded by Representative White, moved for the Committee to sponsor the bill. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 7-0-2 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen, Robinson and White voted aye.  Representatives Alden and Watt were excused.

 

07LSO-0013.W1, Sex offenses by corrections personnel

Mr. Crofts explained the proposed changes to page 13, lines 15 through 19 for which Mr. Rivera had prepared an amendment.

 

After discussion, Senator Ross, seconded by Senator Decaria, moved for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised by the draft amendment. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 7-0-2 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen, Robinson and White voted aye.  Representatives Alden and Watt were excused.

 

07LSO-0008.W2, Sex offenses against minors

Mr. Crofts suggested the bill should not repeal W.S. 14-3-105, indecent liberties against minors, in light of Representative Gingery's suggestion after a recent Wyoming Supreme Court opinion held the statute constitutional.  He also expressed concern that the minimum penalties on page 3, lines 6 and 16 and Page 14, lines 13 and 17 are the same, respectively, even though the second offense on each page is more severe than the first.  He advised that the penalty for release of information in a sexual assault case against a minor in the bill was different than the existing penalties under W.S. 6-2-310(c) and 6-4-402(e).  He recommended conforming the penalties by amending the proposed penalty, or by amending the existing penalties.  Mr. Crofts mentioned that the Governor still preferred an enhanced penalty of life imprisonment for the second conviction for a sex offense, rather than for the third offense.  On page 17, the bill proposes a minimum mandatory sentence under W.S. 6-4-303(c), but  not for subsection (e) of that section, which is not in the bill.

 

Mr. Blonigen reiterated that prosecutors would prefer keeping the indecent liberties statute because there are situations that wouldn't be covered under the proposed new sex offenses against minors.  He recommends adding a provision stating that consent is no defense generally to proposed W.S. 6-2-314 through 6-2-319 and to amend the rape shield law to cover the new offenses also. Mr. Blonigen recommended that the crime victims' surcharge under W.S. 1-40-119 for which a $100.00 crime victims' surcharge shall be imposed should include the proposed offenses under this bill.  Senator Ross asked Mr. Blonigen about the concern expressed in the staff comment on page 10 of the bill.  Mr. Blonigen replied that he agreed that the language should conform with the existing definition.

 

Suzan Pauling stated that the penalties on page 2, lines 13-17, and page 5, lines 8-12 are inconsistent with the proposed changes to the penalties for incest in the bill previously considered by the Committee.  Mr. Crofts replied that incest is not limited to minors, unlike the provisions identified by Ms. Pauling.  Mr. Blonigen added that both the Wyoming and United States Supreme Courts have held that it is permissible to have different statutes with different penalties for similar conduct and the prosecutor has the discretion to decide under which of those statutes to charge a defendant.  He believes the distinction between the proposed new offenses and the incest statute are rationally based to protect children and would be upheld.

 

Representative Lubnau asked if the new offenses are too complicated for the public to understand.  Mr. Blonigen believes the proposal is generally good.  The bill attempts to make distinctions for the severity of the offense, which is good, but he agreed the bill is complex.

 

Richard Bohling, Albany County Attorney, recommended the Committee specify that disclosure of information on page 10, line 24 should occur only after indictment in district court, to be fair to both the victim and defendant. 

 

Bob Lampert, Director, Department of Corrections, asked the Committee to keep in mind the fiscal impact of the minimum mandatory sentences the bill proposes to create.  Currently very few statutes require minimum mandatory sentences and those proposals to establish such sentences would tie up prison beds.  Research shows that approximately 17% of inmates are imprisoned for sex offenses and they have a lower rate of recidivism than the general population of inmates.  In particular, the increase in the minimum mandatory sentence from 5 years to 25 years on page 15, line 20 would have a significant impact on the availability of prison beds.

