Committee Meeting Information

September 8 & 9, 2008

Herschler Building, Room B-63

Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Senator Tony Ross, Cochairman

Representative Ed Buchanan, Cochairman

Senator Bruce Burns

Senator Ken Decaria

Senator Drew Perkins

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative Deb Alden (September 9 only)

Representative George Bagby

Representative Dan Dockstader

Representative Erin Mercer

Representative Monte Olsen

Representative Lisa Shepperson

Representative Mary Throne

 

Committee Members Absent

Representative Deb Alden (September 8 only)

Representative Keith Gingery

 

Legislative Service Office Staff

John Rivera, Senior Staff Attorney

Ian Shaw, Staff Attorney (September 8 only)

Kelley Shepp, Associate Research Analyst (September 8 only)

 

Others Present at Meeting

Representative Tom Lubnau was present for consideration of carbon capture and sequestration.  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 on September 8 & 9, 2008 in Cheyenne. At the meeting, the Committee received additional testimony on carbon capture and sequestration and considered draft legislation on that topic, received data on charges and penalties for driving under the influence, considered issues relating to the judicial appointment process, received reports from the Court Security Commission, the Drug Court Steering Committee and a report on juvenile justice from the Wyoming County Commissioners Association,  agreed to consider draft legislation to clean up sex offender registration statutes,  and approved sponsorship of bills clarifying release of information in sexual assault trials and repealing an obsolete interstate compact on supervision of probationers and parolees.  The Committee also made plans to form a volunteer working group to study liens.

 

The Committee will meet again in the Fall, at a time yet to be determined.

 

Call To Order (September 8, 2008)

Chairman Ross 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 June 2 & 3, 2008, Committee meeting were approved.

 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Mr. Travis McLing, Idaho National Laboratory and the Center for Advanced Energy Studies, provided the Committee a copy of his Power Point presentation, Appendix 3.  Carbon sequestration can be divided into four areas of concern:  regulatory, technical, risk and public acceptance.  Mr. McLing discussed each of these four areas and generally identified issues that the Committee may need to consider when proceeding with its consideration of carbon sequestration.

 

Wyoming must consider its market for energy when adopting sequestration law.  He cautioned that states like California may not accept power generated in Wyoming if Wyoming's sequestration laws are not as stringent as the laws adopted in California.  Wyoming also must consider the long-term administration of sequestration sites and consider who will pay for remediation in the long-term.  Monitoring will be one of the most expensive elements of sequestration and the length of time that a company will be required to monitor will substantially impact the cost of a project.

 

Mr. McLing explained that the siting issue is one of the most politically and practically difficult for sequestration.  Although the public is generally in favor of sequestration, they do not want it to occur in their back yards because they believe sequestration is a precursor to building a coal-fired electrical plant near the sequestration site, resulting in local opposition to the proposal.

 

The EPA has released draft regulations on carbon sequestration.  The new rules propose a new class of wells under the UIC program, Class VI wells.  These wells, according to the draft rules, must store CO₂ below any useable drinking water and must reach that depth necessary to keep CO₂ in a supercritical state,  i.e., liquid.  The draft rules require extensive site characterization and modeling and suggest a 50 year monitoring period.

 

Some of the technical needs that will have to be addressed to promote sequestration are better methods to predict geochemical reactions, ways to determine and minimize the number of necessary injection sites and improved multi-phase, basin-wide modeling.  Currently, modeling for a very small, 3 thousand ton test site, requires 45 days of processing time by one of the fastest computer arrays in the world. 

 

With regard to risk, Mr. McLing suggested prioritizing risk by balancing the consequences of a certain risk against its probability.  All risks do not have to be covered.  Mr. McLing suggested trying to place sequestration facilities next to CO₂ generators in order to reduce the huge costs of transportation.  It also is advisable to use multiple trapping mechanisms in sequestration sites, i.e., hydrodynamic, solubility, mineralization.  Mr. McLing believes sequestration may eventually require a public fund to cover long-term liabilities.  Mr. McLing has reviewed the proposed rules from the EPA and believes they may lead to the exclusion of large sequestration sites in Idaho, Oregon and Washington by requiring that all sequestered materials be placed below the lowest strata that contains useable water.  For geological sequestration to be effective, efforts must be undertaken throughout the world, not just within the United States.  Mr. McLing suggested the Committee members read the discussion of property right issues in a CRS Report to Congress, Appendix 4.

