---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-seventh Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 1 -- 1:30 p.m.
Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. and roll call was taken by the secretary.
|
Ms. Aguirre A |
Ms. Cajero Bedford |
Mr. Lujan |
|
Mr. Biggs |
Mr. Farnsworth |
Mr. Tom |
|
Mr. Boone |
Mrs. Gorman |
Mr. Weiers JP |
|
Mr. Brown |
Mrs. Groe |
Mr. Pearce, Chairman |
|
Mrs. Burges |
Mrs. Knaperek |
|
|
Mrs. Mason, Vice-Chairman |
|
|
Committee Action
S.B. 1009 – DP (11-1-0-3) S.B. 1030 – DP (13-0-0-2)
S.B. 1065 – HELD S.B. 1067 – HELD
S.B. 1267 – DISCUSSED & HELD S.B. 1376 – DPA (6-3-0-6)
S.B. 1456 – DP (9-1-1-4) S.C.R. 1006 – HELD
S.C.R. 1015 – HELD S.C.R. 1030 – DP (9-2-0-4)
S.C.R. 1031 – DPA (9-2-0-4) S.B. 1291 – DPA (9-0-0-6) – S/E
S.C.R. 1025 – HELD S.B. 1142 – DPA (8-0-0-7)
S.B. 1264 – HELD
Speakers Present
Rene Guillen, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (P) Committee
Senator Jim Waring, Sponsor of S.B. 1009, S.B. 1030
Chad Nitsch, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (B) Committee
Kathleen Lewis, National Guard Army Mom, representing self; Founder, Packages From Home
Garrett Workman, Majority Intern, Appropriations (B) and (P) Committees
Senator Dean Martin, Sponsor of S.B. 1456, S.C.R. 1030, S.C.R. 1031
Rudolf Kellner, Doctor, representing self
Margy Bons, Media Representative, Packages From Home (PFH); Gold Star Mom
Bruce Jacobs, The Ranter, representing self
Nikki Colletti, Volunteer Coordinator, Packages From Home, representing self
Patrick Leavy, representing self
Ian Danley, Neighborhood Ministries; Valley Interfaith Project
Senator John Huppenthal, Sponsor of S.B. 1376
Justice Michael Ryan, Arizona Supreme Court
Kent Cattani, Chief Counsel, Capital Litigation Section, Attorney General’s Office
Timothy La Sota, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Thomas Adkins, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, K-12 Education Committee
Gregory Hart, Dean, Pima Community College Adult Education, representing self
Larry Butler, representing self
Juan Cordero, representing self
Mike Golightly, Commissioner, Arizona Game and Fish Commission
Kirk Morgan, Majority Intern, Human Services Committee
Senator Karen Johnson, Sponsor of S.B. 1267
Ellen Seaborne, Family Law Attorney; Member, Domestic Relations Committee, representing self
Mike Huckins, Majority Research Analyst, Appropriations (B) and (P) Committees
(Names of persons who did not speak, pages 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
S.B. 1009, income tax credit; disabled veterans – DO PASS
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1009 do pass.
Rene Guillen, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (P) Committee, explained that S.B. 1009 provides a new refundable individual income tax credit for disabled veterans (Summary, Attachment 1).
Senator Jim Waring, Sponsor, stated that the tax credit is $500 per individual based on the level of disability. If everybody took the maximum, which probably will not occur, the cost would be $16.5 million.
Question was called on the motion that S.B. 1009 do pass.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons in favor of S.B. 1009:
Gabriel Forsberg, Program and Project Specialist, Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS), representing self
Frederick Ferguson, Deputy Director, Legion of Valor
Luella Emmons, Assistant Deputy Director, ADVS, representing self
Mike Klier, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, ADVS, representing self
Patrick Chorpenning, Director, ADVS
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 11-1-0-3 (Attachment 2).
S.B. 1030, national guard; support fund; appropriation – DO PASS
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1030 do pass.
Chad Nitsch, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (B) Committee, explained that S.B. 1030 establishes the National Guard Support Fund and appropriates $750,000 from the state General Fund in FY 2006-2007 to the fund (Summary, Attachment 3).
Senator Jim Waring, Sponsor, explained that this is a new appropriation for a new program modeled after a program in Florida. The idea is to help servicemen and women who are called up and may be struggling financially because of a decrease in salary.
Ms. Cajero Bedford asked if this should be part of budget negotiations since the appropriation is close to $1 million. Chairman Pearce responded that argument could be made for almost any bill that goes through the Committee, but this is a policy issue. A decision was made to limit policy in the budget as much as possible, and for new policy, this is the forum set apart by the Legislature to debate each issue to make sure there is enough support. It is a good way to have full disclosure and transparency.
Kathleen Lewis, National Guard Army Mom, representing self, stated that her son served in Iraq, came home, and had seven hours of non-military freedom before going into the National Guard. Most young men and women who come back end up in relatively lower-paying jobs. Her son makes about $35,000 per year. Considering how much a house, groceries, a car, insurance, and clothing for children, etc., costs today, $35,000 is not a lot of money. Her son is going back to Iraq shortly and his wife will need all of the $35,000 to make ends meet, so this bill could definitely help many young people maintain a home and family. She urged the Members to support the bill.
Chairman Pearce remarked that sacrifices are made every day for freedom, and in this case, the men and women sign up knowing what the salaries are, but some did not anticipate the long stays that are taking place.
Ms. Lewis said her son signed up again because he is willing to put his life on the line to keep this country free from the terrorists that decimated New York City and Pennsylvania. Arizona needs to be at the front of the line to help these young men and women.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons in favor of S.B. 1030:
Paul Aguirre, Board Member, National Guard Association of Arizona
Frederick Ferguson, Deputy Director, Legion of Valor
Gabriel Forsberg, Program and Project Specialist, Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS), representing self
Luella Emmons, Assistant Deputy Director, ADVS, representing self
Mike Klier, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, ADVS, representing self
Patrick Chorpenning, Director, ADVS, representing self
Mrs. Groe noted that Jennifer Nowicki, representing self, is opposed to S.B. 1030.