 

Mr. Blonigen stated that minimum mandatory sentences don't really exist because a judge can suspend a sentence and place the offender on probation.  Mr. Bohling added that a judge is required to make a finding with respect to the possibility of parole, and the judge may impose a split sentence, with partial imprisonment and probation.

 

Representative Robinson moved to work the bill.  The motion was seconded by Representative Olsen. 

 

The following amendments to the bill were duly adopted:

 

After a suggestion by Mr. Rivera to amend the catch title of the bill to delete "against minors" because the bill does more than deal with sex offenses against minors, Chairman Landon directed staff to amend the catch title as a technical correction to the bill since there were no objections to that suggestion.  Mr. Rivera advised the bill title sufficiently reflects what the bill proposes to do; therefore, no change is necessary in the bill title.

 

07LSO-0012.W1, Sex offender tracking

Chairman Landon asked Director Lampert if he believed the Department of Corrections needed the statutory authority created by this bill to implement the tracking program for sex offenders.  Director Lampert described the tracking system currently used for parolees as a passive system for one year and includes intensive supervised probation for all sex offenders under the Department's supervision.  He believes the legislation is overbroad; currently there are no "best practices"; the long-term use of GPS tracking may be counter-productive; and the Department could conduct a sex offender tracking program under its existing authority.  The Department supervises probationers, but the Board of Parole supervises parolees.  His concern with the bill also includes assessments could be performed by any licensed mental health professional, unlike Colorado where only registered sex therapists are qualified to conduct the assessments.  Not all sex offenders need to be tracked, but if more than 10 are tracked, the Department may need an additional appropriation.  If the sex offenders tracked are determined by a risk assessment, not very many would need to be tracked.  But if the Adam Walsh Act requires that offenders be tracked based on offense, the Department would likely need additional funding.  He can't estimate how large an appropriation may be necessary, but performing around the clock monitoring would require 7.5 FTEs plus staff to respond to violations.  Without knowing how many offenders would need to be monitored, he cannot estimate the number of staff he would need for the program.

 

Mr. Crofts advised that the Adam Walsh Act authorizes incentive grants for state tracking programs, but he doesn't know if funds have actually been appropriated for the grants.  Director Lampert said the Department may apply for a grant to implement and expand its tracking program.

 

Dr. Gerald Blanchard, a mental health therapist from Sheridan, stated he has treated sex offenders for 35 years.  As a result, he understands what motivates them and he has seen too many "feel good solutions" that didn't work.  To be successful, it is necessary to look at the causes of sex crimes and focus on prevention and treatment.

 

After a motion to table the bill indefinitely failed, Senator Burns moved, seconded by Representative Lubnau, for Committee sponsorship of the bill, as drafted.  The motion failed on a roll call vote, 2-3 among the Senate members of the Committee and 4-3-2 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Decaria and Sessions and Representatives Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau and Robinson voted aye.  Senators Hanes, Burns and Ross and Representatives Landon, Olsen, Robinson and White voted  no.  Representatives Alden and Watt were excused.

 

07LSO-0009.W1, Sex offender assessments and

07LSO-0044.W1, Sex offender registry-process

Chairman Landon stated the two bills would be considered at the same time since the Adam Walsh Act directly affects what the bills attempt to accomplish.

 

Mr. Crofts explained that the Adam Walsh Act will require states to classify sex offenders in a 3-tiered system, based on the offense for which convicted.  Because 07LSO-0044.W1 expands the risk assessment process, it may not further the purposes of the Adam Walsh Act, although the risk assessments may be used for different purposes.   The assessments could not be used as part of the public disclosure criteria.   On the other hand, 07LSO-0009.W1 could be used to incorporate some of the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act.

 

Senator Burns moved, seconded by Senator Ross, to table 07LSO-0044.W1 indefinitely. The motion carried unanimously, with Representatives Alden and Watt excused.  Although voting with the majority, Chairman Landon expressed his reluctance to give up on the use of assessments if they could increase public safety.  He also expressed concern that the registry and website can cause fear and uncertainty.  He would like to see the website constructed in a way to alleviate unnecessary fear among the public.

