• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

RACSS  Newsletter

In this issue:

Chair’s Column
Hong Kong Report, Parts II & III
RACSS Visits Maryland
Skills Seminar
Regional Coordinators
Regional News

Chair’s Column: Hong Kong and Beyond

Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada

On Friday afternoon, November 10, 2000, RACSS Vice Chair Dave Sallach (NJ), RACSS Executive Committee Member Elisabeth Kersten (CA), and I departed from San Francisco for an unforgettable staff exchange program with the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. On that 14-hour flight – okay, it was not that bad since I upgraded myself to business class – I had plenty of time to think and reflect on my role in this program. But first, let’s go back to the beginning.

With the financial and technical support of the U. S. State Department, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) organized a legislative staff exchange with the Legislative Council (LegCo) of the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region. In the first phase of the program, a 12-member delegation of LegCo, representing the key legislative staff in Hong Kong, toured parts of the United States in July 2000. Among other things, the delegation attended NCSL’s annual meeting in Chicago and also met with legislative staff in Sacramento, California, and Olympia, Washington.

For the second phase of the exchange, an eleven-person U.S. delegation (plus two spouses) traveled to Hong Kong in November 2000 for a series of professional briefings and dialogues. Representatives of LegCo identified three staff sections of NCSL to participate in this phase of the exchange – the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES), the Legal Staff Services Section (LSSS), and the Research and Committee Staff Section (RACSS). NCSL staff officers selected the three RACSS participants for the 12-day program, largely because we currently were serving as RACSS officers and were able to travel at that time. I might mention that all travel, lodging and most meals were covered under the State Department grant to NCSL.

Anyway, to get back to that long flight on November 10 and 11, several movies were provided for the passengers to help pass the time. Somehow, I ended up watching "Shanghai Noon," a cowboy comedy set in the 1880’s. Jackie Chan played the part of Chon Wang, a member of the Chinese Imperial Guard sent to the United States to rescue the Royal Princess, played by Lucy Liu. Somehow, she was being held captive in my hometown of Carson City, Nevada, and that’s where Chon Wang (say it slowly to get the pun) was headed. After he arrived in the U.S., he kept asking everyone how to get to Carson City. "I need to go to Carson City to rescue the Chinese Princess," he said. Wow, did that ever sound strange to me! Here I was, an American guy from Carson City going to China watching a flick about a Chinese guy going to Carson City! But, at least Chon Wang had a goal in mind, which was to rescue the Princess. For me, I really didn’t know what I could do to help American relations with Hong Kong or if I could share anything of value to a government so apparently different from the U.S. Was I ever wrong!

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a former British colony that was returned to Chinese control on July 1, 1997. The land area of the Region is very small; just half the size of Rhode Island. However, its population is now over 7 million. Hong Kong’s government is established under their Basic Law, a "mini-constitution" approved before the turnover by the British. Among other provisions, the Region must operate under the principles of democracy and capitalism for a period of 50 years (until 2047). The arrangement between Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China in Beijing is commonly described as "one country, two systems." I found the current government of Hong Kong to be modern, progressive, and open to concerns from its citizens. The LegCo Secretariat has a staff of approximately 300. The staff is highly trained and skilled, and all the staffers I met spoke English very well. The Research office is in its early stages right now, with primary focus on its Research Library and the preparation of research reports on public policy issues. The Research Director and Librarian is Eva Liu (not Lucy Liu), a multi-talented professional who is quickly developing an outstanding office and research products.

Elsewhere in the LegCo Secretariat, there are staff units or functions for bill drafting and legal analysis, citizen complaints, budget review and evaluation, public information, information technology, and staff support of the various committees. The staff operates in a central and nonpartisan manner, and professionalism, institutional pride, and hard work were obvious everywhere. Saturday mornings are part of the regular workweek, thus leaving most staffers with at least 44 hours at the job each week.

On this exchange program, I realized that there is much to learn from legislative bodies and staff units in other countries, even those where democracy is in its infancy. There are certain advantages to starting with a relatively "clean slate," where traditional ways of doing things are not major obstacles in the development of new structures and processes. I hope that my experiences also will encourage research and committee staff members around the country to consider serving RACSS in some capacity in the future. That’s what I did, and it led to the most interesting and rewarding experience of my 34-year professional career.
 
 

Hong Kong—Part II

Last November, Bob Erickson, Elisabeth Kersten and I, along with colleagues from the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) and the Legal Staff Services Section (LSSS), were privileged to travel to Hong Kong to participate in a series of professional dialogues with our counterparts from the Legislative Council Secretariat of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). These dialogues were the second phase of a staff exchange program organized by NCSL and the Legislative Council (LegCo) of the HKSAR, with the financial and technical support of the U. S. State Department’s Office of Citizen Exchanges. The purpose of these dialogues was twofold: (1) to foster an understanding of each other’s legislative process and structure and (2) to share common experiences and problems.

Knowing that it would be an impossible task to adequately, much less thoroughly, cover our 12 days of dialogues, observations and meetings, plus all the sightseeing, cultural events and culinary delights our gracious and indefatigable hosts packed into our free time, Chairman Bob suggested that we each focus on a different topic. My assignment: LegCo—structure and process.

One Country, Two Systems

On June 30, 1997, Prince Charles formally returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China, effective the next day. This transfer of sovereignty is commonly referred to as the "Handover." The following day Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic and the Basic Law (the mini-constitution adopted by the National People’s Congress for the HKSAR) took effect.

The Basic Law provides for a Beijing-appointed Chief Executive and a 60 member unicameral Legislative Council. While the People’s Republic assumed responsibility for all matters relating to defense and foreign affairs, the Basic Law guarantees that Hong Kong can retain its economic, social and legal systems for at least 50 years, pledging in its preamble that "under the principle of ‘one country, two systems’ the socialist system and polices will not be practiced in Hong Kong."

LegCo—Composition

The first elections were held May 25, 1998. Of the 60 members elected to these initial two year terms, 20 were selected from geographic districts by popular vote, 30 by functional constituencies and 10 by an Election Committee.

The functional constituencies are comprised of 26 interest groups, representing various professions, business and industry, the service sector, and social services. Some of the more influential constituencies are accorded multiple seats in LegCo. The industrial constituency and the commercial constituency, for example, each select two members, while labor selects three.

The Election Committee is comprised of representatives from four sectors: (1) the industrial, commercial and financial sector; (2) the professions; (3) labor, social services and religious groups; and (4) members of LegCo, district organization and Hong Kong deputies to the National People’s Congress. Each sector has 200 voting members.

The second election, the first for full four year terms, was held September 10, 2000. This election marked the beginning of the planned phase out of the Election Committee. While the number of members selected by the functional constituencies stayed at 30, the number selected from geographic districts by popular vote increase to 24. Only six members were selected by the Election Committee.

At the next election in 2004, half the members will be selected by the functional constituencies and half by geographic districts by popular vote.

The goal is to have all LegCo members elected by popular vote. The Basic Law, however, is silent on how this objective is to be realized. Developing an acceptable plan to reach that goal may well be one of LegCo’s greatest challenges.

LegCo in Action

LegCo has three primary responsibilities: to enact laws; to oversee public expenditures; and to monitor the Government’s performance.

As in our legislatures, much of this work is done by committees.