Question was called on the motion that S.B. 1030 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 13-0-0-2 (Attachment 4).
S.B. 1456, tax credit; gift packages; military – DO PASS
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1456 do pass.
Garrett Workman, Majority
Intern, Appropriations (B) and (P) Committees, explained that
S.B. 1456 establishes an individual and corporate income tax credit for
contributions made to qualified nonprofit organizations that send gift packages
to active members of the United States armed forces serving in a foreign
country (Summary, Attachment 5).
Mr. Biggs noted that someone who signed in claims this would be a $700 million General Fund impact per year and asked if a fiscal note supports that statement. Mr. Workman responded that he is not aware of a fiscal note to that affect.
Senator Dean Martin, Sponsor, said there are not enough people in Arizona with a liability that could add up to $750 million at $250 per individual, especially since the bill is limited to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)-approved organizations, which are capped at $1 million. There are only 29 organizations that are DOD-approved and not all would qualify as organizations that spend 50 percent or more of their money on sending packages. There is only one organization in Arizona that is well-known, and he would be surprised if even half of the $1 million cap is used. He said many Arizona men and women are fighting overseas and receiving mail and packages from home is tremendous for their morale. Organizations of concerned citizens send packages with items from toothbrushes to books. Plenty of items are donated, but postage is very expensive. A flat rate box costs $8.12, so cash is needed to send the packages. Also, very specific, select items are requested such as camelback water systems, linings for vests or unusual items that have to be purchased, and this bill would help with that. This has been talked about nationally as a model for other states. It is a small measure that means a lot to the soldiers who receive the packages.
Rudolf Kellner, Doctor, representing self, testified in favor of S.B. 1456. He said in a perfect world there would be no need for this bill. Multitudes would give from their hearts with no regard to how they might benefit and there would be no need to impress upon state leaders that constituents want this bill passed, but it is not a perfect world. If it was, mothers would have their sons and daughters home and not off fighting in foreign lands to ensure America’s freedom. Arizona has the opportunity to be recognized as the first state to show it really cares about its military sons and daughters. This bill can be the catalyst to a greater awareness and the nudge some people need to help support the troops. It is not a perfect world, but a unanimous vote in support of this bill will help make it a better world.
Chairman Pearce related that he has a nephew who was seriously injured in Iraq.
Margy Bons, Media Representative, Packages From Home (PFH); Gold Star Mom, related that items sent to the soldiers include fabric softener to wrap around their ankles to repel fleas and other pests, gloves, razors, and balaclavas made by a group of ladies in Sun City West, which are placed under helmets for warmth because it gets very cold in Iraq. It also gets very hot so different kinds of equipment and clothing is sent. Items such as footballs are sent so the soldiers can relax and get their mind off what they did, saw, or who was hurt during a mission, and twine because clothes have to be washed by hand if there is access to water. These are things people take for granted. The number one item that is needed is toilet paper.
Chairman Pearce indicated that sometimes it is a matter of not getting items there in time, but some items sound like standard issue by the government. Ms. Bons said she wishes the items were provided, but they are not. When the soldiers return from a mission and receive a package, it helps them feel better about what they have done and being away from their families and loved ones. Her son requested candy to give to the children. She is glad Chairman Pearce’s nephew came home and surmised that if his nephew could, he would probably sign up again. The soldiers’ mind set is amazing. Her son was in Iraq for four years. He came home and started college, but he could not make it in the reserves because he was trained in weapons and there are not many jobs for that, so he volunteered to go to Iraq. On Mother’s Day, her son was killed. She will do everything she can to support his fellow comrades who need it, and someone whose mom or dad may not have the ability to send packages will receive a package from PFH. She hopes the state will give a $250 tax credit that someone else will take advantage of and do that also.
Bruce Jacobs, The Ranter, representing self, stated that he works at a local radio station and receives many requests to speak on behalf of charities and causes such as PFH. Someone told him about Kathleen Lewis who started PFH in her garage. He put her on his show, and when he talked to her later that day, she said her phones were going berserk. After that, a Vietnam veteran called off the air and broke down saying that no one remembered the soldiers in the jungles, but one day he received a razor for which he was very thankful. It is not so much what is in the package, but the fact that people remember; it is a morale boost. He does not believe anyone wants to hear a soldier say in 20 or 30 years that they were forgotten. When this bill passes, he will be able to tell his audience that not only can $5, $10, etc., be donated, but he can also let listeners know about this tax credit, which he looks forward to doing.
Kathleen Lewis, Founder, Packages From Home, related that she went to Germany to see her son off and found that many young men and women receive nothing, so she started PCH in her garage, one package at a time. Slowly but surely people came on board, and now, in excess of 25,000 packages have been sent. This is an important cause for military men and women who email PCH and say they are heroes for sending the packages, but the soldiers are the heroes because they put their lives on the line.
She stated that she had the privilege of meeting President Bush and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Alison Barber. The President was quite impressed that Arizona is the first state to come up with this and said he hopes the bill will pass. She said PCH volunteers receive no salaries, use their own computers and garages, and everything is donated. The majority of money goes straight to the soldiers, and this is very important for their morale. She once received an email from a specialist who said he was worried about a young man who was depressed and had not received a letter or package. PCH sent him packages and letters and he is no longer depressed, but alive and well. She asked the Members to pass this bill to thank the soldiers and become a model for the country.
Nikki Colletti, Volunteer Coordinator, Packages From Home, representing self, spoke in favor of S.B. 1456. She indicated that there is a misconception that government provides these things for the military, but it does not and cannot, which is why people have to take up this mission. The soldiers need to know their decision to sign up for the military and defend this country is honored. Someone from a medical unit asked for trauma kits, which the government does not provide, and PCH was able to secure and send them. Other special requests are received because these men and women endure extreme conditions, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, flying bullets every day, and need support.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons in favor of S.B. 1456:
Luella Emmons, Assistant Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS), representing self
Mike Klier, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, ADVS, representing self
Nancy Schulte, representing self
Mrs. Groe noted that Carolyn
Tussing, Day Care Owner, representing self, comments that income tax represents
about half the funding for the General Fund and would remove
$700 million per year from the Fund. There is a surplus now, but the Arizona economy and revenue collections are cyclical and cannot be sustained. Arizona ranks 41st in the nation in personal income tax collection and she
opposes the bill.