 

Chairman Landon asked Mr. Crofts if he had any amendments to 07LSO-0009.W1 to offer the Committee.  Mr. Crofts replied that he did not.  Chairman Landon suggested the Governor's Office, the Attorney General and LSO should work together to revise the bill to ensure all comparable offenses required under federal law are included within the bill for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.  Representative Lubnau moved to have the bill revised to comply with the Adam Walsh Act for consideration at the next meeting.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

07LSO-0004.W2, Lien amendments

Because Senator Ross would attend the meeting on the following day, consideration of this bill was postponed until Friday.

 

Meeting Recess

The Committee recessed at 5:15 p.m.

 

Call To Order (August 25, 2006)

Chairman Hanes called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.  Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda. 

 

Chairman Hanes advised that he is a legislative appointee to the Department of Family Services Advisory Council.   The Council currently has vacancies and is seeking members of the public to serve on the Council.  He requested Committee members to inform any constituents in their districts who may be interested in serving on the Council to apply for an appointment.

 

07LSO-0002.W2, Judicial retirement

Chief Justice Barton Voigt advised that Holly Hansen, Supreme Court Administrator, was scheduled to present the Judiciary bills, but because of a family emergency was not able to be at the meeting, so he, along with 8th Judicial District Court Judge Keith Kautz, would be presenting on the bill.  He distributed Appendix 9, an overview of the alternative early retirement proposals, and Appendix 10, the report to the Committee from the Board of Judicial Policy and Administration, describing judicial retirement programs and the senior status judge program.

 

Judge Kautz explained that the age 65 proposal (Alternative B) in the bill was a mediocre attempt to create an incentive for potential applicants to fill judicial vacancies.  He believes that the age 60 proposal (Alternative A) in the bill would be the more effective incentive to attract candidates to the judiciary.  Currently, judges are the only state employees who actually contribute out of their paychecks toward retirement.  The bill would eliminate the requirement that judges contribute to their retirement plan, in addition to providing a formula to provide retirement benefits for judges who retire early due to the stress of the job.

 

Chairman Hanes asked why the proposed amendment (Appendix 11) to the bill was drafted.  Mr. Rivera advised that he had received updated numbers from Mr. Tom Mann, Director of the Wyoming Retirement System, as a result of the completion of the most recent actuarial study.  The amendment was drafted so Committee members would be able to see how the new numbers would fit in the bill.  Mr. Mann provided an explanation of timing of the actuarial study and assured the Committee the numbers in the proposed amendment would be current through the General Session.

 

Senator Ross moved that the Committee adopt Alternative A in the bill and the corresponding figures in the proposed amendment.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Representative Olsen moved, seconded by Representative Lubnau, for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 6-0-3 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen and Robinson voted aye.  Representatives Alden, Watt and White were excused.

 

07LSO-0003.W1, Senior status judge compensation

Chief Justice Voigt explained the bill is intended to create an incentive for retired judges to fill in when necessary to help address heavy caseloads or to fill in for a judge who is away for a period of time.

 

Senator Decaria asked for clarification if the purpose was to fill in during emergency situations, or to assume judicial duties generally in districts where an insufficient number of judges are assigned by law.  He asked for any rules that may exist with respect to how the senior status judge program operates.  Chief Justice Voigt responded that there may not be any rules governing the program, but the intent is for the senior judges only to fill in for short periods of time and not as a long-term solution to judicial shortages that may exist in any districts.  Appointments are generally made based on the short-term need and the availability of a senior judge to hear cases in a particular district.  If there are any rules governing the program, Chief Justice Voigt advised he would provide them to the Committee.

