Tag: House Judiciary Committee

House Judiciary Passes Concealed Carry & Political Spending Reform

Over the weekend the House Judiciary Committee met to discuss a handful of bills, but most notably the bill to amend the concealed carry law and a bill that reforms political spending in the state.

Senate Bill 541 relates generally to the regulation and control of elections.  Among the changes made in the House was the removal of all reporting requirements by third party organizations.

“Well the changes basically were, were at the request of some folks over at the Senate,” said House Judiciary Chair, Delegate John Shott of Mercer County, “where my understanding was they had some second thoughts among the people that negotiated that bill, and this particular instance, we had information that some of the stakeholders thought, had second thoughts about that provision of the bill, and so when we came out with our strike and insert amendment, we removed that from the bill. All we’ve attempted to do with this bill was monitor, or mirror the federal laws and make it less complicated, because rather than having two standards, we’re trying to coordinate the two.”

Democratic Delegate Stephen Skinner of Jefferson County was not happy with the changes and wanted the bill to stay the way it was in the Senate version.

“It stripped out all the requirements for public disclosure of donors of dark money organizations. That’s one of the very good things that the Senate did, and it was done on a bi-partisan basis,” noted Skinner, “This bill was presented to us in committee without any notice and it was rammed through. We asked for an additional day to take a look at the bill and understand what was in it, and we were voted down on party lines.”

Senator Mike Romano, a Democrat from Harrison County, worked closely with Republican leadership in the Senate to craft the strict reporting requirements. He was also upset by the changes made to the bill in the House and says he will vote against them.

“I’m very disappointed,” Romano said, “The main compromise in that bill was to get disclosures of contributors to third party independent campaigns. Those are the very nasty commercials that we see every election season, and we thought that by getting those disclosures it would, you know, dampen down some of that negative rhetoric that seems to be polluting our elections. I don’t know why the House did that, but personally the bill was a compromise. The Democratic caucus did not want any increases in spending limits, and because we got those disclosures in it, we were willing to agree to the increase to the federal limits.”

Senate Majority Leader, Mitch Carmichael of Jackson County, says he doesn’t agree with the House’s changes either.

“It’s my understanding that the House has moved to protect the anonymous speech with regard to some of those campaign contributions to the third party entities,” Carmichael explained, “There’s certainly a constitutional argument that can be made that disclosure is not required with those third party entities, but if you’re asking me for my personal perspective and from the sentiment within the Senate Chamber, it is my absolute conviction that more disclosure is better.”

Carmichael says he suspects if those amendments remain in the House’s version, the bill will likely enter a conference committee between both chambers to discuss the final outcome.

After a press conference Monday, Governor Tomblin said he too supported the stricter reporting requirements on outside spending.

“I think that those donors should be identified,” Tomblin said, “You know, if I spend money on my campaigns, I have to say where I got the money, what it was used for, and who gave me that money, so, you know, I think that it should be the same way for those people. If they want to contribute that kind of money, they step forward and be identified.”

Another bill that came up over the weekend in the House Judiciary Committee was Senate Bill 347, removing the licensure requirement to carry a concealed handgun. The controversy over the bill amplified last week in a public hearing held in the House Chamber. Ultimately, the House made some amendments to the bill in committee, most notably in the age limit. In the House’s version, the age limit was increased from 18 to 21. This amendment was originally attempted by Senator Romano in the Senate, but failed.

Both Senator Romano and Carmichael say they are fine with the increase in the age limit and think it makes sense to make that change. However, Delegate Skinner says he still has some concerns with the bill in its entirety.

“Most West Virginians want a moderate approach to conceal and carry,” Skinner said, “and repealing the need within the state to have a conceal carry training and license; that’s not moderate. And I think most West Virginians agree that we need to require some kind of training and a license for people to be able to carry a concealed weapon.”

Both bills will soon see the House floor for their consideration.

House Seeks to Strengthen Sexual Assault Laws at Schools

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are revisiting the state’s mandatory reporting law after an incident at Capital High School in Charleston. The school’s principal, Clinton Giles, resigned from his post after reports that he failed to notify law enforcement of a sexual assault on the high school’s campus. Giles was reportedly notified of the January 26th incident by a counselor, and he now faces misdemeanor charges in Kanawha County Circuit Court. The incident now has lawmakers looking to update a forty year old law dealing with sexual assaults. But first, the committee considered a bill that aims to reign in the receptions lawmakers are invited to while in Charleston for legislative meetings.

House Bill 2022 prohibits certain political fundraising activities for members of the Legislature during certain periods of time before, during, and after the Legislature is in session. It also provides that existing misdemeanor penalties would apply if the law were broken.

Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County is the sponsor of the bill. He says this bill addresses a long standing tradition during annual legislative sessions.  That tradition of nightly receptions serving free food and drinks to lawmakers. 

