2015 Legislative Session Story Archives - Page 8 of 9 - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

House Passes Bills on EPA, Highways, & Board of Education

Friday in the House, three bills were up for passage. First was House Bill 2004, which would require a procedure for the development of a state plan in regard to the Clean Air Act.

Currently the Environmental Protection Agency requires a 20% decrease in carbon-emissions by the year 2030 for the whole country.

Delegate John Shott, chairman of the House Judiciary committee, explained that in the EPA’s proposed rule, it requires a state to follow a set of four building blocks to reach this goal, however, he said the building blocks don’t add for much wiggle room for West Virginia.

“It requires limiting and reducing energy used by West Virginia residents and citizens. Let me say that again, it requires limiting and reducing energy used by West Virginia residents and citizens,” Shott noted, “This is greater than just a coal debate. This is a debate about the Federal EPA telling citizens how much energy they can use in their own homes.”

Shott says this bill would help aid in some pushback toward the EPA and give the state a little more control. It would require the Department of Environmental Protection to submit a report to the Legislature determining whether a state plan from the EPA is feasible. This in turn would allow for development of a proposed state plan to be reviewed and considered by the Legislature before submission to the EPA.

“In sum,” Shott said, “the proposed EPA rule is an improper intrusion upon the people of this state. We as the Legislature are the people’s eyes and ears and directly accountable them for the laws and policies of our state. In passing this bill we are properly exercising our role as a legislature and ensuring that the energy policies of this state are given appropriate review and consideration and not forced upon us by the EPA.”

House Bill 2004 passed overwhelmingly 93 to 3. Delegates Barbara Fleischauer, Mike Pushkin, and Stephen Skinner voted against.

Next was House Bill 2008, auditing the Division of Highways.

Delegate Eric Nelson, the Chair of House Finance, thinks this bill will help fix up West Virginia roads. The original bill took $500,000 dollars out of the State Road Fund to pay for the audit. That amount has been removed from the bill, and now the legislature will pay for the audit from its accounts.

“The biggest thing we did is we took this out of the Department of Highways,” said Nelson, “as far as the cost of this audit, we all know that we have issues with our, the maintenance of our roads and whatnot and did not feel like that needed to be a burden of the Department of Highways, and instead this will be an expense of the joint committee. A couple of other points, the last independent audit of the Department of Highways was completed in 2005, and before our committee, both Secretary Maddox and the Legislative Auditor both expressed support for the independent audit. I urge passage, Mr. Speaker.”

Delegate Amy Summers of Taylor County stood to support Nelson’s bill.

“We’ve put roads on the back burner for too long,” Summers said, “The audit of the Department of Highways is the initial step to evaluate our needs and develop a plan. Infrastructure can no longer be ignored. I urge support of House Bill 2008.”

Delegate Tim Miley, the Minority Leader, also stood to support the bill, but he inquired about the last independent audit done in 2005. He asked Delegate Nelson if anyone had followed up with the audit to determine whether the recommendations following it were implemented and if it is currently being followed. Nelson said many of the new plans over the last ten years came from that audit in 2005.

House Bill 2008 passed 96 to 0.

The last bill on third reading was House Bill 2151. This bill would make the West Virginia Teacher of the Year an ex officio, nonvoting member of the West Virginia Board of Education. The bill would also require two members of the Board of Education to be parents of children currently in the school system.

This bill also passed but with one rejection vote from Delegate Mike Azinger from Wood County.

Addition of Parents on the Education Board Has Overwhelming Support in the House

Anyone visiting the state capitol who is licensed to carry concealed weapons would be allowed to keep loaded firearms in their motor vehicles that are parked near the complex. This bill overwhelmingly passed the house Thursday.

Delegate Gary Howell of Mineral County cited the bill as a safety issue.

“This bill addresses a problem that we have. We have our constituents come down from all over the state, normal, average, everyday West Virginians that have their concealed carry permit. They know that they can’t bring them in the buildings, but they don’t know they can’t park in the parking lots,” Howell noted, “This addresses that issue, so they know they can come to the Capitol, and if some time there is a very late night meeting and it’s dark and whatever, they know when they get back to their car, they’re at a point of safety, and I urge passage.”