 

Representative Robinson moved to amend the bill on page 2, line 1 by striking "such" and inserting "his" and on page 2, line 20 by striking "such" and inserting "the".  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Representative Buchanan moved, seconded by Representative Bagby, for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 6-0-3 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen and Robinson voted aye.  Representatives Alden, Watt and White were excused.

 

Senator Ross moved to have LSO draft a bill to address the judicial salary increase approved in the Budget Bill last session, by amending the appropriate statutory provisions.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Court Security Report

Chief Justice Voigt, with 2nd Judicial District Circuit Court Judge Jane Eakin, explained the court security issue.  Currently, the Supreme Court hires off-duty state troopers to provide security for the Court.  While security within the courtroom is maintained, security within the remainder of the building is poor.  Since the Supreme Court Building is being remodeled, better security for the building should be considered and funded before remodeling proceeds too far.

 

Judge Eakin described recent incidents that have occurred recently in the nation that highlight the need for better court security, as well as anecdotal responses from the judiciary within the state with respect to incidents involving violence in the courtrooms across the state.  A detailed assessment of court facilities in the state is occurring.  The U.S. Marshall's office is doing the assessments upon the request of county sheriffs.  She said the Court Security Task Force doesn't see the need for legislation yet, until the study is closer to completion and the needs and funding to meet those needs can be better determined.

 

Laramie County Sheriff Danny Glick stated that Laramie County has some of the best court security in the state, but even it is not adequate.  If a disturbance would occur in a courtroom, the available sheriff's deputies could be overwhelmed and other law enforcement staff would have to be called to assist in quelling the disturbance.  Other counties may have even more significant security issues that have to be addressed for the safety of court personnel, law enforcement personnel, the public and the parties appearing before the court.

 

Senator Burns reminded the Committee that he and Representative White are the Committee liaisons to the Court Security Task Force and they did attend the July meeting of the Task Force.

 

07LSO-0075.W1, Child support enforcement

Ms. Brenda Lyttle, DFS Child Support Enforcement Administrator, explained the bill.  It is important that the law be clear in distinguishing between procedures for mailing income withholding orders and notice to payors.  DFS notices to payors are included in a form that reiterates the income withholding order, but the actual income withholding order is not sent to the payor or obligor.  She stated that DFS sends out 2,100 notices to payor each month, but she doesn't know how many non IV-D mailings occur each month.  In response to questions from the Committee, Ms. Lyttle said it isn't difficult to file the notice before mailing, but she wants to be more efficient and, hopefully, get more child support from obligors who jump from job to job in an attempt to avoid paying child support.  She described some amendments she would like the Committee to consider as a result of recent discussions with the clerks of courts.  The amendments would address concerns of the clerks of court.

 

1st Judicial District Clerk of Court Gerrie Bishop, apologized that the clerk of court who serves on Ms. Lyttle's committee was not available on the day that committee met to consider the proposals that were to be drafted for consideration by the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee.  With the proposed amendments described by Ms. Lyttle, the Clerks of Court Association could support the bill.

 

Representative Robinson, seconded by Representative Bagby, moved for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 4-1 among the Senate members of the Committee and 5-1-3 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Olsen and Robinson voted aye.  Senator Ross and Representative Lubnau voted no.  Representatives Alden, Watt and White were excused.

 

The following amendments to the bills were duly adopted:

 

07LSO-0006.W1, Wyoming Unitrust Act

Mr. Bob Leonard, Attorney-at-Law, described the Wyoming Estate Planning Advisory Council (WEPAC) as an organization consisting of attorneys, accountants trust officers, financial planners and insurance agents who meet 2 or 3 times a year to discuss Wyoming and federal law as it relates to estate planning.  The intent to is propose changes to Wyoming law to attract and keep estates in Wyoming.  He explained the purpose of the proposed legislation is to allow a statutory means to resolve and balance competing interests of trust income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries in a way to protect estate tax marital deductions and preservation of trust principal to the extent possible.  He stated he was not at the May meeting of the Committee where a question was asked why the income beneficiary of a unitrust is limited to 3-5% annually of the value of a trust.  He explained that section 643 of the Internal Revenue Code placed that limit on a unitrust for purposes of qualifying for the marital deduction or generation-skipping tax.  The limitation was carefully considered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to balance the needs of beneficiaries and the ability of the IRS to collect some taxes from the trust.  The limitation preserves some of the trust principal so taxes may be collected on the remainder when the surviving spouse dies.  Eighteen other states currently have some version of unitrust provisions.   Mr. Leonard stated WEPAC would like the Committee to consider a proposed amendment on page 12 of the bill.