LegCo has only three standing committees. The Finance Committee, which is essentially a committee of the whole (the Council President is the exception), is responsible for scrutinizing all public expenditure proposals. The work of the committee is supported by the Establishment Subcommittee, which focuses on personnel matters, and the Public Works Subcommittee. The Public Accounts Committee is responsible for reviewing the financial reports of the Director of Audit and the results of the value for money audits (performance audits) performed on government offices. The third standing committee is the Committee on Member’s Interests which considers matters of ethics relating to the conduct and declared interests of LegCo’s members.

Although not officially a standing committee, the House Committee meets every Friday afternoon when LegCo is in session. Comprised of all members, except the Council President, this committee sets the agenda for the next LegCo meeting, scheduling the legislation to be considered and the matters to be discussed—the functions of majority leadership in our legislatures.

The standing reference committees organized around subject matter or areas that we are accustomed to do not exist in LegCo. Instead, a separate bill committee is created for each bill as it is considered. Committee membership is open to all interested legislators. This approach is effective due to the limited number of bill considered during a LegCo session. Last session, for example, 42 bill committees were formed. (On average, between 70 and 80 bills are introduced during a session; last session 66 bills were enacted into law.) The relatively few number of bills introduced is a function of Article 74 of the Basic Law. While there are no restrictions on bills introduced by the government, members may not introduce bills that relate to "public expenditures or political structure or the operation of the government." Member bills relating to government policy may be introduced only with the "written consent of the Chief Executive."

One of LegCo’s more interesting operations is the redress system. The redress system provides the public with an opportunity air grievances and seek relief from, or solutions to, problems stemming from particular government policies, decisions and procedures. Working in groups of six, LegCo members take turns in staffing the "complaint center" one day each week. During the last session, LegCo members directly handled more than 400 cases.

Present at the Creation

During the 12 days we spent with our counterparts from LegCo’s Secretariat, we learned about our differences—in governmental structures, political environments and in our staff organizations, functions and responsibilities. We also discovered a surprising number of similarities—in some of the things we do, but more so in shared attitudes toward public service, the legislature and the legislative process—those intangible commonalities that tie legislative staffers to one another. It was an enlightening, exciting experience.

But it was not until the "wrap-up" session that I finally realized the significance of the experience. We had been given the unique opportunity to observe the beginnings of the development of an institution; to meet and talk with legislative staff working to establish and define LegCo’s role in the new government; to formulate and structure its relationship with the Chief Executive; and, with each session and committee meeting, to test the extent of its institutional powers.

As I sat there, I remembered the words of a 13th Century Spanish King, Alphonso the Learned: "Had I been present at the creation I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe."

Present at the creation, but far less confident and self-assured of the possibilities of our contribution than good King Alphonso was of his! Hopefully there were a few "useful hints"—some ideas or work experiences that cropped up in our dialogues that our LegCo friends may find beneficial or worthwhile in their role as institution builders.

There is much more to learn, much more to share.
 

---

Hong Kong—Part III

Traveling abroad is always enlightening and often I return home glad to be back in California and sometimes say, "Am I glad I don’t live and work there!" That is not how I felt when I returned to California from a visit to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. Instead, I came home impressed with what we learned from the talented, professional staff in the Research and Library Services Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat. With a small staff, the office produced 28 reports in the 1999- 2000 session on many topics of interest to policy makers in the United States.

Just to illustrate the commonality of issues, here are a few of the topics our Hong Kong colleagues have researched and written about (in both English and Chinese, I might add)

This process sounded all so familiar to those of us who do similar work for our state legislatures. We found that our Hong Kong colleagues follow closely the research work being done in the states, especially studies prepared by GAO, CBO and other federal agencies. Eva Liu, director of the Hong Kong research office, was interested in our state studies on comparing unemployment benefits among the states and even asked for help in tracking down a San Francisco ordinance on crowd control measures. She was extremely well-versed in public policy and economic issues internationally, having studied in Europe and US, prior to taking her present position.

It’s easy to focus on the differences among the states and among the nations as we each tackle controversial policy issues, but its comforting to see the similarities in our work. Eva even makes use of interns to complement her limited staff, and we met their "intern," a graduate student from Texas, funded by the Luce Foundation. This opened up my eyes to the possibility of a professional staff exchange between the state legislatures and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong where perhaps a water quality specialist from one of our states could go there for a few months and in turn one of their professionals could come to our Legislature. Since all the staff are bilingual in English and Chinese, such exchanges would be mutually beneficial if all the protocol and financing arrangements could be worked out.

Hats off to NCSL and Jeremy Meadows, director of international programs, for arranging and implementing staff exchanges. This NCSL effort complements staff exchanges that our state Senate has started with state governments in Africa. Our Senate is committed to providing support to emerging democracies around the world and as Hong Kong adjusts to the concept of One Nation, Two Systems, it’s clear that we have an opportunity to nurture staff and institutional relationships with a government that values ties with the United States.
 

RACSS Visits Annapolis

On December 13, 2000, in conjunction with the annual joint Fall meeting of the AFI and ASI, a group of RACSS staff section members met in Annapolis to learn how their colleagues in the Maryland General Assembly carry out their responsibilities. The group was briefed on the mission and organization of the Department of Legislative Services (the non-partisan, central staff organization), committee staffing roles and responsibilities, the fiscal note process (each bill must have an analysis of the impact on state revenues and expenditures, small business, and local mandate), and a demonstration of the automated floor system used by legislators and developed by the Department’s Office of Information Systems. A short tour of the historic Maryland State House was also provided.

The group learned that the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) has approximately 400 employees to serve 188 members of the General Assembly. The Department provides all professional staff services (bill and amendment drafting, budget and fiscal analysis, committee staffing, library and research services), as well as all administrative support services. The Department is organized into four offices: the Office of the Executive Director; the Office of Policy Analysis; the Office of Information Systems; and the Office of Legislative Audits. DLS was created from three predecessor agencies in 1997 and its mission is to facilitate the legislative process by providing the highest quality staff support.

Carol Swan, lead counsel to a Senate committee and manager of the Senate committee staff, provided an overview of the role of committee staff. She noted that committee staff are expected to know the subject areas of the committee’s jurisdiction well and that this is a challenge since there are few standing committees in the Maryland General Assembly. Consequently, their jurisdiction is broad. Committee staff are responsible for providing the committee with information relating to the bills before it, as well as preparing all committee amendments, reports, and other documents. Staff are often expected to provide their best professional advice to the committee. This can be extremely challenging for non-partisan staff.

John Rixey, manager of the fiscal note unit, explained how a fiscal note is researched and written and noted how much needs to be done in very little time, especially during those weeks of the legislative session when committees are holding the bulk of their public hearings. Analysts are expected to stay on top of their subject areas and to have an understanding of the capabilities of agencies that are responsible for implementing programs enacted into law in order to be able to produce notes quickly. He explained how the agencies’ input is solicited and how it is analyzed and pointed out that fiscal notes must be delivered to the appropriate committees before the hearing is held. Given that the General Assembly considers between 2,500 and 2,700 bills each year, it is quite a task, especially when the fiscal note writers must analyze all third reading bills to determine if the original first reader note is still correct.

Bob Edwards, Director of the Office of Information Services, provided a demonstration of the automated floor system that his office developed for the members of the General Assembly. The system allows the members to use their laptop computers to access all necessary legislative information on the floor of their respective chamber, in their committees, or in their offices. The "floor system" automatically follows the action on the floor, allows members to see the text of bills and amendments, places amendments into a mark up of a bill, lets members access fiscal notes, budget analyses and other documents, allows members to make notations on personal copies of bills and other documents for their own later use, and creates a personal calendar for them so they can track their own bills or other legislation in which they are interested.