“I think the perception is a negative perception, that if we have a fundraising reception for a campaign on Tuesday and then there’s a bill that affects that, some particular industry on Thursday that we vote on, it’s unseemly,” Lane noted, “And I think, in an effort to make sure that there’s trust between the public and the elected officials, I think it’s a pretty simple fix to that, to just say that we as members of the legislature are gonna hold ourselves to a higher standard, and we’re gonna say we are not going to fundraise or accept money from campaign contributions, while we are here making decisions on legislation.”

No action was taken on House Bill 2022 during Thursday morning’s meeting.

The second bill on the agenda was House Bill 2939, relating to requirements for mandatory reporting of sexual offenses on school premises involving students.

“To better explain this, I’m going try and start with a little bit of background; explain what current law is, and then I’ll go into explaining a little bit what the original bill is, and then the reason behind the committee substitute. Since at least 1977, there’s been a reporting requirement for teachers or, in general, reporting of abuse, neglect matters for children; if they’ve been abused or neglect, and that’s defined in chapter 49. The requirements do extend to teachers and school personnel. In particular, the law states that a person over the age of 18, who receives a disclosure from a credible witness or who observes any sexual abuse, or sexual assault of a child, shall immediately, and not more than 48 hours, report that to the police and or to DHHR, Child Protective Services. That’s been the existing law for quite some time. The difficulty is, is when you get into the definitions of sexual abuse or sexual assault. Under existing law, sexual abuse is limited to abuse by parent, guardian, or custodian, so if you connect the dots here, the only reporting requirement that exists for a student that may or may not have been sexually abused on school is if that occurs by the parent, guardian, or custodian. Hence, there’s a little bit of a loophole in the law with respect to reporting requirements. So, taking current scenario under existing law, if you have a situation where an individual who is, a report comes to a teacher that their friend has been sexually assaulted on campus, and it was done say, by another student. Under existing law, there’s no requirement for that teacher to report that incident.” -Marty Wright, Counsel to House Judiciary

Marty Wright, counsel to House Judiciary, explained the bill and the reason the law needed some updating.

The bill brought some major discussion among the delegates, from what counted as inappropriate touching between two high school aged children, to how much a teacher would be held accountable in regard to various situations, or to how far the definition of what counted as school premises reached.

By the end of the meeting, three amendments were proposed that addressed these situations, and the bill was passed unanimously in committee.

House Bill 2939 now goes to the floor for its consideration.

House Judiciary Looks at Coal Jobs and Safety Act of 2015

House Judiciary took up a bill Tuesday that addresses mine safety. Senate Bill 357, also known as House Bill 2566, is the Coal Jobs and Safety Act of 2015. This is a big bill with many provisions, and House Judiciary considered a handful of amendments to it.

There were two amendments to the bill that stirred up some debate within the House Judiciary Committee. Amendment number 2, as the delegates called it, was an amendment proposed by Delegate Woody Ireland of Ritchie County.

Ireland’s amendment addresses when and how and who moves equipment within a coal mine. This amendment adjusts some language related to energized trolley wire, which is a way for miners to move large loads of equipment in shuttle cars.

Delegate Tim Manchin of Marion County proposed a rival amendment to Ireland’s. In Manchin’s amendment, which was referred to as amendment number 4, it suggests putting the language back in the bill that is currently law saying there would be restrictions on how the equipment would be moved.

Manchin called Ireland’s amendment a roll back in mine safety.

“This is a huge roll back in miner safety to take seventy some mines out of the control of this statute to say that seventy some mines will now be allowed to move oversized equipment with motors and other apparatuses that are being strained to their limits in carrying that equipment, to remove those from the provisions and to subject coal miners to being in by of those where they’re going to be exposed to those fumes and fire and all the noxious smoke that comes off of that is an outrage,” Manchin said, “It is a roll back in coal miner safety, it should not be permitted, that we have not been given any adequate excuse to do that, and therefore we should reject this. Men have died, men died to get this statute passed, men died after this statute was passed. Nine men, in Marion and Monongalia County died, I think it was in the 60s or early 70s if I’m not mistaken, because, for this statute, and now we’re going to remove that.”

Delegate Stephen Skinner of Jefferson County, a fellow sponsor of Manchin’s amendment, also spoke against Ireland’s amendment, number 2.

“The amendment offered by the gentleman across applies to a very narrow number of mines,” Skinner said, “The statute as it is right now applies to all mines and is safety focused. We should make the choice for making decisions based on evidence, and we don’t have that evidence here today.”

Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County supported Ireland’s amendment, explaining that amendment number 2 was a good middle-ground and still addressed all the safety concerns.

“The gentleman from Ritchie has offered, what I would consider to be a balanced approach to making sure that miners in most of the mines where there’s a real safety issue with the movement of equipment are protected, but at the same time allowing that equipment to be moved in an efficient manner,” Lane noted, “and I would just remind people to look at the language that it says that a qualified person has to be in charge of transporting it, and specifically, as we heard yesterday, the primary issue is the energized wire that can create the problem, the real safety issue, and I think the gentleman has addressed that specifically, and would ask the committee to adopt amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from Ritchie and reject amendment number 4.”

