RichmondLiberty.org

file GA08-02-26
General Assembly, Tuesday February 26th, 2008

***************** Update on Redistricting Vote *****************

In my report GA08-02-18, I reported on a suddenly-scheduled meeting of House Committee on Privileges and Elections to have a roll-call vote on the redistricting bill, SB38, which had been killed on voice vote in their subcommittee. I posted, in part:
> Motion is to place bill on docket for next meeting.
> Aye is to allow consideration, nay is to leave the bill
> dead. It's made explicitly clear that this is,
> simultaneously, a vote to support or rebuke the
> Chairman for his actions.
> Pretty much party-line vote (one no from Democrat);
> motion dies.
> Motion to reconsider made by the D who deliberately
> voted "wrong" before; the motion fails.
In another venue, I also said:
> The website will presumably show the vote
> eventually, but doesn’t as of yet.

Well, turns out that the website still doesn't show the vote. I asked people who are wiser than I about this, and learned someting, which I now share with you.

There were two votes. The first was to bring the bill before the full Committee, which is what is required now that subcommittees are allowed to kill bills on their own. That motion failed, with (apparently) all Republicans voting Nay, and all Democrats except one voting Aye.
The Democrat who voted "Aye" then made a motion to reconsider (which can only be made by someone who has "voted on the prevailing side". That motion was itself defeated, on a straight party-line vote.
The two votes were what are known as "procedural votes", dealing with parliamentary matters. Because of that, there is no place in the computer system to record them. They are matters of public record, however, and if you call The Office of Committee Clerks, 698-1540, and speak to Marjorie Hrouda (or anyone in that office), she'll be glad to either read the list to you, or to mail you a copy.
Hope this helps . . .
******************************************************************

7:30 a.m. Senate Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee
Jim Kadison of VCDL, Mark Hjelm, and I were all in attendence.

HB622, Brink, SUBSTITUTE. Sex offenses prohibiting residing in proximity to children; penalty.
Prohibits a person convicted of certain sex offenses from living within 500 feet of a public park that is adjacent to a primary, secondary or high school. A violation is a Class 6 felony and there is an exception if the public park was established within 500 feet of the offender's residence subsequent to his conviction.

This is a substitute version of this bill, revamped to eliminate some of the concerns expressed in earlier hearings. Technical amendments made to make the language a bit clearer. Seems to have fixed the "unintended consequences".

Subcommittee approved the amended substitute.

Subcommittee rose just before 9am to attend other meetings. Docket is not yet finished, but they scheduled a second meeting this afternoon, 15 min after adjournment. (Of course, this will conflict with two meetings I need to attend.)

Afternoon session. Mark and I are both in attendence, as is Hope from ACLU. Jim Kadison joins us after he's done in Senate Local Government, and Hal Macklin arrives soon thereafter.

HB1007, Jones, Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center; confidentiality; immunity.
Provides that papers, evidence, information, etc., and databases or other information in the possession of the State Police are confidential and not subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act or the Government Data Collections and Disseminations Practices Act. The bill also provides that employees of the Department and employees of other agencies assigned to the Department are not subject to subpoena in any civil action concerning criminal intelligence information or terrorism investigation. The bill restricts the release or dissemination of information without prior authorization from the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center and punishes any person who knowingly disseminates information with a Class 1 misdemeanor. If such unauthorized release or dissemination results in death or serious bodily injury, such person is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

This is the Double Secret Police Immunity bill.

In response to 9/11, the 2005 GA established the Fusion Intelligence Center. "The fusion center shall collect, analyze, disseminate, and maintain such information to support local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies, and other governmental agencies and private organizations in preventing, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from any possible or actual terrorist attack." (§ 52-47, Code of Virginia)

This bill would say that that Center, and pretty much everyone who works with it, is secret. It, and the people who work there, are immune from any legal attempt to force them to testify or give information. No one receiving any information from the Center is allowed to reveal it without authorization. Also, no one giving them information can be sued as a result of that, unless the information was deliberately false or malicious. (But how would you ever know, much less prove it?)

The purpose is to make sure that terrorism (and other) intelligence data is kept private, even from FOIA requests, and discovery motions from defense lawyers, and subpoenas from people who had their lives or businesses ruined because they were wrongly suspected of being terrorists. Not only would the information be kept private, the people would be immune from lawsuits.

The original bill said pretty much exactly that, and to the apparent suprise of some stalwart anti-terrorists, some people whined and complained!