Following the demonstration, the group adjourned for lunch and then returned to Washington.

Adds RACSS Chair Bob Erickson:

Karl and the Maryland legislative staff were wonderful hosts and treated RACSS members to a memorable visit.

The Maryland Department of Legislative Services is prime example of a large, central staff agency, and their services and staff are most impressive. From their committee services, to fiscal notes, to bill drafting, to technology, each staff unit seems to be on the cutting edge in providing comprehensive services to the Maryland General Assembly. Their operations serve as a model for other states in enhancing their products and services. Our visit was a very worthwhile learning experience.

On behalf of RACSS, I would like to express my appreciation to Karl and his staff for being such gracious hosts. In addition to learning so much about their staff services, we were also able to tour their historic Capitol, beautifully decorated for the Christmas holidays, and were then treated to a delicious luncheon, featuring Maryland crab-cakes and other regional dishes. Thank you, Karl!
 

---

Skills Development Seminar

This year’s Skills Development Seminar is being held July 11-14, 2001, at the Rensissance Vinoy Resort in St. Petersburg, Florida.

As usual, RACSS is presenting the research and policy track, a day-and-a-half long course on basic research and committee staffing skills, designed for staff who have been in the legislative work environment for two or fewer years, or who may have recently changed positions and taken on research tasks.

Bryant Howe and Kirk Mlinek are returning for their third year as the faculty team for the research and policy track. Bryant is a Senior Research Analyst with the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. Kirk is Section Manager for Policy Research for the Colorado Legislative Council.

Last’s year research track received the highest rating for any research track presented in the past ten years, and featured a skills-building approach and interactive learning. The faculty team is planning some refinements for this year’s agenda, to make the track even more useful to staff.

The course outline for the research and policy track includes:

• The Legislative Environment
• Role of Staff
• Taking Research Requests
• Researching Basic Fact Questions
• Researching Evaluative Questions
• Evaluating Information Resources
• Staffing Committees
• Reporting Results Effectively
• Staff Ethics

For general information about the seminar, contact Bruce Feustel at bruce.feustel@ncsl.org, or for questions on the research and policy track, contact Jeanne Mejeur at jeanne.mejeur@ncsl.org.
 

---

RACSS Newsletter Regional Coordinators

Mid-Atlantic Region—Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
Coordinator: Hannah Shostack, NJ

Great Lakes Region—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Coordinator: David Lovell, WI

South Region—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Coordinator: Jamie Franklin, KY

South Central Region—Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Coordinator: Willa Sanders, AR

Northern Plains Region—Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
Coordinator: Dave Ortbahn, SD

Mountain Region—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Coordinator: Kirk Mlinek, CO

West Region—Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington
Coordinator: Jim Stembridge, OR

The Territories—American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands
Coordinator: Tony Cabrera, MP

The Regional News

Connecticut—Sessional Collaboration
by Mary Janicki, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative Research

In last summer’s newsletter, we referred to the nonpartisan staff offices’ efforts to increase collaboration with one another.

A Nonpartisan Interoffice Working Group was established and made recommendations to the Office of Legislative Management’s executive director and the office directors.

These proposals, which are being implemented this session, generally emphasized improved communication among staff members from the Legislative Commissioners’ Office (bill drafting), the Office of Legislative Research, and the Office of Fiscal Analysis, regarding each committee’s bills. For example, this session the commissioners’ office is emailing copies of bills (substitute language a committee has approved) to the other offices earlier in the process so that staff in the research and fiscal offices can start preparing their analyses with more time before the deadline.

The working group focused on sharing information while observing each office’s policy on confidentiality; eliminating inconsistencies among the bill draft, bill analysis, and fiscal note; and working together to produce useful materials on major issues and bill tracking.

During the session, interoffice groups are meeting to coordinate their work on issues identified as major. Among the topics are elections, economic development, state aid to education, prescription drug costs, mental health services, and transportation. Each group meets periodically to exchange information, work on joint projects, or develop materials. Office directors get together once every two weeks to discuss interoffice cooperation and other items of mutual interest.

The intent of these attempts to improve cooperation and communication is to produce a better product for the legislature. We would be interested in knowing if staff in other states have adopted procedures or made similar efforts to improve working relationships among colleagues in nonpartisan offices.

Legislative Session: The First Regular Session of the 120th Maine Legislature is well underway. Approximately 1,900 bills are anticipated to be introduced during this session, down about 400 bills from the 119th Legislature.

This session, the Legislature decided not to continue its Research and Development committee, but instead opted to have its Business & Economic Development committee or other policy committees handle R&D issues. The statutory adjournment date is June 20, but Leadership anticipates an adjournment that is several weeks earlier.

State House Renovations: The Legislature has completed Phase 2 of a three-phase renovation of the State House. The south and west wings, including committee rooms and chairs’ offices have been fully renovated. Emphasis is on maintaining the 1910 era for the building, but installing state-of-the-art infrastructure and security, particularly in committee rooms. The north wing renovation will begin in June 2001.

OPLA Offices: The Office of Policy and Legal Analysis has relocated to new offices on the 2nd floor of the Cross Office Building, adjacent to the State House. The offices have been completely renovated and are adjacent to legislative committee rooms. It is the first time in several decades that all OPLA staff are together in one location! The office space is well designed and is now an excellent working environment.

Mid-Atlantic Region

New Jersey—Domestic Violence Prevention Act
by Carolyn R. Wright, Senior Counsel, New Jersey Office of Legislative Services

The following is a summary of the major provisions of the "New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq."

The "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, ("PDVA")" is the primary statute in New Jersey concerning spousal abuse. Enacted in 1991 following the repeal of an earlier domestic violence prevention law, the statute establishes predominantly civil protections for abused persons in family settings. The act declares, "[I]t is therefore, the intent of the Legislature to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide."

The term "domestic violence" is defined to mean the occurrence of one or more of the following acts upon a protected person: Homicide, Assault, Terroristic threat, Kidnapping, Criminal restraint, False imprisonment, Sexual assault, Criminal sexual contact, Lewdness, Criminal mischief, Burglary, Criminal trespass, Harassment and Stalking. Each element of a listed offense must be found to have occurred.

A "victim of domestic violence" includes any person who is 18 years of age or older or who is an emancipated minor and who has been subjected to domestic violence by a spouse, former spouse, or any other person who is a present or former household member or a person with whom the victim has a child in common. This definition also include a person who had a dating relationship with the accused.

The PDVA enumerates the grounds for arrest when there is probable cause to believe that domestic violence has occurred. In some instances, it is obligatory for the officer responding to the incident to make an arrest and sign a criminal complaint. One example is if the victim shows signs of injury, if there is a warrant in effect or if there is a previously issued domestic violence order that is being violated. Otherwise, arrest and formal complaint remain in the discretion of the officer, or the victim may sign a criminal complaint (in addition to seeking protective orders). An officer responding to a domestic violence scene may inquire about weapons at the scene, seize them and turn them over to a prosecutor. The act also contains a procedure for the return of weapons seized from a domestic violence setting.

In the event that criminal charges have been filed, prior to the release of the defendant from custody on bail or personal recognizance, the court may impose conditions on the release through issuing orders prohibiting, for instance, the defendant from having any contact with the victim, restraining the defendant from harassing or stalking the victim or any relatives. The court may further prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm or weapon. A 1994 provision now requires that whenever a defendant charged with a crime or offense involving domestic violence is released from custody the prosecuting agency shall notify the victim.

