Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S109 Working Groups topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate restores two members to firearm-surrender working group and trims several study requirements from S.109
Summary
The Senate returns two organizations to full membership of a firearm-surrender working group and removes several statutorily required study panels and reports from S.109, citing time and process concerns.
The Senate amendment to S.109 returns the Center for Crime Victim Services and the Council on Domestic Violence to full membership of the firearm-surrender order compliance working group after the House version had moved them to a consultee list. Legislative counsel explained the change was one of the few additions in the Senate'proposed amendment; most of the Senate'editorial work involved striking sections the House had added.
Eric Dispatcher, legislative counsel, told the committee that "they want the Center for Crime Victim Services and the Council on Domestic Violence to be members of the working group rather than" consultees. The committee discussed a broader pattern: the Senate removed several study committees or reporting mandates from the miscellaneous bill because the Senate Judiciary Committee either lacked time to take testimony or believed interested parties could provide recommendations without a statutorily required working group.
Among the items struck or removed in the Senate amendment were the adult involuntary guardianship working group (which had considered consolidating probate and family-division proceedings for adults with disabilities), a statutory reporting requirement tied to delayed effective dates for new criteria in court-administrator recommendations for capital funding of county courthouses, and a provision regarding family forensic evaluator recommendations. Committee members noted that some of those topics could be addressed through stakeholder-driven reports rather than statutorily required study panels.
The committee also debated whether the Senate'driven pulls reflected a preference for unanimity in miscellaneous bills; legislative counsel said, in this case, changes were made by unanimous voice in the Senate, and that the Senate tends to omit contested items from a late-session omnibus bill. The committee ultimately voted to concur with the Senate's package of changes to S.109.