Question was called on the motion that S.B. 1456 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-1-1-4 (Attachment 6).
S.C.R. 1030, verifiable and secure identification – DO PASS
Mrs. Groe moved that S.C.R. 1030 do pass.
Rene Guillen, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (P) Committee, explained that S.C.R. 1030 is a constitutional measure that prohibits public entities that require identification (ID) for providing services from accepting identification documents unless they are issued by a political subdivision of this state, a federally recognized Indian tribe, or a state or federal authority and the documents are verifiable by law enforcement or a homeland security agency (Summary, Attachment 7).
Chairman Pearce said this bill was vetoed by the Governor last year, which is why it is headed for the ballot. Testimony was given in Congress by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security that matricular consular cards pose one of the greatest threats to homeland security because of their unverifiability. There is no background check according to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Mexican Consulate. The cards are simply given to anybody and everybody. In fact, Rusty Childress, a friend of his who was born in America, was able to obtain a matricular consular card for $29. The only constituency for this card is illegal aliens, which means the purpose of the card is to facilitate those in violation of the law who are in this country illegally.
Senator Dean Martin, Sponsor, conveyed that this resolution states that government entities and political subdivisions cannot use non-secure, unsecured, and non-verifiable ID for government operations. It does not affect the private sector or private businesses. The FBI testified before Congress that these cards sometimes look very secure and may have a lot of polygraphic details, but there is no history or paper trail to verify that the person holding the card is the person the card identifies. As a result, the cards are a great threat, especially as a gateway document to other documents that are much more trusted. In Arizona, there are protections for driver’s licenses, but not other forms government uses. The bill was vetoed by the Governor last year, so the only option is to take this to the people.
Chairman Pearce remarked that the government has an obligation to protect taxpayers and make sure that whatever ID is accepted is verifiable. It is absolutely unacceptable to accept a form whose only constituency is people who are in this country illegally. A person who was apprehended crossing the border the other day had seven matricular consular cards with the same picture, but each one had a different name and information.
Senator Martin advised that last year’s bill was S.B. 1511, secure and verifiable identification. He noted that matricular consular cards are commonly thought of as from Mexico, but are actually issued worldwide.
Patrick Leavy, representing self, questioned why this bill is in Appropriations since there is no money involved.
Chairman Pearce responded that it is a S/E amendment that he allowed to be heard.
Mr. Leavy submitted that taxpayers in Arizona are paying double for the bills that are being presented, which address issues the federal government is supposed to be handling. That is unfair. Laws that are federal concepts should be dealt with at the federal level and not the state level.
Chairman Pearce remarked that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause states that the sovereign states make up the federal government and are responsible for enforcing the laws, as well as the federal government. The federal government has primary responsibility along the border; however, robbing a bank is also a federal law, but police officers do not stop at the curb and wait for federal officers to arrive. What is not fair is not doing anything when it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every day to deal with illegal immigrants. This bill does not address the immigration problem, but states that a form of identification that is unverifiable cannot be used, which is a major step toward preventing fraud.
Ian Danley, Neighborhood Ministries; Valley Interfaith Project, said he was informed by the Mexican Consulate that the card Rusty Childress has is a fake card. Matricular consular cards are not just for illegal immigrants, but are also issued to legal permanent residents.
Chairman Pearce contended that if someone is in the country legally, a driver’s license or state issued ID can be obtained. The matricular consular card is a non-verifiable card and its only real constituency is illegal aliens. The fact that it is issued to people here illegally is obvious by the fact that Rusty Childress has one.
Mr. Danley opined that the matricular consular card is equivalent to the most secure card issued by the U.S. government that has over 97 security features. This bill flies in the face of his faith heritage as an Evangelical Christian. Over 15 cities and counties in Arizona currently accept matricular consular cards as a form of valid ID. The cards are used to obtain a marriage license, attend school, access public utilities, obtain birth certificates, and use libraries. This bill does not address the influx of immigrants. No one comes to the U.S. to obtain a matricular consular card. Everyone knows that 12 million people cannot be deported, and this alternative of deportation through attrition is mean-spirited.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons opposed to S.C.R. 1030:
Susan Leon, Valley Interfaith Project
Rebekah Sauceda, Valley Interfaith Project
Ray Prendergast, Valley Interfaith Project
Bonnie Danowski, Valley Interfaith Project; Arizona Interfaith Network
Nichole Villegas, Valley Interfaith Project
Chris Brewster, Valley Interfaith Project
Margaret Snider, Arizona Interfaith Network
Jozef De Groot, Arizona Interfaith Network
Tex Sample, Arizona Interfaith Movement
Dalila Sanders, Arizona Interfaith Network
Sara Brandt, Arizona Interfaith Network
Charles Ratliff, Arizona Interfaith Network
Eugene Brady, Arizona Interfaith Network
Ron Johnson, Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference
Renee Harding, representing self
Renata Arvizu, representing self
Clarissa Carrazco, representing self
Andy Allen, Valley Interfaith Project
Molly McGovern, Organizer, representing self
Mercy Regan, representing self
Cesar Pellicer, representing self
David Howell, Vice President, Wells Fargo
Kacee Smith, representing self
Saul Solis, Arizona Interfaith Network
Nora Gleason, representing self
Mireya Gomez, representing self
Bill Law, representing self
Juan Cordero, representing self
Senator Martin stated that this
is a security issue; it is not an immigration issue. When the
al-Qaida cell was busted in the northeast Pacific area, a bag full of
matricular consular cards was found from all across South America.
Question was called on the motion that S.C.R. 1030 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-2-0-4 (Attachment 8).
S.B. 1065, tax credits; research and development – (See Page 22)
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1065 do pass.