Under the PDVA, a victim must be notified of the right to obtain protective orders against further abuse, including a temporary restraining order and an explanation of the kinds of things a restraining order can contain. A victim who files a complaint in the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court may seek temporary, emergency relief from the court without the defendant being present. An order for emergency relief shall remain in effect until a judge of the Family Part issues a further order. The judge may enter any appropriate relief including forbidding the defendant from returning to the scene of the domestic violence or forbidding the defendant to possess a weapon.

The PDVA provides for the resolution of a domestic violation complaint at a final hearing. At the hearing, which is held within 10 days of the filing of the complaint, the standard for proving an allegation of domestic violence is by a preponderance of the evidence. The court may consider such factors as a previous history of domestic violence, the existence of immediate danger to persons or property, financial circumstances of the plaintiff and defendant, the bests interests of the victim and any child, protection of the victim’s safety and the existence of a verifiable order of protection from another jurisdiction.

If domestic violence is found to have occurred, the court is authorized to grant any relief necessary to prevent further abuse. These orders can include: prohibition of further abuse, possession of the residence by the plaintiff, visitation of minor children, monetary compensation for losses suffered as a direct result of the act of domestic violence, professional domestic violence counseling, restraints on the defendant from entering the residence, property, school or place of employment of the victim or relatives of the victim.

A violation of an order issued pursuant to the PDVA constitutes the offense of contempt. A person convicted of a second or subsequent nonindictable domestic violence contempt offense is required to serve a minimum term of not less than 30 days. In 1999, the PDVA was amended to establish a central registry for domestic violence cases within the Administrative Offices of the Courts.

New Jersey —Second Annual Public Policy Forum
by Peter J. Kelly and Laurence A. Gurman, Office of Legislative Services

On October 6, 2000, the New Jersey Legislature’s Council of Academic Policy Advisors (CAPA) and the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) jointly hosted the Second Annual CAPA Public Policy Forum at the State House Complex in Trenton.

This year’s topic was "The New Technology-Implications for Policymakers." The program consisted of panel discussions on topics related to "electronic commerce" and "electronic government," with a focus on issues facing government policymakers as a result of the development of the Internet and associated technologies.

Assemblyman Joseph Malone opened the program with an overview of the Garden State’s technology revolution. Dr. Joseph Seneca, Vice-President for Academic Affairs at Rutgers, served as moderator. Panelists included faculty from the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and the Eagleton Institute of Politics, both of Rutgers University, as well as the Rutgers Department of Political Science and the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

The presentations covered a broad range of subjects, including the public policy implications of the development of e-commerce, public acceptance of new technology, the value of geographic information systems, increasing public access to government services, and the prospects for Internet balloting. Assemblyman LeRoy Jones addressed "digital divide" issues and the need to ensure universal access to the Internet and other computer technologies.

The private sector perspective on e-commerce was presented by Ms. Maxine Ballen, President of the New Jersey Technology Council. Dr. Julia Glidden, Vice President for Public Affairs at "election. com," a company which organizes Internet voting for public and private organizations, discussed issues relating to technology and the democratic process.

As a vehicle for facilitating the communication of ideas among the legislative, academic and business communities, the Second Annual CAPA Public Policy Forum more than fulfilled expectations. Over 175 people attended the program. They represented the Office of Legislative Services, a dozen colleges and universities, 14 State agencies, the Legislature’s partisan and district office staffs, local government and the private sector.

The Council of Academic Policy Advisors was created by New Jersey’s legislative leadership in 1998 to serve as a "user friendly system of academic expertise" which enhances the Legislature’s access to information resources. Council members are nominated by the presidents of their respective colleges or universities and appointed by legislative leaders. The council currently consists of 54 scholars of national and international reputation drawn from 18 of New Jersey’s colleges and universities. The Second Annual Public Policy Forum followed the highly successful 1999 CAPA program on "Privacy and Technology." CAPA members also participate in more specialized programs which allow them to share their expertise with small groups of legislators and staff.

OLS provides nonpartisan legal, fiscal, research, bill-drafting and other services to the New Jersey Legislature. Future CAPA/OLS-sponsored events are planned.

New Jersey—Proposed Election Reform
by Frank J. Parisi, Lead Research Analyst, Office of Legislative Services

New Jersey’s lawmakers have responded to the controversy surrounding the results of the recent presidential election in Florida with an array of election-related legislation. Legislation banning further use of punch card ballots, providing matching grants to pay for new voting machines, creating study commissions to revamp the state’s election laws, changing the way electors are selected in the electoral college and providing for Internet voting are some of the many elections-related bills that will be before the 209th Legislature, as its second annual session begins in January.

With only two rural counties now using punch card ballots, Assembly Bill No. 3004 prohibits their continued use, including for absentee and provisional ballots. Under Assembly Bill No. 3075, punch card ballots, as well as mechanical voting machines and most kinds of paper ballots, are prohibited and replaced by electronic touch-screen voting machines.

Legislators have been mindful about funding these proposals. Assembly Bill No. 3075 provides that the state would appropriate such amounts as may be necessary to pay for electronic voting machines where needed. Senate Bill No. 1956 and Assembly Bill No. 3042 take a different approach to funding, establishing a $5 million matching grant program under which a county that appropriates county funds for the purpose of upgrading election equipment may apply for an equal amount of state funds.

A group of New Jersey legislators from both parties are advocating the study of how elections are conducted in the state before proposing significant changes in election equipment and procedures. Four different bills have been introduced calling for the creation of special, temporary bipartisan study commissions of between nine and fifteen members. Senate Joint Resolution No. 27 calls for the study of available voting technologies, a recommendation on the type of voting system that should be used state-wide and recommendations for a uniform policy of conducting recounts. Assembly Joint Resolution No. 55 requires a commission to study current state election laws, procedures and standards and to make recommendations on the counting or recounting of votes, the layout and integrity of ballots, and the standardization of administrative procedures. Senate Bill No. 2058 establishes a commission to examine early voting and make recommendations to implement the procedure and provide a way for the state to fund it. Senate Bill No. 2074 calls for a commission to spend one year examining all aspects of voting procedures and technology used currently in the state and to make recommendations for a thorough overhaul of both, if necessary.

One election procedure receiving particular attention is the state’s method of selecting presidential electors. As in 47 other states, the winner of the popular vote for president in New Jersey is currently awarded the entire slate of fifteen electors. Senate Bill No. 1955 and Assembly Bill No. 3047 follow the procedure used currently in Nebraska and Maine, whereby electors are elected from congressional districts and must vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates receiving the largest number of votes in that district.

The Internet is being offered by several legislators as a way to avoid some of the recurring problems that plague elections in New Jersey. Assembly Bill No. 3034 establishes an Internet Voting Pilot Program that would allow Internet voting to serve as a supplementary method of voting in the 2001 primary. The program, which would be conducted by counties on a voluntary basis, would be funded entirely by the state. Each participating county will be required to evaluate its experience with Internet voting and report thereon to the Attorney General by October 1, 2001.

Other legislators, aware of the power of the Internet when used in connection with elections, have sought to curb its potential for political mischief. Senate Bill No. 2010 and Assembly Bill No. 2997 make the practice of cyber piracy—where one person or entity registers the name of another and holds it without the person’s or entity’s explicit consent—among candidates for elective office in New Jersey, or among political committees, a crime of the fourth degree (punishable by incarceration for a period not to exceed 18 months, a fine of $7,500, or both).