 

Dr. Maha Mahasenan, Senior Policy Advisor, Rio Tinto, explained how sequestration in enhanced oil recovery or coal bed methane projects creates a much smaller carbon foot print than carbon sequestration would.  Dr. Mahasenan discussed general climate policy and energy industry details that impact the development and implementation of sequestration activities.  Dr. Mahasenan's discussion focused primarily on the market factors that will drive energy development and carbon storage.  Ultimately, by 2050, the economy will need to value carbon credits at $150-250 per ton to provide the incentive necessary to stabilize climate change.  In 2015, that value should be approximately $50 per ton.   Dr. Mahasenan emphasized that no single industry will be able to provide enough power to meet all our energy needs and that it will be a challenge for the coal industry to maintain its current market share while also trying to tackle its carbon dioxide output.  Dr. Mahasenan was asked to provide his presentation for distribution to the Committee.

 

Dr. Mahasenan believes that carbon sequestration may require the injector to maintain liability for some time with the government eventually assuming that liability.  There is a need for nation-wide regulation and guidance, rather than a piece-meal approach by each state.  Also, there is a big disincentive to be the first one to develop a large sequestration site.  Early incentives and cost-sharing may be necessary to get business to take the initial step and open large-scale sites.  Developing plants that are capable of separating CO₂ and participating in sequestering may cost 40-50% more than a traditional plant.

 

Mr. John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Equality (DEQ), distributed Appendix 5, consisting of an update on the activities of the carbon sequestration working group that has been formed, to develop financial assurance guidelines pursuant to the legislation enacted last session, a copy of the working group's meeting schedule, a summary of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed new requirements for carbon sequestration, and a list of issues identified by the EPA on which the EPA is seeking comments.  Mr. Corra reviewed the EPA's newly released proposed rules on carbon sequestration.  The EPA's rules appear consistent with Wyoming's new legislation on sequestration and Mr. Corra does not believe that the rules and regulations adopted by DEQ will depart significantly from the EPA's rules.   The EPA has asked for comments on many issues raised by its proposed rules.  DEQ intends to address approximately 15-20 of the comment requests and would be happy to consider others at a legislator's request.   The EPA's rules require extensive site modeling and characterization and provide little guidance on financial assurance issues.  The EPA's final rules likely will not be released until 2010 or 2011.

 

Mr. Kevin Frederick, Water Quality Division Environmental Program Manager, DEQ, is in charge of developing the DEQ's rules.  An initial draft of the DEQ's rules may be drafted within one month and the final rules likely will take at least one year to finalize.  Chairman Ross asked that the DEQ keep LSO advised of its progress on adopting new rules.

 

Mr. Rick Marvel, Engineering Manager, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, distributed Appendix 6, an overview of the Commission's activities with regard to enhanced oil and gas recovery and unitization.  Mr. Marvel explained the process for unitization and forced unitization and the requirement that 80% of all owners, both cost-bearing and cost-free, provide consent.

 

Representative Tom Lubnau presented draft legislation he has prepared for Committee consideration.  Chairmen Ross emphasized that the Committee would not be working the bills, but only considering them to open the dialogue.   The Committee first considered 09LSO-0154.W1, Responsibilities of sequestration injectors and pore space owners.  Representative Lubnau explained the purpose of the legislation is to provide some certainty on liability and ownership issues which will allow finance houses to evaluate the risk and provide financing.  With regard to the provision stating that the injector retains ownership and liability for injected materials, Representative Lubnau explained that this will help insure that the end- users of Wyoming energy will bear the costs of sequestration, rather than Wyoming taxpayers who do not use the energy.  The other provision, protecting pore space owners from liability arising from the mere fact of ownership or consent to sequester, is important as a means of protecting pore space owners who do not have the sophistication or knowledge necessary to evaluate the propriety of sequestration.  Under this provision, liability is possible if the pore space owner begins to exercise control over the operation.  The provision creating a rebuttable presumption that the injector owns the injected material and has the resulting liability, is necessary because it may be improper to impose strict liability on the injector.  The existence of naturally occurring CO₂, the acts of other third parties and the possibility that others in the sequestration process might be liable, militate that the injector is only the presumptive owner and the presumptively liable party.  Representative Buchanan acknowledged that this provision may need to be amended to more specifically allow the owner to establish the liability of third parties.