Mrs. Groe withdrew the motion that S.B. 1065 do pass.
S.B. 1376, capital case litigation; public defender – DO PASS AMENDED
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1376 do pass.
Mrs. Groe moved
that the five-page proposed Pearce amendment to
S.B. 1376 dated 03/29/2006 11:55 AM (Attachment 9) be adopted.
Rene Guillen, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (P) Committee, explained that S.B. 1376 establishes the State Capital Postconviction Public Defender Office (SCPPDO) and appropriates $220,000 for implementation of the office (Summary, Attachment 10). The proposed amendment contains the following provisions (Attachment 9):
Senator John Huppenthal, Sponsor, stated that the purpose of this bill is to make sure Arizona meets the standards for postconviction review in order to provide justice for victims and families of victims of capital crimes. There are death penalty cases where it has not been possible to contract with lawyers to meet the standards of the Effective Death Penalty Act and the state is at risk of losing its status as an opt-in state. A number of other states were reviewed and the bill contains substantial safeguards to avoid situations that occurred in other states. When the budget was developed, he sliced the budget in half, which is the appropriation that is being requested. He is confident that despite the lean budget, Arizona will be able to meet the standards.
Chairman Pearce asked if the courts conducted a management study to determine the most cost- effective long-term solution to this issue. Senator Huppenthal responded that a formal study was not conducted, but about five hours of meetings were held to specifically study the California situation to make sure that all of the behaviors that arose in California are avoided and limiting the budget to make sure there is not a dime extra to engage in extracurricular activities, but at the same time making sure there is an adequate staff-lawyer to case ratio to meet the standards of postconviction reviews.
Mr. Biggs referred to Page 6, Lines 18 and 19 of the bill, which states that the postconviction public defender shall not lobby the State Legislature or the Congress of the United States for a moratorium on or the abolition of capital punishment, and wondered if that kind of restriction can be made. Senator Huppenthal said it is up to the Rules Attorneys to make the final decision, but the language reflects the fact that those extracurricular activities should be restricted. He noted that there will be confirmation on the director of the office, which is another control by the Legislature on any kind of unwanted behavior.
Justice Michael Ryan, Arizona Supreme Court, urged the Members to pass this bill, which is important for the justice system and victims of capital offenses. He said there are currently about eight cases in which counsel cannot be appointed for defendants who have to file a petition for postconviction relief, which means these cases will not be considered opt-in cases under the Federal Effective Death Penalty Act, so the federal courts can take as long as they want to process the federal habeas corpus court petitions. When he was on the Capital Case Commission started by the Attorney General, the members found that the biggest complaint of the public about the judicial system is delay, and in capital cases, the biggest delay occurs in the federal court system. This bill addresses that delay. By having a small office that can take some of these cases, the cases will be opt-in cases, and therefore, will be processed through the system much faster than under the current system.
Chairman Pearce asked if the court has the power to order an attorney to assume representation of a defendant in a criminal matter. Justice Ryan said theoretically it does, but constitutionally there are limits on what can be done. The Effective Death Penalty Act, Arizona statute and court rules require the attorneys to have certain credentials and experience, so it is not possible to appoint a real estate attorney, for example, to represent someone charged and convicted of a capital crime.
Chairman Pearce asked why the court cannot use its power to appoint competent counsel to take the cases and pay fair market compensation. Justice Ryan replied that paying $200 or $300 per hour for counsel to take these cases would double or perhaps triple the cost of the cases.
Chairman Pearce commented that in his experience, creating a bureaucracy is never cheap. Justice Ryan replied that he believes it would be cheaper. He started out in the criminal justice system as a prosecutor, and the best and most effective way of defending someone was through the public defender’s office, which could process cases faster and cheaper than private counsel. If there was a conflict with the public defender’s office, trial court judges would appoint an attorney to represent a defendant, but the cost would double and bills were submitted in the range of $50,000 to $75,000 for a civil case, some of which he challenged.
Chairman Pearce stated that as a former lower court judge, he capped costs many times that were outrageous simply for summary judgments, so there are controls. Justice Ryan agreed that a trial judge can control costs, particularly in civil cases because someone has to pay the attorney, usually the client. The problem with criminal cases is that there is no one to pay the client, so it comes out of taxpayer’s pockets one way or the other. This is a matter of cost efficiency because there will be attorneys who specialize in this area that will not have to relearn everything or be trained to prosecute these cases. He has cut costs or denied exorbitant costs on postconviction relief cases, but it is now to the point where attorneys are not available because they are not being paid enough.
Chairman Pearce noted that there are about three different sections in the public defender arena that handle these cases just in Maricopa County, so he struggles with setting up a whole new bureaucracy. Justice Ryan said he understands, but the public defender’s office and legal advocate offices cannot handle these cases because they conducted the trial, so a separate office is needed.
Mr. Biggs noted that the proposed amendment appoints the chief justice as chairperson of the Commission and wondered if petitions for postconviction relief will ever appear before the State Supreme Court where the chief justice will be sitting. Justice Ryan replied that is a mistake that will be corrected. The chief justice will appoint one of the justices on the court to chair the Commission and recommend three names to the Governor.
Mr. Biggs asked if the court would see any of the postconviction relief cases where the moving party is represented by an attorney that has been submitted to the Governor after review by the commission that a justice sits on. Justice Ryan said that happens every day. Counsel is appointed in other types of cases and it does not create a conflict of interest. It is only when the person is known on a personal basis that there is a conflict of interest.
Justice Ryan related to Mr. Biggs that the number of cases without counsel will continue to rise because juries are imposing the death penalty at a much higher rate (80 percent) than judges did.
Mr. Biggs asked if the appointment of attorneys is prevented by financial or conflict issues. Justice Ryan responded that under the current statutory scheme the amount of money is too low. These cases consume a lot of time, and if an attorney has a private practice, one case could consume most of that practice. Also, there are not enough qualified attorneys not already assigned to one of these cases. Postconviction relief cases can vary in complexity, so someone can have more than one case at any given time. With this office, he anticipates that the attorneys will have the skills to handle several, if not more cases per year.