No matter what legislation is enacted before the next general election, the enactment of P.L.2000, c.173 has guaranteed that some polling places will have a few new faces. The new law permits a county board of elections to authorize a simulated election for minors at a polling place, provided the simulated election activities do not interfere with the official voting process. The change allows minors to enter the polling place for the purpose of voting in a simulated election and allows persons connected with that procedure also to be at the polling place.

New York—Women’s Health Insurance
by Kathy Wise, Director, Assembly Minority Research

Both houses of the legislature passed similar, but not identical, bills to provide expanded health insurance coverage. The proposals would require health insurance policies, including health maintenance organizations’ plans, to provide coverage for bone density measurements, drugs and devices (approved by the Food and Drug Administration), mammography and cervical cytology screening and include prescription contraceptives within prescription drug coverage.

While there are differences between the competing proposals on all the expanded coverage items, the prescription contraceptive provision is the most controversial. The Senate version contains a "conscience clause" to exempt religious-affiliated health insurers and employers (e.g., catholic hospitals, etc.) from the contraceptive coverage requirement. This issue has also caused a split in the religious community with the Catholic Conference advocating the "conscience clause" and the other religious groups urging inclusion of prescription contraceptives.

A joint conference committee was created to resolve the differences, but to date, an agreement has not been reached.

Kentucky—Adjusting to Annual Sessions
By Jamie Franklin, Committee Administrator, Legislative Research Commission

By the date of this publication, the Kentucky General Assembly will have completed its first annual legislative session in over 150 years. Kentucky had been meeting in 60-day, bi-annual sessions, until the public passed a constitutional amendment last November approving the yearly sessions, which are only 30 working days in length. During this abbreviated legislative session, 192 Senate bills and 387 House bills were introduced, along with almost as many Senate and House resolutions.

Some of the topics which dominated this legislative session have been:

• Waste management,
• Worker’s compensation for miners,
• Telemarketing,
• Racial profiling by police,
• Election laws,
• Family courts,
• Regulation of executive orders,
• DNA evidence,
• Regulation of health professions,
• Regulation of firearms,
• Rural health care, and
• Education reform.

North Carolina—Staff Symposium a Success
by C. Theresa Matula, Legislative Analyst, Research Division

On November 2 and 3, 2000, the Research Division of the North Carolina General Assembly held a staff symposium at the Textiles Building on the Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University. Terry Sullivan, Research Division Director, and select Division staff worked with Bruce Feustel, Senior Fellow in the Legislative Management Program of the National Conference of State Legislatures, to organize the one-and-a-half day program.

The symposium focused on the future of the legislature, and skill enhancing and team building resources. Specific future-focus components included: the Future of the Legislature from the Staff’s Perspective, Bruce Feustel; and the Future of the General Assembly from the Division Directors’ Perspectives, which was moderated by Bruce and included all North Carolina General Assembly division directors.

The first day culminated with dinner in a local restaurant. The morning session of day two utilized professionals from area universities and included presentations and exercises on Effective Communication and Team Building. After lunch, Bruce presented information on Coping Strategies in a Challenging Environment.

At the symposium’s conclusion, North Carolina State University Chancellor Marye Anne Fox introduced Kay Yow, NCSU Women’s Basketball Coach, who delivered a motivational presentation entitled Cutting Down the Nets.

Evaluations indicated that staff found the symposium very valuable and would like to see the Division sponsor the opportunity again in the near future. The Research Division appreciates the time, effort, insight, and leadership that Bruce Feustel contributed to the planning and execution of this successful staff development endeavor.

Tennessee—Lottery Proposal Advances to the Ballot
by Denise Sims, Director, House Research Division

Tennesseans will get the chance to vote next year on whether to amend the state Constitution’s 167-year-old ban on lotteries. The Senate voted by an exact two-thirds majority - the required vote - to approve the measure; the House gave its approval the following week. If voters remove the provision in the Constitution that prohibits state-run lotteries, it will cap a sixteen-year-old effort to bring the proposal to the ballot box. Proponents say lottery proceeds would finance a system similar to Georgia’s for college scholarships, building new K-12 schools, and supporting early learning and after-school programs. It is anticipated that before the November, 2002 referendum, there will be heavy lobbying by both supporters of the lottery and those opposed to it.

The issue is one of several that the 102nd General Assembly faces this session. Funding the legislative budget; ensuring the soundness of TennCare, the federal and state funded health care plan that provides insurance to 1.3 million poor, uninsured and uninsurable Tennesseans; studying state revenue growth and looking at accountability are all legislative priorities.

In addition, members must consider the Governor’s five-year, three hundred million dollar education initiative, which focuses on reading, teacher incentives and early childhood education. The plan includes additional scholarships for teachers to teach in certain subjects, a mentoring program offering stipends to assist first-year teachers, and increased incentives for teachers to achieve National Board Certification. Readiness programs include a program for at-risk four-year-olds, and pre-school availability for all four-year-olds within five years. The reading initiative, advanced classroom technology and middle school remediation are also major parts of the proposal.

Researchers, meanwhile, continue to play a vital role in the legislative process. Recently the House Research Division was commended for its efforts to provide weekly reports of standing committee activity to members and staff. Our newsletter, The Research Review, was given favorable recognition on the floor of the House during a February session. Each research analyst details committee and subcommittee action in a comprehensive report that members and staff use for constituents’ questions, references, town hall meetings, etc. Plans call for increased detail to cover budgetary matters and other information.

The Research Division faced a long session in 2000, one of the longest in the history of the General Assembly. It is anticipated that this year, the legislature will complete its work much sooner.

Iowa—Budget Issues Focus Attention
by John Pollak, Committee Services Administrator, Legislative Service Bureau

Iowa’s annual session is scheduled to last approximately 110 calendar days in 2001, with adjournment anticipated in late April. State general revenues are essentially flat for the current fiscal year and projections for the ensuing fiscal year do not anticipate a significant increase. Under Iowa’s expenditure limitation law, the Governor must revise the budget for the ensuing fiscal year that was presented to the General Assembly in January. The Governor’s revised budget is due by March 28, leaving approximately 30 days for the General Assembly to complete deliberations. To date, there has been disagreement between the General Assembly and the Governor on the best approach to take in addressing the lower-than-anticipated revenues. After heavy debate, the General Assembly passed a bill applying some selective cuts and across-the-board reductions in appropriations for the current fiscal year. Much of this bill was item vetoed by the Governor. Budget discussions continue.

Iowa’s law on redistricting provides for early passage of redistricting plans. Iowa has a unique approach in which nonpartisan staffers prepare initial redistricting plans according to objective criteria specified in law. The General Assembly can only accept or reject the initial plans without amendment. Staffers received data from the Census Bureau in early March and are working on the first plan in order to meet the statutory timelines.

Minnesota—Budget Surplus and Tax Issues
by Peter Butler, Senate Counsel and Research

The following are the major items being considered by the Minnesota Legislature this session:

Budget surplus rebate: Minnesota’s fiscal biennium will end with a $856 million surplus on June 30, 2001. Governor Ventura and some legislators want to return the full amount to taxpayers in the form of a "sales tax rebate," consistent with current law concerning surpluses. Other legislators would like to spend part of the funds. A few bills propose refunding the full amount but allow taxpayers to direct their rebate towards a particular category of state spending if they so choose.