 

Representative Lubnau presented 09LSO-0153.W1, Sequestration site unitization.  He explained that this bill provides the least intrusive approach to allow sequestration and avoids any exercise of eminent domain.  He emphasized that the unitization process is not trying to take the place of the permitting process and that many issues not covered in the unitization process are addressed in the permitting process.  Representative Lubnau explained each section of the bill and how Wyoming courts have found forced unitization to be a valid exercise of the state's police power.  The 12.5% carbon credits value placed on pore space is taken from the oil and gas statutes and is simply a place-holder, to be debated.  Valuing the pore space is the most difficult issue.  Representative Lubnau detailed several constitutional considerations for forced unitization including the possible unavailability of eminent domain for purposes of unitization for carbon sequestration under the Wyoming Constitution and the case law discussing whether forced unitization is a constitutional taking.

 

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Ms. Holly Hansen, Wyoming Supreme Court Administrator, distributed Appendix 7, containing  a spreadsheet and narrative relating to data on DUI charges and sentencing in circuit courts in Wyoming.  The issue is complex because there are 27 charging statutes in Title 31 of the Wyoming Statutes and 1 charging statute each in Titles 6, 10 and 41.  She explained the data contained in the various charts in Appendix 7.  The data does not include charges filed or convictions in municipal courts, which would require the Department of Transportation to manually sort through all its conviction records to extract that information.

 

Mr. Tom Loftin, Drivers Services, Department of Transportation, explained that the data contained in Appendix 8 reflects DUI convictions of all courts in the State, but is not sorted by the type of court.  Increases in convictions may be attributable to oil patch workers entering the state, but that would only be speculation.  Increased enforcement activities may also be a factor in the increased conviction numbers.

 

Mr. Byron Oedekoven, Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,  advised that law enforcement is being asked to increase enforcement.  Energy industry workers tend to work hard and play hard, so they are also contributing the increased numbers of convictions for DUI.

 

Chairman Ross added that sometimes the certainty of penalty is more important as a deterrent than the severity of the penalty is.

 

Senator Drew Perkins advised he had reviewed changes in Wyoming's DUI statutes since 1999. There have been 6 or 7 bills enacted, but the changes haven't worked.  What is needed is technological changes.  New Mexico passed its mandatory ignition interlock program several years ago. Since then, Arizona has also enacted such a law and Illinois and South Carolina are currently considering a mandatory program also.  Senator Perkins distributed Appendix 9 consisting of articles and statutes pertaining to the mandatory ignition interlock programs he described.

 

Ms. Lorrie Pozarik, Governor's Council on Impaired Driving, expressed her gratitude for the comprehensive review of DUI.  The Council has looked at a model law and blended the relevant provisions into existing law.  The Council and the Governor would like the proposed legislation to be sponsored by the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee, rather than sponsored by an individual legislator.  Ms. Pozarik offered to create a matrix of the proposed changes and explaining the rationale for the changes for the Committee's consideration.

 

Sargent JonLee Anderle, Laramie Police Department, is a member of the Governor's Council, but he is speaking on behalf of the Laramie Police Department.  Law enforcement would like to eliminate from the law the prohibitions against road blocks.  Two attorneys general in Wyoming have opined that there is no constitutional restriction on the types of road blocks that may be implemented, but current statutes only permit road blocks when there is a search for a specific felon or for game and fish compliance.  

 

Mr. Gene Rugotzke, Governor's Council member, distributed Appendix 10, consisting of a brochure and a description of the MADD campaign to eliminate drunk driving.  He spoke on behalf of a mandatory ignition interlock program which has proven to be successful in a number of states.

 

Judicial Appointment Issues

Honorable Barton Voigt, Chief Justice, Wyoming Supreme Court, distributed Appendix 11, a review of constitutional provisions and statutes that relate to the number and location of judges in the state.  He stated that the process demanded by the Joint Appropriations Interim Committee for the creation of new judgeship positions is not a time-effective way to address the needs that arise.  That is why the bill creating a new judge position in Sublette County last session was sponsored by an individual legislator.  While the Chief Justice could not propose a solution to the concern, he remains sensitive to the issue.    Smaller issues include amending the circuit court judgeships statutes by providing statutory authority for the Court to delay filling positions beyond 60 days, so a proposal could be submitted to the Legislature at the following session for ratification and allowing the Court to decide in which county a full-time magistrate shall be required to have residency.  After an explanation of proposed changes, the Committee directed staff to work with the Court to prepare a bill incorporating the changes offered by the Chief Justice for consideration at the next meeting.