Mr. Biggs surmised that it may only be possible to have one-and-a-half attorneys plus staff and facilities with the $220,000 appropriation. Justice Ryan indicated that he would like more money, but he understands the fiscal responsibilities the Legislature has to taxpayers.
Chairman Pearce acknowledged that it is not a lot of money, noting that there will be another battle if the bill passes the Committee to compete for limited dollars. He asked if capital facilities are included in the amount and where the SCPPDO will be housed. Justice Ryan replied that the $220,000 is intended to cover the director, one or more deputies, staff and a facility. A place will be found to house the office.
Kent Cattani, Chief Counsel, Capital Litigation Section, Attorney General’s Office, said his office handles all of the death penalty cases from the time a death sentence is imposed, which includes the direct appeal, the postconviction proceeding and the federal habeas proceeding. The biggest frustration is the delay in federal court. Some cases are delayed as long as 20 years, but the average time is 14 to 15 years. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which contained a provision requiring states to create a system to ensure competent representation at the postconviction stage, and in return, the states would be given an accelerated trip through the federal courts. Arizona responded and attempted to opt in. Standards and qualified levels were created for attorneys to handle postconviction cases and there is now a list of qualified counsel. When the first postconviction case was taken to the federal courts, the Ninth Circuit in particular, found that the standards were okay and the system of appointing attorneys to represent people at the postconviction stage was good, but because there was a delay in appointing counsel, Arizona was not going to be allowed to opt in. This would be a great way to reduce that delay in appointing counsel, and if the qualifications to opt in can be satisfied, the amount of time spent in federal court will be decreased.
He said in terms of economies of the office, his only experience is from working at the Attorney General’s Office where 10 or 11 attorneys only handle appeals, postconviction proceedings, and federal habeas cases. If the attorneys were paid by the hour, he would make much more money than he currently makes as a state employee, which is why he believes there are some efficiencies in having an office that can handle these cases.
Chairman Pearce expressed frustration with the system in terms of cost and delays, but said he is concerned about a new bureaucracy. A way is needed to make the system fairer to victims and expedite cases. No one should be sitting on death row for 10 to 15 years.
Mr. Cattani noted that he spoke to his counterpart in the California Attorney General’s Office who said the primary concern with state postconviction efforts was that the state postconviction public defenders who handle postconviction proceedings were representing defendants in federal court, which takes a long time and uses up the attorneys’ time. This bill makes it clear that these attorneys are not to represent defendants in federal court.
Mr. Biggs recalled that there is an incentive for delay on the part of the defense counsel for the accused and asked if this office would still be able to speed up the final punishment for the defendants on behalf of victims. Mr. Cattani responded that there is an incentive to delay, but once a case is assigned and a petition has been filed, there is redress through the judge. A motion can be filed saying there are time frames set forth by the statute and courts order motions to be filed. The history in the Arizona appellate process is that there has not been a huge delay and the courts rule expeditiously. The problem is this is before anyone is appointed, so the case just sits until someone is appointed to represent the defendant at the postconviction stage.
Mr. Biggs asked who represents the
defendant in the federal postconviction proceedings.
Mr. Cattani replied that there is currently a federal public defender’s office
that handles many of the cases and other cases are handled by contracted
private counsel. There were not enough attorneys to handle the federal habeas
proceedings on an individual contract basis, which is why there is now a
federal public defender to handle the majority of cases.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons in favor of S.B. 1376:
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona Judicial Council Richard Travis, Attorney General's Office
Dale Norris, Executive Director, Arizona Police Association
Ron Johnson, Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference
Edwin Cook, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council
Timothy La Sota, Special Assistant to County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, spoke in opposition to S.B. 1376. He stated that he supports staying in the opt-in system because it is critical to victims to get cases through, but he is not convinced this new system does that; in fact, it does not do much except create a new bureaucracy. This bill preserves the old system whereby there would still be a mechanism to appoint counsel directly by the court, so this new bureaucracy will also have to use that system for conflicts, overflow, etc. It is not known where the office will be housed, but there will be capital costs, etc., whereas under the current system, an attorney is paid $100 an hour and there are no capital costs or anything like that.
He said the fact was mentioned that the attorneys are not being paid enough, but a market rate will still have to be paid to entice people to join this office, so that problem will not magically disappear by the creation of a new bureaucracy. He committed to work on the issue in a Study Committee, but stated that in the meantime, if there is a shortage, attorneys may have to be paid more. He surmised that the office will be controlled by someone who is going to be an anti-death penalty activist that can only be removed for cause by the commission.
Mr. La Sota wondered if this will be the next issue Tim Hogan sues the state over, i.e., that the office has not hired enough lawyers so a federal judge could say that more money has to be appropriated to hire more people. He believes creating a new bureaucracy does not address the problem, although he wants the state to be in the opt-in system for the sake of the victims.
Justice Ryan related to Mr. Biggs
that there are currently no lawyers to appoint. There is a list, but the
attorneys either will not or cannot take another case. He has been told there
will be no one else coming forward in the near future, so the system is not
working and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. By statute, the
current hourly rate is $100 per hour, but it is capped at
200 hours, which is $20,000. The attorneys have to go to court to ask for more
money, which the court generally approves, but it is not guaranteed, which is
why attorneys are turning down the cases.
Mr. Biggs noted that the concern seems to be that there will be conflict cases anyway and a list will still be needed to conflict out to. Justice Ryan replied that the list should be much smaller because this office would be able to handle more cases than any individual attorney can at a cheaper rate. Also, with this office, an attorney will only have to take one case per year so they can afford to have a private practice and handle the case at $100 per hour. He anticipates that the office will be more cost effective in that respect because cases will be processed easier and quicker.
Justice Ryan indicated to Chairman Pearce that there are about 24 postconviction relief cases per year. With an office of dedicated attorneys to handle these cases, if Arizona opts in, once the cases go to federal court, the Ninth Circuit would have to rule in four months. The benefit is tremendous for having such an office as opposed to the current system because Arizona is now an opt-out state.