House Bill 2128 passed 97 to 0.

On second reading, or the amendment stage, was House Bill 2151, which would make the West Virginia teacher of the year an ex officio, nonvoting member of the West Virginia Board of Education.

Delegate Doug Reynolds, a Democrat from Cabell County, stood to offer an amendment to suggest the a change in the qualifications of some members of the Board of Education.

“The purpose of my amendment is to also add in that two members of the 13 must also be parents,” explained Reynolds, “when they’re appointed of children currently under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.”

Reynolds’ amendment received major support from both sides of the aisle passing 97 to 1. The one rejection vote was from Delegate Joe Statler, a Republican from Monongalia County.

Currently, the Governor appoints the members of the state school board with the advice and consent of the Senate. Reynolds suggests that the Governor must consider board members who actually have school age children. He thinks it would help bring a new perspective.

“I think that parents bring a perspective of what’s going on in the schools,” Reynolds said, “not necessarily what might not be in those rulebooks and what might be in those policies, but how those policies are affecting kids on a day-to-day basis.”

Reynolds says he has nothing against the current school board, but he thinks his amendment will help aim to make the school system better.

“I think it shows that we value the input of parents,” Reynolds explained, “because almost all of the experts I talk to complain about parent engagement, and I think this is showing some leadership and saying we value you, we want your views on the school board.”

With committee passage of the repeal of the prevailing wage in the Senate yesterday and that issue poised for a vote on the senate floor next week, Delegate Mike Caputo warned his house colleagues that the bill is on its way.

“The Senate passed a bill repealing the prevailing wage in West Virginia, a wage that workers depend on to feed their families, that workers depend on to make sure their kids have the same opportunities as rich folks kids have to go to college and have a nice home and a nice car. They’re deeply concerned and they’re deeply worried, and I know you all have gotten the letters that I’ve gotten,” Caputo said, “And I’ve gotten more letters from businesses who are concerned about the repeal of the prevailing wage on what it will do to good West Virginia businesses. It’s been here a long time, and it’s provided a good work place for those men and women. So I would caution us to think long and hard about how we proceed when that bill comes over here.”

AARP Announces Priorities for Legislative Session

The West Virginia AARP announced Thursday a list of things they hope the legislature will consider.

State leaders with the West Virginia AARP were at the capital Wednesday alerting the 82^nd legislature of healthcare problems that elderly are dealing with throughout the state. The AARP is fighting to support the 42 million family caregivers in the United States who help make it possible for older Americans and loved ones to live independently. Gaylene Miller is the State Director AARP in West Virginia. She said one of the organization’s top priorities is the Care Act, which could help caregivers interact with hospitals. These caregivers may or may not be related to the person they’re caring for, such as a neighbor, family friend or church member.

“But they get on the record as the designated caregiver and that allows the hospital to talk to that individual,” Miller said. “Importantly the caregiver would notified of a discharge and probably most importantly that the hospital would be required to provide some hands on demonstrations and some education about the aftercare tasks.”

According to AARP there are more than 300-thousand family caregivers—one of every six West Virginias. These individuals provide an estimated 2.4-billion-dollars in unpaid care for loved ones across the state.

Liability, Non-Partisan Elections, & Labor Cause an Uproar in the House

For years, Republicans have called for nonpartisan election of Supreme Court Justices. But the Democrats never put the issue on the agenda. Now having taken control of the House, Republicans finally got their wish.

Before confronting that issue, the house took up Senate Bill 13, which protects a landowner from liability if someone is injured on his or her property. The bill re-instates the open and obvious doctrine. It means a property owner won’t be responsible for injuries that a person sustains if it’s clear what the conditions are.

Delegate John Shott, chairman of the Judiciary committee, stood to explain that this bill would be worthwhile.

“What we’re doing here is, today if we vote in favor of this bill is saying that regardless of a few remote horror stories, we think its legitimate policy of this state to protect those people who have premises. In those situations where the injuries caused by something as well known and obvious to the person who’s injured as it would be to the person who occupies those premises,” Shott explained.

Senate Bill 13 passed 81 to 18.

Then it was on to House Bill 2010, the non-partisan election bill.