 

09LSO-0038.W3, District courts-release of information

Chief Justice Voigt explained he had originally proposed this bill simply to conform the statute with current procedures provided in Court Rules.  He was not sure why the bill now contained so many complex changes that he hadn't recommended.  Chairman Ross advised that the bill had been revised to incorporate changes suggested by Mr. Jim Angell, Wyoming Press Association.

 

After discussion of the new language in the bill, Senator Decaria moved, seconded by Senator Burns, that the Committee consider sponsorship of the bill.  After adopting amendments to the bill, the motion carried on a roll call vote of 4 ayes and 1 excused by the Senate Judiciary Committee and 7 ayes and 2 excused by the House Judiciary Committee.  Senators Burns, Decaria, Perkins and Ross, and Representatives Bagby, Buchanan, Dockstader, Mercer, Olsen, Shepperson and Throne voted aye.  Senator Sessions and Representatives Alden and Gingery were excused.

 

The following amendments to the bill were adopted:

Page 2-lines 5 through 7                      Reinsert stricken language and delete all new language.

Page 2-lines 15 through 23      Reinsert stricken language and delete all new language.

Page 3-lines 1 and 2                 Reinsert stricken language and delete all new language.

Page 3-lines 19 through 21      Reinsert stricken language and delete all new language.

Page 4-lines 11 through 13      Reinsert stricken language and delete all new language.

 

Court Security Commission Update

Mr. Joe Moore, Director, Office of Homeland Security, distributed Appendix 12, an overview of the Court Security Commission's activities.  The Commission has sent a survey to determine the current state of court security throughout the state.  At its first meeting on August 19, the Commission created 4 subcommittees to examine specific issues related to court room and court building security.

 

Honorable Jeffrey Donnell, Second Judicial District Court Judge, advised the Commission was attempting to identify issues at the first meeting.  Chairman Ross expressed concern that existing deficiencies should not become part of any public record of the Commission.  Judge Donnell stated the U.S. Marshall Tony Rose had attended the first meeting and had made a similar recommendation.  Senator Burns asked if the Supreme Court should have a contingency fund for security in high profile cases.   Judge Donnell said that would be a good idea, but such funding should best be controlled within the executive branch since that is the branch that would be providing the security.

 

Meeting Recess

The Committee recessed at 4:25 p.m.

 

 

Call To Order (September 8, 2008)

Chairman Buchanan 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.

 

09LSO-0076.W1, Interstate compact for supervision of parolees

Mr. Patrick Anderson, Director, Board of Parole, explained the purpose of the bill was to eliminate unnecessary provisions from an obsolete interstate compact.  He distributed Appendix 13, the explanation of the background relating to the interstate compact. He also provided an update on 2008 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Chapter 14, which authorized the granting or removal of "good time" for inmates.  The new authority is being received favorably by inmates.  Mr. Anderson expects more inmates to apply for early release because of the new incentives in the bill.

 

After consideration of the bill, Senator Burns moved, seconded by Representative Olsen, that the Committee consider sponsorship of the bill.  The motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes and no nays by the Senate Judiciary Committee and 7 ayes and 2 excused by the House Judiciary Committee.  Senators Burns, Decaria, Perkins, Ross and Sessions, and Representatives Alden, Bagby, Buchanan, Dockstader, Mercer, Olsen and Shepperson voted aye.  Representatives Gingery and Throne were excused.

 

Sex Offender Registration

Mr. Kevin Smith, Deputy Director, Criminal Justice Information Section, Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), distributed Appendix 14, suggested changes to the sex offender registration statutes.  The purposes of the changes are to eliminate conflicts and clarify provisions.  He explained how the process is currently working and some of the problems that result from the existing language of the law, particularly issues relating to the time lines for registration and whether the offender is required to register with DCI or with the local sheriff.