All of this, we had been told in the original presentation, is required both by Federal policy and also by practicality. Different investigative and law enforcement agencies hate to share their information, because they don't trust other agencies to keep their secrets. Only with all this panoply of protection can we expect the FBI to tell the State Police that they've found a plot to blow up the Capitol.

What we have here is a substitute version, substantially rewritten to meet many of the objections brought up at an earlier hearing. It's still far from perfect, but it's not as bad as the original. [I had been called out from this subcommittee briefly, and was not able to watch the first part of the hearing on this bill.]

Subcommittee members, and counsel Steve Benjamin, found a number of problems still in the bill, where it was basically overreaching, and covered too many sorts of data.

State Police representative makes some good suggestions as to ways to improve the bill so that it will meet the requirements, while still not overstepping.

Amended, moved to report, before public comment allowed.

Virginia Press Assn. makes good suggestions to narrow the bill;
lines 14 & 35 -- limit to terrorism, not generalize to all criminal
supported by Benjamin, opposed by State Police.
Stolle comes up with a compromise: investigation must be shown to be terrorism-related, rather than merely criminal, by the first required review

Hope from ACLU has a chance to speak briefly.

Amended substitute bill recommended to full Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------

House and Senate met at noon.

At the beginning of the session, the House presented a plaque with a copy of HJ275 (House Joint Resolution #275) to Ted Morrison, Jr. Judge Morrison served outstandingly in the House, and later with the State Corporation Commission. He well deserves the commendations of his peers.

Delegate RG Marshall moved three bills from the "Uncontested" calendar to the "Regular" calendar, where they can be amended. All three (SB256, SB538, and SB539) deal with school emergency plans. It's likely that he will attempt to insert the language from HB424 into them, to allow qualified faculty to carry conealed handguns on campus. This is unlikely to succeed.

Shortly thereafter, SB256 and SB539 are passed by for the day.

SB382 Firearms; sale to persons not lawfully present in United States.
Prohibits the sale or transfer of firearms to any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully present in the United States. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony.

Final approval in House, 97-0; now goes to Governor.

SB538, Obenshain, Higher educational institutions; first warning and emergency notification system required.

Floor amendment (substitute) offered by Delegate Marshall.
Parliamentary inquiry;
Speaker rules amendment is not germane to the bill.
Bill is given final approval in the House, 95-0; goes to Governor.

SB776, Hurt, Concealed weapons; attorney for Commonwealth may carry without a permit.

Passed by for the day, by request.

** Oh dear, Senate has adjourned; can't watch the House any more. **

--------------------------------------------------------------

Immediately upon adjournment of Senate - Senate Local Government

Philip van Cleave and & Jim Kadison from VCDL are attending.

HB371, Carrico, Firearm control; locality to pay attorney fees resulting from taking actions prohibited.

Requires a locality to pay attorney fees resulting from taking certain actions prohibited with regard to firearm control.

This bill resulted after Norfolk police hauled a man away from his wife and children, leaving them alone and without car keys. The police were attempting to enforce a local ordinance that was illegal, and which the city council knew was illegal, and which the city attorney had advised them had to be repealed.

Bill was rereferred to Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Education and Health Subcommittee on Health Care
Was scheduled for 1/2 hour after adjournment; time changed to 3 pm since House still in session at 1:30.

HB1400, Pogge, SUBSTITUTE Minor's drug test; disclosure of results.
Provides that a parent, legal guardian or person standing in loco parentis may obtain the results of any drug test of a minor or a minor's health records, except when the minor's treating physician or the minor's treating clinical psychologist has determined in the exercise of his professional judgment that the disclose of heath records or the results of any drug test of the minor would be reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the minor or another person. This bill also provides that a minor shall not be deemed an adult of [should read "for"] the purpose of consenting to a drug test when the minor is not receiving outpatient care, treatment, or rehabilitation for substance abuse.

Present law allows a minor to be considered an adult for several purposes, including requesting or consenting to medical testing and treatment for VD, birth control, mental illness, or "Medical or health services needed in the case of outpatient care, treatment or rehabilitation for substance abuse". The idea is that kids may very well not seek treatment for such things if their parents would find out, and that it's better to grant them confidentiality than to discourage treatment. Decades of experience have proven the truth of this theory, BTW.

The goal of this bill is to clarify, and emphasise, what seems already to be law. In the case of a minor who is NOT in treatment for substance abuse, drug test results are controlled by the parent, not the minor. Apparently there have been cases where parents have taken kids to doctors to be tested for substance abuse, and the physicians have advised the kids that for this purpose they are considered to be adult, and thus have the right to refuse the test, and the right to refuse to release the results of the test even to their parents.