Governor’s tax and spending plan: Governor Ventura proposed a fiscal years 2002-03 tax and spending budget with many significant changes. The plan calls for broadening the sales tax to many services, replacing local general education property taxes with state funds, and a statewide education property tax on commercial/industrial and other "non-voting" properties. The tax plan would lower income, sales, and property tax rates, and end some state aid programs to cities and counties. The budget increases K-12 and higher education spending at a historically low 5 percent for the two-year period.

Other issues: The Governor’s proposed budget for state correctional facilities is stable as the Department of Corrections works to reduce Minnesota’s high per diem rates. The legislature is considering a constitutional amendment to dedicate the motor vehicle sales tax to transportation funding, as license plate tab fees were significantly reduced last year and the gas tax has not increased since 1988. A bill to ban soft drinks sold in schools to promote heathy teeth is opposed by some school districts that would lose sales revenues. Finally, Minnesota’s redistricting effort is occurring under a Republican House, Democratic Senate and Independence Party governor.

Nebraska—Teacher Salary Task Force Established
by Kate Gaul, Research Analyst, Legislative Research Division

The average teacher salary in Nebraska, $33,826, earned the state a ranking of 45th among the states. Low teacher salaries, coupled with concerns about teacher retention and looming retirement over the next decade, propelled Nebraska legislators in the 2000 session to pass LB 1399, which created the Teacher Salary Task Force to study these issues.

And so the stage was set in 2001 for the introduction of bills that responded to the task force’s recommendations. The Education Committee sifted through nine proposals to raise teacher salaries. Additionally, the Revenue Committee heard eight tax bills intended to raise funds for possible teacher pay increases. Among the education measures was the Education Committee’s own LB 305, which would implement the task force’s recommendations, including a state-funded salary supplement of $2,000 in 2001-02 for teachers with a bachelor’s degree and $3,000 for teachers with a master’s degree. Four other measures also included state funding for teachers’ salary supplements; other bills provided for extended contract periods or increasing teacher pay by providing teachers with the ability to work additional time during or after the school year.

From all of this, the Education Committee emerged March 15 with an incentive program that would cost approximately $49 million over two fiscal years. The plan, proposed as an amendment to LB 305, would provide a one-time $7.8 million teacher-salary enhancement for the 2001-02 school year and $2,000 raises for all public-school teachers who are in the first four years of their careers. In the 2002-03 school year, the bill would set aside $41 million in state aid that could be used to improve teacher salaries.

Revenue discussions on how to pay for the proposal included increasing the state sales tax, increasing the state income tax and the sales tax, and taxing items not currently taxed, such as legal services. Each proposal fell one vote short of advancing from the Revenue Committee on March 15. Any scheme to increase teacher salaries by increasing taxes would likely need 30 votes to eventually pass the full Legislature, as Governor Johanns has promised to veto any tax increases.

South Dakota—Special Election in April on Two Constitutional Amendments
by Dave Ortbahn, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Research Council

South Dakota will conduct a statewide special election on April 10, 2001, to consider two amendments to the Constitution. These proposed amendments would establish trust funds (often referred to as locked boxes) that would be dedicated for specific purposes. A super-majority of the Legislature would be required to tap the principal of the trust funds.

The first proposed amendment is the result of a special session of the lame-duck 2000 Legislature called by the Governor on December 28 and 29, 2000. The special session was called to consider the possible sale of the state-owned cement plant. The State of South Dakota had owned this cement plant since the early 1920s and revenue generated by the plant had gone annually to the state’s general fund. The calling of this special session on such a short notice, during the holiday season, and just before a new Legislature was going to take office, angered many legislators. However, after all the dust had settled, the Legislature approved the sale of the cement plant to a Mexican company for about $250 million. The Legislature proposed that the sale proceeds go into a constitutionally established trust fund and that the interest on the trust fund be used for the support of education. A special election was set for April 10, 2001 for the voters to make a decision on this proposed constitutional amendment.

Since a special election was already planned, the 2001 Legislature took the opportunity to submit to the voters another proposed constitutional amendment that would add two additional trust funds to the Constitution. One trust fund would be used to deposit the amounts payable to the state by tobacco companies under the master settlement agreement. The interest from this trust fund could only be used for education enhancement programs. The other trust fund would be used to deposit those moneys received from the federal government that represented the monetary difference between the Medicaid payment and the Medicare maximum allowable reimbursement paid to publicly owned and operated nursing homes in the state. The interest from this trust fund could only be used for health care related programs.

If the voters approve either Constitutional amendment, the amendment would be effective July 1, 2001.

Arizona—Evenly Split Senate Adopts Power-Sharing Arrangement
by Susan Anable, Staff Director, Senate Research

15/15 Split: Following a contentious general election in November, the Senate started the new year faced with a daunting challenge: How to function with 15 Republicans and 15 Democrats. In a non-traditional joint power sharing arrangement, the Senate elected Republican Randall Gnant as President of the Senate and Democrat, Jack Brown as the Floor Leader. The Democrats and Republicans each chair six of the twelve standing committees. The vice chair of each committee is from the opposite party. With no majority or minority, the policy staffs have now become caucus staffs for each party. The operations of the Senate are managed under the Office of the President, who has a staff of four. While the non-partisan Research Staff structure has remained largely unchanged, Research has seen its responsibilities increase under the 15/15 split.

Procedural Changes: With the 15/15 split and hard lessons about legislative process learned from last year’s alternative fuels debacle, the Senate has implemented a number of procedural changes to establish a legislative process that provides more access and reliability to both the members and the public. For example, floor amendments must be submitted to the Secretary of the Senate’s office by 5:00 pm the day before a bill is to be debated in Committee of the Whole. The use of strike everything amendments has been greatly restricted to ensure that the members of the Senate are not required to vote on any bill that has not been through the appropriate Senate committee for review and action. Caucus and floor calendars are published well in advance to provide the members and the public with maximum notice of Senate action. The Senate and the House have also agreed to expedite the scheduling of conference committees so that the past practice of backloading the conference committees to the last two weeks of the session will no longer create an environment of chaos that can result in mistakes and substantive amendments that have unknown consequences.

Daily Senator: One of the goals of incoming President Randall Gnant was to provide a daily publication for the members of the Senate, staff, lobbyists and the public. This publication, which is available on the legislative website (www.azleg.state.az.us), provides a summary of the previous day’s Senate activity (e.g. committee and floor action) and highlights the Senate’s weekly schedule. In addition, the newsletter has a daily feature story on matters of current legislative interest, such as the budget or bilingual education, human-interest stories, as well as stories on the staff divisions of the Senate. The Daily Senator staff is lead by a Special Aide to the President, a part-time writer and four interns selected from the State’s universities. The newsletter continues to evolve over the course of the session.

Budget Highlights: At the beginning of the legislative session in January, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) recommended a total biennial budget of approximately $14.3 billion from the state general fund. The recommended budget assumed average baseline revenue growth of 8.1 percent over the biennium. Since January, JLBC staff has revised their revenue forecast downward, and the Legislature is faced with cutting approximately $250 million or more from the proposed budget. Members are currently negotiating those changes and are hopeful that the budget can be closed within the next few weeks.

Tobacco Settlement Issues: Last November, Arizona voters passed an initiative to spend all of the State’s share of tobacco settlement dollars on health care programs. Most of the monies will be spent on increasing eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program from 33 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 100 percent FPL. By using the tobacco settlement monies, the State could leverage enough federal dollars to cover an estimated 180,000 uninsured individuals. The Legislature is working on a draft proposal to help implement the voter-approved initiative. The bill will help streamline the eligibility process and resolve other issues relating to the funding system for indigent care.