Again, Judiciary Chairman Shott explained why this is good for the state.

“This removes the taint of a partisan election from the operation of our judiciary,” Shott said, “and it extends not only to our state’s Supreme Court of Appeals, but to our circuit judges, our family court judges, and our magistrates, and this is intended to remove any perception that those individuals might be beholding to a particular party organization or a particular group of people with whom that party is perceived as being affiliated.”

Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer stood to oppose the bill, saying voters want to know which party their candidate is affiliated with.

“Well in our state, we’ve had some pretty bad experiences with money in judicial elections, and there have been accusations that judicial seats have been purchased by individuals. By not knowing what party a person’s in, you are deprived of information, and that you otherwise would have in any other election,” Fleischauer said.

But the bill passed overwhelmingly 90 to 9.

But there was uproar about House Bill 2217, relating to the qualifications of the commissioner of labor. This bill changes the current definition of the labor commissioner by taking out the words “labor interests of the state” and inserts “with experience in employee issues and employee-employer relations.”

Delegate Mike Caputo, a labor representative, clearly did not like the bill.

“This is nothing, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, with all due respect but a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the working men and women in West Virginia,” Caputo explained, “I just cannot believe that we’re about to vote on a bill that could allow a Don Blankenship to become the commissioner of labor in the state of West Virginia. I can’t believe we’re about the vote on a bill that someone who had nothing but the interest of the corporation at heart their entire adult life can now become the commissioner of labor. Now nothing against corporate executives, we need them, and they need to tend to the business of that corporation, so we can have jobs in West Virginia, but when it comes down to the grassroots level of that working mom, somebody needs to look out for her, and nobody’s going to look out for her other than someone who worked their entire adult life for a paycheck and took the interest of workers at heart.”

Delegate Michael Ihle spoke to try and reason with the word change, using an example from his own experience.

“I deal with both union and nonunion employees, and one of the accomplishments that we, and I do say we, have is a month into my term, we negotiated a labor agreement that was passed unanimously, and I say that not to brag on myself but to brag on our employees. But more relevantly, I say that to illustrate that the interest of management and the interest of labor are not always mutually exclusive,” Ihle said, “And I feel some of the rhetoric that I’ve heard from those who oppose the legislation reflects that belief that those interests must naturally conflict with each other, and I don’t believe that to be the case at all. I think if we’re to move our state forward, if we are to create an environment that is friendly to more jobs for both union and nonunion employees, all interest of labor, if we’re to do that, then we have to move beyond the mentality that labor and management are mutually exclusive.”

House Bill 2117 passed 64 to 35.

House Bills Move to Next Stage Without a Hitch

A number of bills were on the floor Tuesday from child welfare to the election of judges to the qualifications of the labor commissioner; all of them passed to their next stages without much of a hitch.

Eight bills were on the House Floor, and only House Bill 2200 was on third reading. This bill is to revise, rearrange, consolidate, and recodify the laws of the state relating to child welfare and juvenile disposition.

Judiciary chairman, Delegate John Shott, is the lead sponsor. He described the bill to be more user-friendly for those who have to deal with this area of law.

“There have been complaints for many years over how difficult it is to work in this area and how it can lead to misinterpretations, misunderstandings,” Shott noted, “and this is an effort that this bill, it’s got bipartisan support, it’s got widespread support among those who need to be able to navigate these complicated provisions of law, and Mr. Speaker I urge passage.”

House Bill 2200 passed 98 to 0.

The next five bills were on second reading; the amendment stage. First up was Senate Bill 13, which has to do with the liability of a possessor of real property for injuries caused by open and obvious hazards.

Delegate Shott proposed an amendment.

“The amendment that has been passed in the judiciary committee to modify the senate version, Senate Bill 13, basically recognizes a very limited exception to the open and obvious doctrine,” said Shott, “and that is where the danger on the landowner’s property is a violation of a law intended for the public safety, and that violation caused the injury, then in that narrow situation, the landowner is still responsible.”

Shott’s amendment passed and the bill progressed to third reading.

House Bill 2010 was up next. This bill relates to electoral reforms requiring the election of justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit court judges, family court judges, and magistrates to be on a nonpartisan basis.