 

Mr. Oedekoven explained that the Jacob Wetterling Act was the first attempt at sex offender management.  Then 1½  years ago, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which caused significant changes in how sex offenders will be managed nationally.  Wyoming enacted some of the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act and the state is mostly in compliance with that Act, but some changes may be necessary now that the U.S. Attorney's Office is close to finalizing its rules for implementation of the Act.  There are about 1300 sex offenders required to register in Wyoming.  Many of these persons do not have substantial family or other ties to the State, having moved to Wyoming when the State was considered a haven for offenders because of our lax registration requirements.  Since the changes in registration requirements in 2007, sex offenders appear disinterested in moving to Wyoming because of our strict and onerous registration requirements.  There are some offenders who are leaving the State because their home state has less onerous registration requirements than Wyoming does since its enactment of 2007 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Chapter 160.  Mr. Oedekoven would like to have provisions relating to the process for neighborhood notification to be clarified.  Mr. Oedekoven explained the proposed language changes contained in Appendix 15.

 

Mr. Dave Delicath, Supervising Criminal Division Attorney General, explained that if a registrant moved to Wyoming with a shorter registration period from his home state about to expire, he will be required to register for the longer period required under Wyoming law, if the conduct for which he was convicted warrants a longer registration period in Wyoming.

 

Senator Perkins suggested adding language that the default registration category shall be under W.S. 7-19-302(j) for sex offenders entering the State without documentation as to their convictions and for whom DCI can not determine under which category in W.S. 7-19-302 the offender's conduct would fit, which registration would continue until such time as a determination can be made as to the nature of the offense for which the offender was convicted.

 

Mr.  Oedekoven explained the costs that would be associated with neighborhood notification under W.S. 7-19-303(c) if the notification is performed on a door-to-door basis or by a mailing within the required area of notification.  Other states vary in how notification is provided and whether the offender is required to pay the costs of notification.  Some states assess a fee to the offender if he moves more than one time in a year, to prevent frequent moves to avoid registration.  After discussion of the proposed statutory changes, the Committee directed staff to prepare a bill draft for consideration at the next meeting, based on the recommendations provided.

 

Drug Court Steering Committee Update

Senator Michael Von Flatern, cochairman of the Drug Court Steering Committee, with Mr. Rodger McDaniel, Deputy Director, Wyoming Department of Health, presented the Drug Court Steering Committee's report (Appendix 15) to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee.  The report included the Drug Court Steering Committee's recommendations for funding, structure, administration and rule making for drug courts in the State.  Senator Von Flatern advised that 09LSO-0053.W3, Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act, was attached to the report, but the bill will be revised to incorporate changes accepted at the Drug Court Steering Committee's meeting on September 5, 2008. 

 

Senator Ross asked if drug courts are actually a better approach for dealing with the persons with substance abuse problems.  Mr. McDaniel responded that Dr. Cary Heck presented data to the Drug Court Steering Committee demonstrating the effectiveness of drug courts, but he does not have data to compare outcomes in drug courts to other sentencing alternatives.

 

Chairman Buchanan stated that the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee will be meeting again this interim and will make time at the next meeting to discuss the revised 09LSO-0053 draft legislation.

 

Update on Juvenile Issues

Dr. Beth Evans, Ph.D., JJDPA Project Coordinator, Wyoming County Commissioners Association, distributed a summary of the 2007 Wyoming Compliance Monitoring Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Appendix 16).  She explained the data contained in the three tables on the Summary.  Many of the violations she found were attributable to Campbell County where there is no sound and sight separation between adult and juvenile detainees, but those numbers should drop dramatically when the County completes its juvenile detention center that is currently being built.  Her  observations include: that there is still a lack of meaningful data to track successes or failures in the system; that there is inconsistent treatment for juveniles, based on residency; Wyoming has the second highest number of juvenile detentions and commitments, behind South Dakota; minor in possession of alcohol should be treated as a status offense; and, the State needs a single court system for intake of juveniles, rather than processing them in the various courts that currently hear juvenile offenses.  She added that she provides her reports monthly to the State Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice.  The August report showed the number of violations in the State for the first half of 2008 were similar to number for the last half of 2007.  Since July, 2008, there has been a significant drop in the number of violations which she will track and report to this Committee.