Other Significant Issues: Aside from the budget and implementation of the tobacco tax initiative, the significant issues currently being debated in the Arizona State Legislature include:

• State employee salaries.
• Mental health funding.
• Possible tax cuts.
• Bilingual education.
• High stakes testing.
• Prescription drug costs.

Idaho—Utility Regulation, Minimum Wage and Tax Relief
by Katharine Gerrity, Staff Attorney, Legislative Services Office

The first regular session of the 56th Idaho Legislature is entering its 68th legislative day as of March 16, 2001. Major issues this session have included electric utilities regulation, minimum wage for farm workers and tax relief generated by a significant budget surplus.

The electric utilities regulation dilemma took initial forefront with the Governor calling a special one-day session of the legislature in December, 2000. Idaho has the lowest power rates in the nation and has had a long standing law designed to promote stability among and between electric suppliers. The law restricts competition for existing utility customers by prohibiting would-be suppliers from providing service to current or former customers of another supplier without the written consent of the other supplier. In October, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Idaho’s law lacked requisite regulatory control and electricity suppliers who withhold consent from would-be suppliers to current or former customers of the supplier, would be subject to federal antitrust liability. The special session was called to consider legislation to provide for sufficient state supervision over the policy to close the regulatory loophole. A resulting bill for interim relief was signed into law by the Governor, pending more permanent action during the regular session. By late February, a bill, virtually identical to the special law securing state regulatory control over the industry, had passed both the House and the Senate and was signed into law by the Governor.

A minimum wage bill aimed at Idaho’s farm worker exclusion resulted in some moments of excitement at the statehouse and some questions about security. The bill was designed to make Idaho’s law regarding farm worker minimum wage identical to the federal law. The proposal would have excluded people working on smaller farms and some paid by piece rate for hand harvesting. Opponents decried the bill as an empty gesture, claiming that federal law already covered most farmers because it requires any farmer involved in interstate commerce to pay minimum wage. Opponents supported an alternative bill that would ensure all Idaho farm workers minimum wage.

Mid-session, and moments before the Senate’s annual memorial service to remember former senators who have died during the past year was to begin, several student protestors walked into the Senate chambers and sat in the middle of the floor while others shouted and threw confetti and flyers from the gallery. Lawmakers were cleared from the chambers and legions of police were on the scene in minutes, arresting 16 people involved in the organized protest, complete with on-site attorneys as "legal observers" and press coverage. The arrested protestors were led to police cars amid continued supporter chants. A day after the protest a House committee rejected the alternative bill the protestors supported. However, within about a week of the ruckus, a Senate committee endorsed an amended compromise extending minimum wage requirements to farms of all sizes, while still exempting harvest workers who labor for less than 13 weeks, children younger than 16 years of age who work alongside their parents and hired hands on cattle ranches and sheep operations. The amended bill passed both houses and awaits signature by the Governor.

Finally, Idaho has the envied problem of determining what to do with a generous budget surplus. Numerous versions of tax relief bills were printed and coalitions formed. Ultimately, the House passed a measure that would amount to roughly $200 million in tax relief, the largest tax cut in the state’s history. The Senate, however, has indicated its intent to limit the relief to just more than $140 million, setting the stage for compromise negotiations during the remaining days of the session.

Utah—New Staff Director and Possible Special Session
by Connie Steffen, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel

The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel has a new director, Dr. Michael Christensen. Mike was recruited from the Utah Foundation, a public policy research institution, where he served as director. Before that he served in the executive branch of Utah state government, as the state planning coordinator, and had worked for the legislative branch as a research analyst for the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. Mike replaces Richard Strong, who retired after 30 years of service with the office.

In the 2001 General Session, the legislature took an aggressive approach in assuring that dairies, cattle feedlots, and other animal feeding operations can comply with new federal clean water requirements. S.B. 66, "Animal Feeding Operations Grants," appropriates money to the Soil Conservation Commission to award grants directly to owners or operators of animal feeding operations. The grant money can be used to prepare or implement comprehensive nutrient management plans or to implement projects to improve manure management or control surface water runoff. The legislation sets criteria to be considered in the awarding of the grants, including the benefits that accrue to the general public by the awarding of a grant.

After a year of study, the legislature still has not decided who should be responsible for governing applied technology education. A bill shifting that authority to the State Board of Regents was debated up to the last minute of the 2001 General Session, but ultimately failed. The plan now is to schedule a special session in June to address the issue. The applied technology education system includes both high school students, college-aged students, and older adults. The problem is how to create a governing authority that will diligently serve each of those populations, while coordinating applied technology education with the public education and higher education systems.

West Region

California—Website Offers Policy Information
by Becky LaVally, Senate Office of Research

The California Senate Office of Research (SOR) offers a Policy Information Clearinghouse Online, more frequently known by its acronym, PICO. (As it happens, Pico—Pio de Jesus Pico, to be precise—was Mexico’s last governor of California, before the region was surrendered in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. SOR notes that in passing.)

PICO can be reached by going to SOR’s Web site at www.sen.ca.gov/sor/. There the PICO tab offers summaries of pending California bills and recent state laws in such topical areas as education, health, natural resources, hate crimes, human relations, business and employment, housing, urban growth, privacy, information technology, and senior and family issues. In early March PICO sites were updated to reflect the significant legislation introduced in 2001. In the fall, bills that reached the governor’s desk and were signed into law—or vetoed—will be noted in each PICO area.

PICO’s newest addition keeps watch on energy issues. It offers an overview of events that led to the state’s energy crisis, information on utility rate increases in other western states, a summary of energy-related litigation and legislation, links to other energy sites and more.

SOR’s Web site, by the way, also offers links to more than 200 other public-policy information and research sites. That alone may be reason for bookmarking it.

Nevada – Unsuccessful Initiative for Education Funding
by Susan Scholley, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division

Nevada’s biennial legislature started its 71st Session on February 5, 2001. Although three initiatives were circulated last year, only one—the so-called "teachers’ tax initiative"—qualified for presentation to the Legislature. Under the state Constitution, initiative petitions must be acted on by the Legislature within 40 days, and if not approved, are sent to the voters at the next general election. The teachers’ tax initiative was actively opposed during the signature-gathering phase. Soon after it qualified, a coalition of businesses filed suit challenging its constitutionality. With two weeks to go before the deadline for legislative action, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision that the initiative was unconstitutional and barred the Legislature from further action on the measure.

The teachers’ tax initiative was sponsored by the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). Titled the "Nevada Tax Fairness and Quality School Funding Accountability Act," the initiative proposed a 4 percent tax on net business profits in excess of $50,000. All the proceeds of the tax were to go to K-12 public education. The sponsors of the teachers’ tax initiative predicted it would raise more than $250 million annually for education. The initiative’s supporters argued that Nevada’s tax base is too dependent upon gaming revenues and that the net profits business tax was an equitable and practical solution. The supporters also contended that an improved educational system will attract new businesses to Nevada and is critical to the state’s future by providing the trained work force needed by today’s high tech industries. Opponents of the measure contended that a business tax would hurt Nevada’s efforts to attract new business, would create a Nevada IRS, and would be spent on teachers’ salaries rather than students.