After the debate however, Ireland’s amendment passed, and Manchin’s amendment was rejected.

Two more amendments were proposed by Delegates Manchin and Skinner; one having to do with the diesel commission and inspections, while the other had to do with rail track variants from the face of a mine. Both amendments were rejected.

Senate Bill 357 now reports to the floor for its consideration.

Senate Bill 6 Stirs Emotions at Public Hearing in House Judiciary

An emotional public hearing was held this morning to discuss Senate Bill 6 dealing with medical professional liability for nursing home administrators.

Over 30 people spoke to the committee; some for the bill and some against.

Many wives and children of family members who had died while in the care of nursing homes stood to recount their stories and express the pain and anger they had felt toward the quality of care their loved ones had faced. They pleaded with lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee, asking them to not pass the bill or at least to think before they pass it.

Three words remained constant among many of those family members who shared their stories. The words used were neglected, ignored, and abused.

Amy Kayson, is an attorney who has represented families of residents and the residents themselves for almost 20 years. She stood to oppose the bill.

“I want to tell you about a guy that we represented here in West Virginia who had been a World War II vet,” Kayson said, “and because there wasn’t sufficient staff to turn and reposition him in bed and to change him when he had an accident, he developed pressure sores so severe that they went to his very bone. Left in urine and feces on multiple occasions. You know what he complained about to the state investigators when they came to talk to him? He said I know they don’t have time to give me the care that I need, but the worst part is smelling my own flesh rot, and I know what that smells like because I’m a World War II vet. You want to cap his non-economic damages, but you’re going to leave his actual damages alone. He doesn’t have any economic damages. He’s not going to lose future earnings; he’s in a nursing home. What he’s lost is dignity. What he’s lost is the ability to live out the last few days of his life without pain. You cannot put a price on that. I ask that you not cap that.”

One of the speakers who supported the bill, Dr. Hoyt Burdick, a physician in Huntington, said it would broaden and clarify the definition of medical activities and providers.

“Twenty years ago, I was an aim in a medical mal-practice suit by a notorious trial lawyer from southern West Virginia, who is also one of only a couple of senators with a perfect voting record opposing medical professional liability reform,” Burdick said, “Incidentally, I was released with prejudice on the day before the trial with no real explanation. An important part of my job at Cabell and Marshall is recruiting and retaining physicians. When the malpractice lawsuit crisis was in the headlines, it seemed almost impossible to successfully recruit and retain physicians even those who grew up and were trained here. Speaking from experience, there was a time not long ago when West Virginia had serious problems with our professional liability system. Dr. Cater and others have outlined some of the progress we have made with tort reform, professional liability reform. We’ve had sustained reductions in the number of professional liability lawsuits, tax payers have benefited through reductions and suits and settlements by the board of risk management for state employed positions. The dollars that are not spent on insurance premiums and excessive tort settlements sustain medical practices, support employment in the healthcare sector.”

Andrew Paternostro, another attorney who has represented residents in nursing homes, spoke to oppose the bill.

“If you don’t want lawsuits, increase the standard of care or simply meet the standard of care,” Paternostro said, “Don’t come into a legislature and ask for a bill to be passed, so you’re damages can be limited, so a person who’s backside has rotted out and had to have surgery where the skin was taken out with a scalpel and scissors that you have to say to their loved ones, the most I can get you for the four surgeries is 250,000 dollars. The most I can get you for an amputated leg, because they allowed it to rot off, maybe 500,000 dollars, but they’ll argue profusely it’s 250,000 dollars. These cases are not defensible in a judicial system, in a fair judicial system with the judges we have and the jurors we have. I like the jurors, they listen to West Virginians, they know what to do, and to pass this act would simply take that power from jurors, from West Virginians, and it would be an imperious act to do so.”

Larry Pack, a leader at Sunrise Healthcare Management said he supports the bill because of insurance issues.

“Currently we’re experiencing major insurance problems,” Pack noted, “the type of problems we haven’t experienced, we haven’t seen since the early 2000s, before the legislature enacted the major reforms to the MPLA. Insurers simply, quite simply don’t want to write our company, they don’t even want to talk to us. We’ve only been able to find one company that’s willing to write us and were willing to quote our company. Insurance companies are leery of West Virginia; they’re leery of the litigation environment. Recent court decisions has eroded the MPLA protections, and the insurers have taken notice.” 

Senate Bill 6 has already passed the Senate 31 to 1.

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.”

Three Senior Deputies Leaving W.Va. Attorney General's Office

The West Virginia Attorney General’s Office has lost three top staff members to the Legislature.

The Charleston Gazette reports that senior deputy attorney general Marty Wright has accepted a job as the House Judiciary Committee’s head lawyer.

Senior deputy attorney general Richie Heath is now chief counsel to incoming Senate President Bill Cole.

Senior deputy attorney general Tracy Webb has accepted a job as head lawyer of the House Government Organization Committee.

The positions came open after Republicans won control of the Legislature for the first time in more than eight decades.

Exit mobile version