Senator Huppenthal pointed out that a bureaucracy is when a mission is defined and twice as many people as needed are appointed to get the job done. Here there are not quite enough people to get the job done and they are being asked to stretch out and have confidence they will get the job done. This is a mission to bring justice to families of victims of capital crime. A group of people put together a solution. This will not be a bureaucracy. He added that the County Attorney’s Office made some good points, so an adjustment in the numbers may be necessary in order to have good postconviction reviews because the office could be flooded and have to hire externally. He encouraged the Members’ support.
Question was called on the motion that the five-page proposed Pearce amendment to S.B. 1376 dated 03/29/2006 11:55 AM (Attachment 9) be adopted. The motion carried.
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1376 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-6 (Attachment 11).
S.C.R. 1031, public programs; citizens – DO PASS AMENDED
Mrs. Groe moved that S.C.R. 1031 do pass.
Mrs. Groe moved
that the two-page proposed Pearce amendment to
S.C.R. 1031 dated 3/29/06 2:00 PM (Attachment 12) be adopted.
Thomas Adkins, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, K-12 Education Committee, explained that S.C.R. 1031, pending voter approval, prohibits adults who are not citizens or legal residents of the United States from taking classes offered by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Division of Adult Education or receiving child care assistance from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) and requires specified information on applicants for certain programs to be reported by specified state agencies biannually to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The prohibition of services for specified programs must be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin. Additionally, S.C.R. 1031 limits in-state student classification to persons meeting specified requirements (Summary, Attachment 13). The proposed amendment contains the following provisions (Attachment 12):
Senator Dean Martin, Sponsor, stated that this resolution with the proposed amendment is the same as H.B. 2030 sponsored by Representative Tom Boone last year, which was vetoed by the Governor, so the only option is to ask the people to override the veto. The resolution ends taxpayer subsidy of illegal immigrants, which is what people voted for with the passage of Proposition 200, but unfortunately, due to some creative interpretation by the Governor and the Attorney General, it did not happen. This does not prohibit illegal immigrants from obtaining an education or learning English. The resolution has no impact on the private sector, but relates solely to taxpayer organizations.
Chairman Pearce stated that federal law specifically prohibits people in the country illegally from attending higher education, so the proposed amendment should not even be necessary. Proposition 200 passed overwhelmingly in the state. Under federal law, not only does an individual have to be a legal resident of the U.S. in order to qualify for any welfare program, but the person must be in this country for at least five years. This resolution does not change the law, but enforces eligibility standards already in the law.
Ms. Aguirre related that a number of individuals are working to resolve their immigration status, but unfortunately the federal government has not responded. Some of the individuals work very hard to be productive citizens of Arizona, but this legislation will deny them or their children an education. Some individuals have been waiting for 10 or 15 years to become legal citizens.
Senator Martin said individuals in the country legally on a student visa, work visa, etc., can receive these services, and the resolution does not mean illegal immigrants cannot obtain an education. It simply means taxpayers will not subsidize their education just as taxpayers do not subsidize California residents who attend Arizona State University, for example.
Gregory Hart, Dean, Pima Community College Adult Education, representing self, opposed S.C.R. 1031. He opined that this legislation does not serve the best interest of Arizona and its people. Recent estimates indicate that there are as many as 500,000 immigrants in Arizona without proper documentation. Unless the federal government adopts and enforces an aggressive house-to-house deportation policy, which no one believes will happen in this great nation, those people can be expected to remain in Arizona for the foreseeable future. Many have children, in fact, many are parents of children who are American citizens, who require English Language Learner opportunities in the K-12 system. This resolution will cut their parents off from English learning opportunities. Many in the Legislature are interested in making English the official language of Arizona, but this measure works in direct contradiction to that intent. Economists, futurists, and demographers warn about the need for a skilled, educated and youthful workforce to replace the aging workforce to propel the economy into the future. This measure works in direct contradiction to that by discouraging people from pursuing basic and higher education. He urged defeat of S.C.R. 1031.
Mrs. Groe noted that Patrick Leavy, representing self, is opposed to S.C.R. 1031.
Larry Butler, representing self, opposed S.C.R. 1031. He testified that he finds it difficult to understand the purpose of this measure except to punish and crush the spirit of young, talented, and deserving youth who have the academic potential to become productive and responsible members of society. These children did not choose to be here, but were brought here by their parents, and many are honor students. Qualified candidates for business and industry are at a severe shortage and these talented students are needed in the workforce. This resolution takes away any opportunity for the best and brightest students. He said it is very curious that this legislation is being heard in the Appropriations Committee when there is no appropriation. Perhaps appropriate Committees were not willing to hear the measure. If so, this is a very inappropriate use of the Committee’s time and power. He urged a no vote.
Chairman Pearce stated that $1.2 billion is spent annually in K-12 for children of illegal immigrants or children who are in the state illegally. There is a huge cost to the health care and criminal justice systems and a direct correlation to crime. The parents made a decision to break the law and there is a consequence. There are good people on both sides and he is sensitive to that, but the Legislature must be committed to the rule of law and doing what is right.