A key provision of the initiative dictated that no less than 50 percent of the state’s revenues be spent for education. This earmarking requirement was found by the Nevada Supreme Court to be in violation of the Nevada Constitution’s prohibition against earmarking funds for a specific purpose without providing an adequate tax source. Since the tax might not have raised sufficient monies to cover the 50 percent dedication, the initiative was found to be invalid. The Nevada Supreme Court declined to sever the offending provision to salvage the initiative despite language in the initiative which specifically allowed for severability. Noting the large number of people who signed the petition, the Court held that "initiative legislation is not subject to judicial tampering." The Court did not decide the other question presented – whether the tax on small, personal businesses violated the Nevada Constitution’s ban on personal income taxes.

With Governor Kenny C. Guinn predicting a $1 billion deficit in the state budget by the year 2008, funding for education will continue to be an issue for legislative discussion. Nevada’s low per-pupil spending and poor marks in national surveys and state report cards are seen by some as evidence of the need for more funding for education. Although the teachers’ tax initiative is no longer an option, state lawmakers and the Governor are under increasing pressure to address calls for more money for education.

Oregon—Potential Revision of the Agricultural Lien Law
By Raymond J Kelly, Committee Administrator

During the late 1990’s, Agribiotech, Inc.(ABT) a grass seed company, accounted for about a third of global grass seed production and distribution. During its peak, the company’s stock sold for as much as $29 a share. In order to further its market, ABT expanded its business interests throughout the Western United States.

On September 29, 1999, ABT announced preliminary unaudited results for its fiscal year ending June 30, 1999. The outcome estimated a net loss of approximately $47-$51 million. After several unsuccessful attempts at securing new credit, the Company filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy law. ABT has been subject to Chapter 11 proceedings since January 25, 2000.

According to Oregon attorney Walt Gowell (McMinneville/Oregon State Bar, Agricultural Section), 40 to 50 percent of Oregon’s grass seed farmers are involved in this bankruptcy situation. These farmers are owed approximately $27 million. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the ABT bankruptcy affects approximately 650 Oregon growers. Liens filed by these growers amounts to approximately $40 million and the Bank of America, ABT’s primary financier, is owed more than $100 million. In Court documents, ABT’s assets were listed at $191.4 million. Its debts were listed at $171 million. But the amount potential buyers would offer fell $50 to $100 million short of valuation. The above makes the ABT bankruptcy one of the largest agricultural bankruptcies in United States history.

This situation caught the eye of Representative Jeff Kropf, and, in coordination with business, farmers, other industry representatives, and state agencies, determined that a workgroup should be formed to address Oregon’s agricultural lien laws in order to provide better protection from bankruptcies such as ABT’s.

The workgroup met six times during the 2000-01 interim. Each meeting was held at the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation’s offices in South Salem. The specific purpose of the workgroup was to explore potential revisions to Oregon’s agricultural lien law and Oregon contractual law in regard to contracts between farmers and seed companies, explore the potential for a bonding program for seed dealers, and explore the possibility of establishing an indemnity fund to protect farmers.

Outcomes of workgroup deliberations resulted in four legislative measures being introduced to Oregon’s 71st Legislative Assembly:

HB 2036: Under current law, notices of agricultural producer liens are filed with the recording officer of the county where the lien is originated. Certain other agricultural liens/notices are filed with the Secretary of State. HB 2036 consolidates filing of agricultural liens and notices into the Secretary of State’s Office. It provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form of notices and certificates filed. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to establish non-refundable fees for filing notices and certificates and for furnishing copies of notices and certificates.

HB 2037: Under current law, the term "person" is defined in ORS 87.142 ("Liens Generally"), but is not defined under ORS 87.700 ("Agricultural Produce Liens"). Likewise, "Security Interest" is defined under ORS 71.2010(37), but is not defined in ORS 87.700. Adding definitions to applicable statute provides clarity to the Agricultural Produce Lien statute series. HB 2037 defines "person" as it relates to agricultural produce liens and creates a definition of security interest applicable to agricultural produce lien statutes.

HB 2048: HB 2048 creates a task force to study the efficacy of creating a program to indemnify farmers against losses arising out of defaults by processors or purchasers of farming commodities. It defines "farming commodities" for the purpose of bonding and indemnification and requires legislation be prepared for presentation to the 72nd Legislative Assembly.

HB 2051: HB 2051 changes lien availability for agricultural producers growing agricultural products not owned by the producer. It expands the applicability of Agricultural Produce and Grain Producers Lien laws. It changes Agricultural Produce and Grain Producer Lien security interest, priority, duration, method of extension, and notice requirements and prohibits contractual waiver of right to file an Agricultural Produce or Grain Producer lien. HB 2051 also requires the Secretary of State to maintain Agricultural Services Lien records in the financial statement index and specifies an attachment date for Agricultural Services Liens. Finally, HB 2051 limits the name search and notice requirements for Agricultural Services Liens.

Washington—Energy Shortages and Earthquakes
by Trudes Hutcheson, Counsel, House Office of Program Research

Not only is the Washington legislature coping with the 49-49 tie in the House and a serious energy shortage, but a 6.8 earthquake on February 28th added a different element to the usual legislative challenges. The state’s 73 year old legislative building was damaged in the earthquake and declared unsafe for use. Legislators and staff were forced to set up temporary offices and chambers in other buildings on the capitol campus. Both the House and the Senate are conducting sessions in rooms designed for committee hearings.

The earthquake shifted 10 of the 16 columns that stand below the distinctive dome of the Capitol. Each column stands 50 feet in height and weighs approximately 60,000 pounds. The dome is one of the largest in the country. It rises 180 feet above the Rotunda floor and supports a five-ton Tiffany chandelier that hangs on a 101-foot chain and uses more than 200 light bulbs. Although workers have set up a scaffolding and started repairs on the slipped and cracked columns, it is unclear how long the building will be closed.

Despite being temporarily relocated, legislators continue with business as usual, with the House passing more than 135 bills in one day. Among those passed was a bill that would provide monetary relief to those who have suffered damages from the earthquake. Additional information regarding the earthquake can be found at http://www.ga.wa.gov/equake/.

The Territories

Northern Mariana Islands—Confirmation Hearings and Tax Incentives
By Tony S. Cabrera, Senate Legal Counsel, Commonwealth Legislative Bureau

In its last session held on the island of Rota, the Senate confirmed the Governor’s second associate judge appointee to the Commonwealth Superior Court bench, following a very heated senate public hearing and extensive news media coverage on the appointee’s background and qualifications. The Governor was essentially forced to appoint another candidate after the Senate failed to take action on the first appointment within the statutory time allotted. The Commonwealth Superior Court now has all its judgeship vacancies filled.

In another likewise controversial confirmation proceeding, the Senate also voted to confirm the Governor’s choice for public auditor. However, the controversy was not about the new public auditor, but his predecessor. Evidently, the former public auditor may have failed to implement a statute requiring his office to lessen its dependence on foreign contract workers under a sunset provision. The new public auditor, for his part, assured the Senate that he will develop an in-house training program in collaboration with the Northern Marianas College to train local employees of the office in government auditing.

Confirming that the economy of the islands has not fully recovered from the las Asiand economic flu, legislators are rushing to enact legislation to provide further tax incentives to new and existing investors, while proponents of a vetoed bill that would authorize the establishment of "Shooting Resorts" in the Commonwealth are lobbying legislators to pass a new bill that further addresses gun safety.

If enacted and signed into law, a shooting resort licensee would be required to invest an aggregate sum of $25,000,000, as well as agree to contribute to certain public works projects and community programs.
 

RACSS Home Page