 

Representative Lubnau, seconded by Representative Olsen, moved for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 6-0-3 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen and Robinson voted aye.  Representatives Alden, Watt and White were excused.

 

The following amendments to the bill were duly adopted:

 

07LSO-0005.W2, Uniform Trust Act-amendments

Doug McLaughlin, Attorney-at-Law, explained the proposed amendments to the Uniform Trust Act, primarily to update the law to reflect changes that have occurred since the enactment of the Act.  Most of the substantive changes are located in Article 5 of the Act, specifically establishing procedures for qualified spendthrift trusts.  More than a dozen states have some form of domestic asset protection as described by Mr. McLaughlin at the May meeting.  The changes also provide some protection for creditors and beneficiaries.  He will send his briefing book on this matter to Committee members before the next meeting, where the bill will be considered in more detail.

 

07LSO-0004.W2, Lien amendments

Brian Shuck explained the Wyoming State Bar created a lien statute study committee to address frustrations experienced by attorneys and customers.  The committee solicited comments and the biggest concern was the disorganization that exists in the law.  The law evolved as a patchwork and some of the later provisions should appear before the earlier provisions, so the focus was on reorganizing the statutes to make them easier to understand in terms of the process.  Other comments suggested the creation of boilerplate forms that could be used, particularly for lien waivers, and the elimination of archaic language to add clarity.

 

Senator Ross said the bill has much good in it, but more work has to be done if the bill is to truly be a "Revised Wyoming Statutory Lien Act". the act should be reviewed by the Legislature, attorneys and others so all necessary changes can be made in a single bill.  Representative Lubnau agreed that a task force should be authorized to look at all changes that may be necessary to the lien laws.

 

Chairman Hanes thanked Mr. Shuck for all his efforts in preparing the bill and hoped he would be willing to participate in a task force to study the lien statutes in detail. Chairman Hanes called for any other public comment on the bill. 

 

Laurie Urbigkit, Wyoming Housing Alliance and Wyoming Association of Realtors, stated she would like to participate in the task force, if it is created. 

 

Bob Bailey, Wyoming Land Title Association and First American Title Insurance Company, believes the task force would be helpful.  He advised that California and Missouri have good mechanic's lien laws.  He would also be happy to participate in a task force to examine the lien statutes.

 

Dave Johnson, Wyoming Bankers' Association, likes the bill that was drafted, but would be willing to participate in a task force .  He doesn't believe there are major problems with the current law.

 

Representative Lubnau moved to have a bill drafted for consideration that would create a task force to study the lien statutes in depth.  The motion carried unanimously.  The task force should consist of 2 members of the House of Representatives, 2 senators, a title company representative, a contractor, 2 attorneys a real estate professional, a landowner, an oilfield contractor, a banker, a representative from the Attorney General's Office and a member from the Office of State Lands and Investments.

 

07LSO-0007.W1, Probate task force

Chairman Hanes suggested the bill should add a clerk of court to the membership of the proposed task force. Representative Landon suggested the bill should be revised to specify that 2 senators, 2 representatives and 2 lawyers would be appointed to the task force.