Mr. Farnsworth noted that S.C.R. 1031 was voted out of the Education Committee, so this is the second Committee that has heard the bill.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons opposed to S.C.R. 1031:
Kathy Boyle, Executive Director, Arizona Community College Association
Susan Leon, Valley Interfaith Project
Rebekah Sauceda, Valley Interfaith Project
Chris Brewster, Valley Interfaith Project
Nichole Villegas, Valley Interfaith Project
Kristen Boilini, Lobbyist, Arizona Community Colleges Association
Margaret Snider, Arizona Interfaith Network
Dick White, Co-Chair, East Valley Interfaith, Arizona Interfaith Network
Charles Ratliff, Arizona Interfaith Network
Dalila Sanders, Arizona Interfaith Network
Saul Solis, Arizona Interfaith Network
Sara Brandt, Arizona Interfaith Network
Ron Johnson, Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference
Michael Racy, Lobbyist, Pima Community College
Terry Forthun, President, Arizona Federation of Teachers Unions
Page Gonzales, Associate Director, Government Relations, Maricopa Community Colleges
Janet Regner, Lobbyist, Maricopa Community Colleges Faculty Association
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Jennifer Daily, Lobbyist, Arizona Education Association
Ray Prendergast, Surprise Unitarian Church
Robert Ojeda, Arizona Interfaith Network, representing self
Andy Allen, representing self
Molly McGovern, Organizer, representing self
Juan Cordero, representing self, opposed S.C.R. 1031. He stated that these children were born in the United States and are citizens, and many of the immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are taxpayers. People in California do not pay Arizona taxes and should not be able to pay in-state tuition. These people pay state taxes, sales taxes, federal income taxes, and file taxes even if they are illegal. This legislation condemns children to a life of poverty and obscurity. The students who won the robotics contest nationwide are from Carl Hayden High School, and many of their parents are illegals. Denying these children the right to continue their education or learn English better is denying an opportunity to make a better state.
Chairman Pearce submitted that the children have to blame their parents for breaking the law, not the Legislature.
Question was called on the motion that the two-page proposed Pearce amendment to S.C.R. 1031 dated 3/29/06 2:00 PM (Attachment 12) be adopted. The motion carried.
Mrs. Groe moved that S.C.R. 1031 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-2-0-4 (Attachment 14).
S.C.R. 1025, property tax; valuation increase limit – HELD
Chairman Pearce announced that S.C.R. 1025 was not heard by the Primary Committee, and therefore, will not be heard.
S.B. 1291, school crossings; traffic violation; assessment – DO PASS AMENDED – S/E
S/E: operation of shooting ranges; prohibition
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1291 do pass.
Mrs. Groe moved
that the 13-line proposed Gorman S/E amendment to
S.B. 1291 dated 3/27/06 12:43 PM (Attachment 15) be adopted.
Mrs. Groe moved
that the 10-line proposed Gorman amendment to the
13-line proposed Gorman S/E amendment to S.B. 1291 dated 3/29/06 10:52 AM
(Attachment 16) be adopted.
Rene Guillen, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, Appropriations (P) Committee, explained that the proposed S/E amendment to S.B. 1291 prohibits a political subdivision of the state from operating a shooting range under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Summary, Attachment 17). The proposed amendment to the S/E amendment limits the preclusion to counties with a population greater than 1,500,000 and allows a political subdivision to operate, control or maintain a shooting range if no private entity responds to the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Attachment 16).
Mrs. Gorman, Sponsor, stated that she received an auto dialer at her home from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in support of the Phoenix bond issue. This is a S/E amendment because she did not find out about this until recently. She called back and asked why the NRA is promoting the bonds and was told the NRA wants to get money for the Ben Avery Shooting Range. She asked if the City of Phoenix is going to provide the money without operating the range because she does not want the City to take over the operation. Maricopa County used to operate the range and nearly ran the facility into the ground, but the Arizona Game and Fish Department took over and is doing a beautiful job.
Mrs. Gorman stated that this bill does not affect private ranges, only those operated by Game and Fish. Ranges being considered in other areas or that currently exist could have been hurt unintentionally by the proposed S/E amendment, so the proposed amendment to the proposed S/E amendment limits the provision to Maricopa County ranges and only those Game and Fish cannot run and a private entity does not want to run. Those are often run by shooting clubs, etc., and if no one like that wants to step up, then the city or town can step in. She believes she has done all that can be done to protect Ben Avery from being taken over by a city, which is well intentioned, but does not know how to run a shooting range. Also, future city councils may not choose to preserve Ben Avery.
Mike Golightly, Commissioner, Arizona Game and Fish Commission, testified in opposition to S.B. 1291. He indicated that he appreciates all Mrs. Gorman has done for shooting sports, but he has some concerns with the bill. For example, Game and Fish owns the Rio Salado Shooting Range, which is located in Mesa and currently leased to the Rio Salado Sportsmen’s Club. If the club chooses to bail out, the range would fall back to the Commission. If the City of Mesa wants to keep and expand the range, etc., and puts out a Request for Proposals (RFP) that one private entity bids on and says the range will be kept open 50 percent of the time, the city would have to go with the individual.
Mrs. Gorman responded that she recently became aware of this situation and is willing to include reasonable request on the Floor so the Commission would be able to turn away private entities that are playing the system. Mr. Golightly said that puts the Commission in the position of running the range.
Mr. Farnsworth suggested that the RFP could include the amount of time the range needs to be operated and any improvements.
Mr. Golightly said he did not give a good example. Game and Fish is in discussions with Maricopa County on a proposal for the San Tan Range and the Buckeye Hills Range, so there are some things in the mill that he is not sure Game and Fish can run with the restrictions in this bill. He is willing to work with Mrs. Gorman on those concerns. Mrs. Gorman agreed to meet with him tomorrow because she does not want to limit the growth of shooting ranges.
Chairman Pearce recognized persons opposed to S.B. 1291:
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Incorporated
Kevin DeMenna, Lobbyist, City of Phoenix
Question was called on the motion that the 10-line proposed Gorman amendment to the proposed 13-line S/E amendment to S.B. 1291 dated 3/29/06 10:52 AM (Attachment 16) be adopted. The motion carried.
Mr. Boone moved
that the 13-line proposed Gorman S/E amendment to
S.B. 1291 dated 3/27/06 12:43 PM (Attachment 15) as amended be adopted. The
motion carried.
Mr. Boone moved that S.B. 1291 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-6 (Attachment 18).
S.B. 1267, integrated family court; pilot programs – DISCUSSED & HELD
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1267 do pass.
Kirk Morgan, Majority Intern, Human Services Committee, explained that S.B. 1267 requires the Supreme Court to implement a two-year Integrated Family Court Pilot Program (IFCPP) and appropriates $1,750,000 from the General Fund to fund this pilot program (Summary, Attachment 19).
