Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Und Immigration Clinic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reopens debate on UND immigration clinic bill after amendments and splits on funding
Summary
Members reconsidered House Bill 1600 authorizing an immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota; lawmakers debated program design, statutory micromanagement of clinics, and appropriation levels before voting to send the bill to the floor without committee recommendation.
The House Judiciary Committee reconsidered House Bill 1600, which would establish an immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota and include an appropriation to support it.
Representative Vetter moved to reconsider the committee’s previous action on the bill. After discussion and a roll-call vote, the motion to reconsider passed. Members then compared earlier committee amendments to a proposed O’Brien amendment. Lawmakers focused on whether the Legislature should prescribe curriculum items and clinic structure in statute (number of students, program divisions, required classes) or leave such decisions to the law school.
Representative Wolff and others argued that specifying course counts and clinic organization in statute is micromanagement and that the law school should set curriculum. Representative Vetter said he planned to move the legislative amendment but not the higher appropriation in O’Brien’s draft; he said the appropriation should remain at $400,000 (the sponsor and the law school’s dean had previously estimated program start-up costs around $150,000–$400,000). Opponents, including Representative Olson and Representative Wolff, argued the clinic could be offered within UND’s existing budget and raised questions about placing the program in Century Code.
Nut graf: After extended debate on structure and funding, the committee voted to send HB 1600 to the floor without a committee recommendation rather than record a do-pass or do-not-pass position. That procedural outcome leaves floor debate open and allows the full House to consider competing amendments and the appropriation.
Key procedural actions recorded in the transcript: the motion to reconsider carried 9–4 with one absent; later, after amendment revisions and debate, the committee voted to send the bill to the House floor without recommendation (11–1, 2 absent). The transcript shows contention over an O’Brien amendment that would have doubled the appropriation to $800,000; Representative Vetter said he would not press the higher funding when moving the amendment.
Ending: The committee did not adopt a final recommendation on HB 1600; the bill will proceed to the House floor without committee recommendation and be scheduled for further consideration there.