 

Mr. Tony Lewis, Director, Department of Family Services (DFS), stated the three things that are needed in the State for juveniles are initial assessments, treatment and outcome measures.  If those matters are adequately addressed, many of the violations Dr. Evans sees would be solved.  Focusing on the court system won't solve the problem because courts are bridges to nowhere unless services are available through those courts for juveniles.  He believes the legislation enacted last session to fund and strengthen community juvenile services boards has done the most to develop local services for treatment of juvenile offenders.

 

Chairman Buchanan encouraged Dr. Evans to develop proposed changes and present them to the Committee at a future meeting.

 

Honorable Gary Hartman, retired 5^th Judicial District Court Judge, now is a consultant to the Governor.  He advised that DFS has adopted an assessment model that is gaining acceptance in several states.  Park, Sheridan and Sweetwater Counties will implement this assessment model at the front end of juvenile cases.  He distributed Appendix 17, charting the single point of entry model to illustrate how a juvenile would be processed depending on the charged violation and the treatment options.  It may be worthwhile to attempt some policy changes not requiring statutory changes.  If  it is determined that statutory change is necessary after trying policy changes, the Committee will be advised.  He would like the State Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice to be the focus for filtering data collection issues.  Since leaving the bench and moving to Cheyenne, Judge Hartman was impressed to learn that the Departments of Health, Family Services and Education meet on a monthly basis to address juvenile issues they confront. 

 

Director Lewis added that he hopes the Legislature will support Judge Hartman's and the various Department's efforts to address juvenile issues.  Despite national statistics, Wyoming is making progress.  It is important to keep in mind that Wyoming's statistics look worse because each infraction is magnified as a result of the State's low population.  He believes regional juvenile detention centers should be created and supported by the State.

 

Drug Court Study Comments

Honorable Dennis Sanderson, 3^rd Judicial District Court Judge, distributed Appendix 18, a Resolution describing the issues district court judges would support in legislation addressing drug or other problem solving courts, including: maintaining separation of powers; acknowledging the primacy role of the executive branch in implementing rehabilitative services; outlining the jurisdiction of courts for such judicial intervention in probation and other rehabilitative services; addressing procedures for the judicial intervention; and, providing adequate judicial resources for judicial involvement in rehabilitation.  A big concern of judges is that if a judge becomes too involved in a particular case in the drug court, the judge would lose his impartiality if he has to impose sanctions for failure to complete the terms of the drug court order.

 

Honorable John Brooks, 8^th Judicial District Court Judge, added that procedures vary among the courts, even within the same jurisdictional level, but judges uniformly say they work extremely hard in the drug court because of the high level of interaction required of the judge in that setting.

 

Judge Jeff Donnell advised there had been a previous effort to write drug court rules that was hampered by the existence of 20 different courts operating under different sets of rules, which were unwilling to give up their individual procedures.  He has a fundamental separation of powers problem with executive branch drug panels promulgating rules governing court procedures.

 

Chief Justice Voigt stated that he has no problem with the executive branch writing rules for administrative procedures for funding of the drug courts, as long as the Board of Judicial Policy and Administration sets the procedural rules for the operation of the courts.

 

Judge Hartman said most states have resolved the issues being identified here and have proceeded successfully to implement the problem solving courts.

 

Honorable Keith Kautz, 8^th Judicial District Court Judge, stated that resolution issue #4 (Appendix 18) addresses not just how drug court are to be operated, but also how a person enters the drug court system, because current statutes are unclear on that issue.  Resolution issue #3 (Appendix 18) should address the powers and duties of the court.   Resolution issue #5 (Appendix 18) addresses not just funding, but also staffing.  While there are some issues that still have to be worked on, he believes the unanimous decision of the Drug Court Steering Committee that Senator Von Flatern mentioned was that no bill would be presented to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee yet.

 

Honorable David Park, 7^th Judicial District Court Judge, agreed increased judicial resources will be necessary.  When a judge participates in a drug court, such participation pulls the judge away from other court matters that will have to be postponed.  If that is the decision of the Legislature, judges will do what they can to comply, but legislators have to realize those consequences of the choice they make.

 

In response to a question from Representative Alden, Mr. McDaniel said there are 2,500 drug courts nationally and they are all called "courts."  While they vary in structure, what makes them work is the intensive involvement of the judges.  If the judges are only involved in a case infrequently, the offender is free to play the odds whether they will be sanctioned for violating the terms of probation.  If the judge is actively involved and the offender is required to appear before the judge on a frequent and regular basis, compliance is significantly enhanced.