 

Representative Olsen, seconded by Representative Lubnau, moved for the Committee to sponsor the bill, as revised. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0 among the Senate members of the Committee and 6-0-3 among the House members of the Committee.  Senators Hanes, Burns, Decaria, Ross and Sessions and Representatives Landon, Bagby, Buchanan, Lubnau, Olsen and Robinson voted aye.  Representatives Alden, Watt and White were excused.

 

The following amendments to the bill were duly adopted:

 

 

07LSO-0124.W1, Required payments as conditions of parole

Pat Anderson, Director, Board of Parole, explained the bill.  The Attorney General has advised that statutory authority is necessary to require the proposed payments in the bill. 

 

Representative Landon expressed concern with the required payment for services rendered while the parolee was incarcerated, possibly without the ability to refuse the services.  He could accept the required payments under paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the bill if coupled with a consideration of the inmate's ability to pay, but wants cost estimates with respect to evaluations, treatment and other services under paragraph (iii) and the cost of supervision under paragraph (iv) of the bill.  Also, he was concerned that the failure to pay for such services may result in imprisonment by someone other than a judge.

 

Mr. Anderson mentioned that Mr. Rivera had discussed with him a potential problem with the requirements proposed under the bill.  As a result the language of the bill may have to be tempered by factoring in a determination of the parolee's ability to make the payments.  He would like to work with Mr. Rivera to develop language for the Committee to consider at the next meeting.  The Board of Parole would, as always, work to avoid parolee failures.

 

Destruction of Controlled Substances¾Review of Proposed Rules

Attorney General Crank, with Dave Delicath, advised that, in researching and developing its proposed rules, the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) has researched to determine how other states are disposing of accumulated controlled substances.  He stated that the Colorado Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is sending its controlled substances to Salt Lake City for disposal of large quantities, according to the DEA.  There are some smaller portable incinerators for controlled substances, but those units aren't capable of disposing of the large quantities that the Division of Criminal Investigation has accumulated over the years.  The DEA is unwilling to give much information about its disposal procedures.  Most other states don't have rules for the disposal of controlled substances.  Texas has adopted some vague rules.

 

In Colorado, there is no destruction of controlled substances on the state level. Disposal is left to the local jurisdictions.  Many are taking their stores of controlled substances to Denver International Airport (DIA), which has an incinerator to dispose of waste product.  Most large international airports have such incinerators.  DIA charges $325/load, without regard to the size of the load.  The primary requirement seems to be that some representatives of the jurisdiction disposing of the controlled substance have to observe the destruction.  Montana uses mobile incinerators that can dispose of smaller quantities of controlled substances.  For example, a mobile incinerator can dispose of 20 pounds of methamphetamine in 20 minute to one hour, but a ton would probably take several days to destroy.

 

Attorney General Crank stated the public comment period for the proposed rules ended August 2.  The rules don't specify the method of destruction, but only give DCI the authority to destroy accumulated quantities. 

 

Representative Lubnau asked if Wyoming should consider building its own incinerator.  Attorney General Crank responded that it wouldn't be practical or used very much, once the current stock of controlled substances is destroyed.  The permitting process could also be cumbersome.  Attorney General Crank expressed reluctance to tie DCI to a single method of destruction in the rules. He would be willing to include in the rules safeguards to ensure the drugs are properly destroyed, i.e., establishing a process to ensure a secure chain of possession of the drugs during transfer and during destruction of the drugs.  He asked the Committee for direction if the proposed rules should be amended, or if emergency rules should be promulgated regarding the actual procedures for destruction of the accumulated drugs.  The consensus was that emergency rules should suffice.  Attorney General Crank said he will circulate the emergency rules to members of the Committee for comment prior to proceeding with the destruction of the drugs.

 

Other Business

The Committee discussed potential meeting dates for the next meeting.  The Cochairmen decided that the next Committee meeting would be held on November 20-21, 2006 at a site to be arranged in Casper.

 

 

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Chairman Hanes adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Senator John Hanes, Cochairman                                Representative Jack Landon, Cochairman

[Top] [Back] [Home]