Delegate Tim Manchin proposed an amendment that would extend public campaign financing to circuit court judges. It’s already in place for candidates for the Supreme Court.

“That program has worked. As a matter of fact, we have a current Supreme Court justice now who sits in the chamber upstairs because of this bill. It was a private project at the time, which is now been made permanent for Supreme Court judges,” Manchin explained, “The reason that I’ve offered this bill [amendment] is because, quite frankly, the only real reason to have nonpartisan judges, or the only stated reasons, are two; number one, so that there not beholden to anybody and they don’t appear to have partiality after they’ve been elected. Number two is to cut down on the cost of election, however if we miss this opportunity to extend the public campaign financing to those circuit court judges, we will leave in probably the greatest threat to the appearance of impartiality that there is, and that’s direct campaign contributions.”

Delegate Shott stood to oppose the amendment but in good faith.

“This is a good idea, and it’s an idea that it’s time may come, just not today,” Shott said, “I’m going to speak against this amendment not because I don’t think it’s a good idea, I think it’s where we want to be at some point, but I’m concerned that it complicates a bill whose focus is to take the first step, and that is to make these judicial elections nonpartisan.”

Delegate Manchin stood again to encourage the amendment be adopted.

“We have an opportunity right here to do something good right now and not wait until later, until all other kinds of people weigh in,” Manchin said, “and tell us all other reasons why the system won’t work, when in fact it already has.”

Delegate Manchin’s amendment was rejected 67 to 31, and House Bill 2010 moved on to third reading.

Also up for passage Wednesday will be House Bill 2217, relating to the qualifications of the Commissioner of Labor. The bill removes the term “labor interests of the state” and inserts language to require the commissioner to have knowledge and experience in employee issues and interests including employee-employer relations.

Strangling Could be Seen as a Felony Offense

The House Judiciary Committee is struggling with the definition of the word “strangling” as it relates to domestic violence and sexual offense laws.

House Bill 2240 would insert language making an act of domestic violence or sexual offense by strangling an aggravated felony offense, leading to criminal penalties.

By adjusting this language, the bill could potentially help a person or family involved in a domestic violence case get out of the situation sooner rather than later.

“One of the studies that we looked at found a very high correlation between strangulation and later homicide,” noted Danielle Swann of the domestic violence community at the YWCA in the Kanawha Valley, “and the reason that strangulation was considered with the seriousness that it was in the proposed language is because of this correlation in the hope to prevent any additional violence in the future.”

Swann is also an attorney in Charleston. She mentioned the bill could also cover someone who was strangled even without visible evidence of strangulation.

“Strangulation actually requires very little force to cut off the air passageway,” Swann explained, “in fact, ten seconds a victim can lose consciousness, and in four minutes, they can lose all brain activity. And when looking at the bill and speaking with other experts on the issue, that’s why no physical markings were required, because in fact strangulation actually requires very little force.”

The bill concerned some delegates because the term strangling could be viewed as very broad; potentially affecting someone who was either protecting themselves or accidentally performing the act.

Delegate Geoff Foster of Putnam County was one of the delegates who expressed this concern. He questioned Kip Reese, House Judiciary Counsel, with a hypothetical scenario involving three people; one person handled a knife and tried to hurt one of the two, and the third performed a choke-hold to protect the one being attacked with the knife. Foster asked if the person performing the choke-hold would be deemed guiltier than the person with the knife.

Reese explained that the decision would depend on the prosecutor, but the person who performed the choke-hold could be seen as guiltier.

Other concerns were how the bill would affect things like high school wrestling matches, as well as someone dying while under erotic-asphyxiation by a consensual partner.

But by the end of the meeting, three amendments were suggested to better narrow the definition of strangling, but Delegate John Shott, chairman of the committee, decided the concerns were too numerous to deal with in one day.

“In view of the numerous amendments we have and the apparent high level of concern over this bill, we’re going to refer this to our criminal working group and encourage them to get with the domestic violence group and representatives of the prosecuting attorney’s office and see if they can resolve some of these concerns that have been raised,” Shott said, “I think they’re all legitimate concerns, and rather than force through a bill that might have unintended consequences, we still have time to work this bill up.”