 

Lien Study

Senator Ross recommended that the study should initially focus on the process for mechanics liens, either through the creation of a subcommittee, which would require requesting additional funding from Management Council, or seeking volunteers for a working group to do the initial work.  The latter would require a letter to the State Bar seeking volunteers to participate on a pro bono basis, along with at least a couple of legislators from the Committee who would also serve on an unpaid basis.  The Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee has been using the latter process with some effectiveness.  After discussion, the Committee agreed to proceed with forming a volunteer working group by soliciting participation.  Senator Ross and Representative Shepperson expressed a willingness to participate in the working group.  Mr. Mark Harris, Wyoming Association of Municipalities (WAM), volunteered to provide LSO with comments WAM had on this issue and agreed the working group would be a good approach for studying liens.  Staff was directed to prepare a letter of solicitation for Senator Ross to obtain participation in the working group.

 

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Chairman Buchanan adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m..

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

Senator Tony Ross, Cochairman                                              Representative Ed Buchanan, Cochairman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix		Appendix Topic		Appendix Description		Appendix Provider
1		Committee Sign-In Sheet		Lists meeting attendees		Legislative Service Office
2		Committee Meeting Agenda		Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting		Legislative Service Office
3		Geological CO2 Sequestration-Opportunities and Challenges		A PowerPoint presentation identifying issues relating to Geological CO2 Sequestration		Travis McLing, Center for Advanced Energy Studies
4		CRS Report for Congress		Describes issues relating to community acceptance of Geological CO2 Sequestration activities		Travis McLing, Center for Advanced Energy Studies
5		Documents relating to EPS proposed rules and the Wyoming Sequestration Working Group		Describes the Wyoming Sequestration Working Group's efforts since enactment of legislation in 2007 and a summary of EPA's proposed rules on Class VI CO2 Sequestration wells and issues that need to be addressed relating to the rules		Director John Corra, Department of Environmental Quality
6		Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Presentation		A PowerPoint presentation describing the process of unitization of oil & gas agreements		Rick Marvel, Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
7		Data on DUI Charges and Sentencing		Provides data with respect to DUI charges and sentences by circuit courts, broken down by county		Holly Hansen, Supreme Court Administrator
8		Data on DUI Conviction Numbers for Wyoming		Provides the number of DUI convictions by year from 2002 through 2007 for all courts in Wyoming		Tom Loftin, Department of Transportation, Drivers' Services
9		Materials on Mandatory Ignition Interlock programs		Provides information on various states' mandatory ignition interlock programs		Senator Drew Perkins
10		Fact Sheet on MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving		Provides information on the effectiveness of mandatory ignition interlock programs to combat drunk driving		Gene Rugotzke, Governor's Council on Impaired Driving

 

11		Memorandum on the Number and Location of Judges		Reviews laws relating to the creation of judgeships and appointment to fill judicial vacancies		Chief Justice Barton Voigt, Wyoming Supreme Court
12		Wyoming Court Security Commission Report		Describes the early activities of the Court Security Commission		Joe Moore, Office of Homeland Security
13		Memorandum  on 09LSO-0076, Interstate Compact for Supervision of Parolees-repeal		Explains why the obsolete Interstate Compact for Supervision of  Parolees and Probationers should be repealed		Patrick Anderson, Board of Parole
14		Proposed Legislative Changes to Sex Offender Registration Statutes		Provides the recommended changes to the sex offender registration provisions to eliminate conflicts and clarify requirements		Kevin Smith, Division of Criminal Investigation
15		Drug Court Steering Committee Report		Reports on the activities and recommendations of the Drug Court Steering Committee		Senator Michael Von Flatern
16		Summary of Wyoming Compliance Monitoring of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act		Provides a summary of the numbers of  juveniles detained in Wyoming for 2007		Dr. Beth Evans, Wyoming Association of County Commissioners
17		Single Point of Entry Model		Provides a flow chart describing how juvenile offenders would be processed and the services that might be provided to them under a single point of entry model		Gary Hartman, Governor's Office
18		District Court Judges' Resolution Relating to Drug Courts		Describes the issues the District /Court Judges have agreed need to be addressed if legislation is considered for the operation of drug courts in Wyoming		Wyoming Association of District Court Judges