Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegation debates 2027 priorities, flags LLC act as long‑term project
Summary
Delegates reviewed a draft legislative planning form and discussed several model acts — including a Limited Liability Company act, human‑trafficking remedies, mortgage modification and judicial interviews of children — designating some items short‑term and others long‑term.
The Uniform Law Commission delegation reviewed a draft legislative planning form and discussed which model acts to prioritize for possible introduction in 2027.
Jamie, a delegation leader, opened the discussion by asking Jane to walk members through a planning form staff had prepared. Jane presented the form and noted it lists state‑specific recommendations drawn from the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) packet, including a proposed Limited Liability Company (LLC) act whose language the ULC had not yet finalized. "So here is our legislative planning form," Jane said, offering to screen‑share the draft and crediting legislative assistant Ella for the work.
The group debated feasibility and timing for the LLC act. Jamie said the business law section had reviewed the packet and that enacting the full act could take years; members recommended treating the LLC proposal as a long‑term project or selecting discrete provisions that are widely used. "It would probably there are probably pieces of it that we could do," Jamie said, while cautioning that a full enactment might require years.
Delegates grouped several other items — a prevention and remedies for human trafficking act and a mortgage‑modification model — as nearer‑term work. Jamie argued for a "house first" sponsorship strategy, saying having House movers can ease floor progress and offering to seek senate sponsors where helpful.
The delegation also discussed a model on judicial interviews of children. Jane said family‑law interests and superior‑court judges are key stakeholders; members agreed that if both stakeholders sign on, the act could move forward, but that pushback from either would likely stop progress.
Jane told the group that the earlier "target acts" program had been discontinued and its items folded into a new "trending acts" category that uses objective metrics (recent enactments across states) to surface promising proposals. "We killed the target act program," Jane said, explaining the new metric‑driven approach.
Members raised several additional topics for short‑term or long‑term tracking, including the Child Digital Entertainers discussion (where some Washington sponsors want stronger privacy provisions than a fiscal‑protection draft) and possible updates to transfer‑to‑minors and conflict‑of‑laws provisions. Jamie and other delegates said they would circulate comparisons to current state law and follow up with relevant bar sections and stakeholders before the fall meeting and the Chicago conference.
A procedural note: the meeting approved the minutes of the previous meeting on a motion by Jamie and a second from Dennis; the chair called for the ayes and the motion passed by voice vote (the transcript records at least two "Aye" responses; a full roll call was not recorded in the transcript).
The delegation directed staff to continue outreach to the business law section, family‑law stakeholders and other interested parties and to mark the LLC act as a long‑term project while preparing short‑term materials for the items the group prioritized for 2027.