Senator Karen Johnson, Sponsor, stated that she Co-chaired the Domestic Relations Committee for 10 years, and this is an issue the Members have been working on for about six years. There are so many problems with people who go into the court system with family issues and get one judge, then six months later go before another judge. A comprehensive program is needed. Maricopa County did a small pilot program a few years ago that was extremely successful, but at the time there was not enough money in the budget to do more. Now that there is more money, she would like to do this pilot program, which the other counties could then implement.
Chairman Pearce asked if the two courts will be in addition to the courts that already exist where a census number dictates the number of courts per county. Senator Johnson responded that pulling the juvenile court into this will be helpful. A new court will not be created. She would be agreeable to an amendment to make sure this fits within the formula and new courts are not created.
Ellen Seaborne, Family Law Attorney; Member, Domestic Relations Committee, representing self, spoke in favor of S.B. 1291. She said this legislation will not create a new court. It is a reallocation of services and personnel within the existing court system. The intent is to create a more service-based, humane family court. Currently, the families may be in the juvenile court system on a dependency issue or a delinquency issue and in the general superior court for domestic relations issues such as divorce, custody, child support, etc. The Committee reviewed 25 to 30 states with an integrated family court system and took the best of the best to create something that would work for Arizona. The problem is the computers do not talk to each other, so if there is a case in juvenile court and a case in superior court, there is no way to cross- reference.
Chairman Pearce remarked that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has Judicial Collections Enhancement Fund (JCEF) and defensive driving money for the purpose of automating the courts, and $2.2 million was just added to the AOC budget to integrate all of the court systems. If the money is removed from the bill and AOC is directed to include this, the bill would have a much better chance of survival.
Senator Johnson provided a breakdown of what the appropriation would cover (Attachment 20), noting that the Committee spent a few years trying to hone it down as much as possible to be able to effect this pilot. Part of the money is for a system that can be picked up by other counties without the initial cost.
Ms. Seaborne related that in 2003, the AOC agreed to pay for this program, but did not.
Mrs. Groe recognized persons in favor of S.B. 1267:
Gary Krcmarik, Court Administrator, representing self
Robin Scoins, representing self
David Miller, CEO, Arizona Council of Human Service Providers
Brad Kennedy, representing self
Chairman Pearce stated that if it is okay with Senator Johnson, he would like to hold the bill to work on some issues so it can be heard next week.
Mrs. Johnson agreed.
Mrs. Groe withdrew the motion that S.B. 1267 do pass.
S.B. 1142, children; removal from home (now: CORP; membership expansion) – DO PASS AMENDED
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1142 do pass.
Mrs. Groe moved that the 11-line proposed Pearce amendment to S.B. 1142 dated 3/29/06 12:24 PM (Attachment 21) be adopted.
Mike Huckins, Majority Research Analyst, Appropriations (B) and (P) Committees, explained that S.B. 1142 allows probation, surveillance and juvenile detention officers employed by the Judiciary to participate in the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) (Summary, Attachment 22). The proposed amendment defines probation or surveillance officer (Attachment 21).
Question was called on the motion that the 11-line proposed Pearce amendment to S.B. 1142 dated 3/29/06 12:24 PM (Attachment 21) be adopted. The motion carried.
Mrs. Groe moved that S.B. 1142 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-7 (Attachment 23).
Names of persons in favor of S.B. 1142:
Lu Ebratt, Legislative Director, Arizona Probation Officers Association
Jack Berry, President, Yavapai County Probation Officers Association
Don Stokes, Arizona Probation Officers Association; La Paz County
Dan Brooks, Vice President, Pima County Probation Officers Association
Rick Hornback, President, Pima County Probation Officers Association
Sandra Richards, representing self
Doug Frantz, Adult Probation Officer/Supervisor, Arizona Probation Officers Association (AZPOA)
Vince Dearmond, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Leslie Ebratt, Probation Officer; Supervisor, AZPOA
Eva Berg, Adult Probation Officer, AZPOA
Laura McCumber, Citizen; Probation Officer
Ricky Nelson, Juvenile Probation Officer, AZPOA
Kim Barnes, Adult Probation Officer
Mike Taylor, Juvenile Detention Officer, representing self
Christina Rodriguez, Probation Officer, representing self
Geneva Rodriguez, Surveillance Officer, representing self
Joni Delaney, Surveillance Officer, representing self
Aura Olivas, Interpreter, representing self
Jesus Olivas, Juvenile Detention Officer, representing self
Kenn Gorr, representing self
Brian Herlihy, representing self
Cynthia Goyette, representing self
Luigi Patruno, Probation Officer, representing self
Joe Bonow, Probation Officer, representing self
Timothy MacLeod, Juvenile Probation Officer, representing self
Jodie Mertens, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Gregory Allen, Probation Officer, representing self
Robert Dennis, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Bryon Bauer, representing self
Julie Lovejoy, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Rick Hernandez, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Susan Savoy, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Leroy Lerchen, representing self
Lynn Smithson, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Donna Trudel, representing self
Jim Marshburn, Probation Officer, representing self
Marisella Rodriguez, Adult Probation Officer, representing self
Dena Covey, Adult Probation, representing self
Jerilyn Humphreys, representing self
Sheldon Payne, Youth Supervisor, representing self
Cynthia Miles, Surveillance Officer, representing self
Sarah Zirakian, representing self
Joseph Calderon, Youth Detention Officer, representing self
Joan Kircher, representing self
Paul Webb, representing self
Name of person neutral on S.B. 1142:
Patrick Klein, Assistant Director, External Affairs, Arizona State Retirement System
S.B. 1065, tax credits; research and development – HELD
S.B. 1067, income tax credit review committee – HELD
S/E: voter identification; early ballots
S.C.R. 1006, family advocacy office – HELD
S/E: classroom dollars; minimum expenditures
S.C.R. 1015, local debt limits; major taxpayer – HELD
S.B. 1264, claims adjustment; technical correction (now: Arizona department of homeland security) - HELD
Chairman Pearce announced that the remaining bills will be held.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
________________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
April 19, 2006
(Original minutes, attachments, and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (P)
2
March 29, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------