Even a Libertarian like me can see the arguments on each side of this one. Most parents cherish their kids and worry about them, and would help their kids work through problems they might be having. OTOH, some are abusive control-freak [CENSORED] who would throw out -- or beat, or even kill -- a kid whom they'd found to be trying grass. From the perspective of the children, although many, even most, would welcome support from their parents, others are so frightened of the consequences that would follow from exposure that they would -- AND HAVE, all too frequently -- run away from home to try life on the streets, or even committed suicide rather than confront their parents' knowledge of their drug use.

The bill was rewritten as a substitute by a House committee which apparently contained few lawyers or logicians. As passed by the House, it said that "A minor shall not be deemed an adult for the purpose of consenting to a drug test when the minor is not receiving [treatment]." Translated, that would have to mean that if a minor thinks he or she might have a problem, he could not consent to the test that might show whether or not he'd need or be eligible for treatment.

The version that was presented to the subcommittee today was a second substitute, with more word-wrangling. When two copies were belatedly shared with the public, we found that it says that test results must be given to the parent (or guardian/loco parentis) when the parent is the one who has requested the drug test.

Senator Ralph Northam works with kids, including those with SA problems. He makes a good explanation of why forced testing is generally a bad idea, and explains how the problem is dealt with more productively in a less controversial atmosphere. He also points out that the commonly available tests do not target all drugs, being best suited to detect use of the most innocuous substances while failing completely to detect others which are far more dangerous.

Delegate Pogge makes a pretty good defense of bill; parents who care about their kids (she seems to think that this means all parents) need to know what's causing problems they may see in the kids' behavior.

Sen. Martin asks why this bill is needed -- what's unclear about existing language very similar to proposed addition.
Pogge explains that it's been misinterpreted in the past, cites AG's opinions on the issue.

I spoke in opposition to the bill, on behalf of VADV. After praising Senator Northam's approach, I recounted some history. In the late sixties, drug abuse was considered by most white middle-class Richmond-area residents to be something that afflicted only "those" people, and of very little concern to "us". Dr. George Bright, head of Pediatrics at MCV, was in lare part responsible for convincing them otherwise, and established programs at MCV which did a world of good and salvaged many lives. He did it, in large part, by gaining the trust of the kids with whom he worked. In most cases, the parents were brought into the picture and enlisted in the treatment plans, but in some cases that wasn't possible. The wisdom of that approach has been reinforced, for me, with years of experience with Richmond Hotline (confidential, anonymous telephone crisis intervention) and R-ADAPTS (Richmond Alcohol & Drug Abuse Prevention and Training Service), as well as my experiences with Virginians for Study of Marijuana Laws. I pleaded with the members to reject the bill.

Motion to report, second, FAILS on a 2-2 vote.
Bill will be considered by full Committee on Thursday.

Following the vote, Senator Martin suggests to Delegate Pogge that the AG's office can probably improve the wording of the bill, and that this should improve its chances before the Committee.

**************** LEGAL JARGON INTERPRETATION ****************
Having now (six hours later) had a chance to study the bill, I find that there's an area of present law that's unclear to me, and it's referenced by this new language. If any readers -- particularly those with legal training -- care to give me guidance, it would be appreciated. Look at § 54.1-2969 of the Code (also quoted in the bill). My question is, does the "unless it would hurt the kid" exception at the end of subsection "K" apply to both parts "(i)" and "(ii)", or does it apply only to part "(ii)"? Online reference, without case law or editors' notes, is at:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+54.1-2969
If you look at this and think you can answer the question, please let me know ASAP at . Thanks.
************** END LEGAL JARGON INTERPRETATION **************

--------------------------------------------------------------

Next significant meetings are Wednesday:

House and Senate convene at noon.

2:00 p.m. Senate Courts of Justice; Senate Room A, General Assembly Building
Arrest-on-whim, sex, mental health, secret police, guns

1/2 hr after House adjourns House Courts of Justice; House Room C, General Assembly Building
Drug courts, abusive driver fees

90 min after adjournment House Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee; House Room C; General Assembly Building
Nothing unless full Committee kicks something back to them

-------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
http://leg1.state.va.us/. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER:
http://leg1.state.va.us/ and http://legis.state.va.us/
These are the two websites where you can access nearly anything you want to know about practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!
__________________________________________________________________