A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | July 1, 2015 | Committee Room | Appropriations: Justice and Public Safety

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning. I want to welcome everybody to the justice public safety July 1 2015 from 4:15 opening [xx] now we have how pages today, I mean we've got four like a line up here, and if you all like to introduce yourselves, we start from the left and here we go, if you like tell us your name or where you're from and what high school did you go, what grade you will be going into and interest have you ever been to jail? Okay so my name is [xx], I'm a writing[sp?] senior here at able to make for it so I cant wait here about twenty minutes late when I graduated from high school I have to go to I'm Kate Raphael and I live in optic medicine and major in biology. I'm really interested in maths we are in North Carolina [xx] county and I don't know what I want to major in anything like that because I'm a rising sophomore and I do that I realy like art, I enjoy painting and writing Hi, [xx] I'm a writing and singer in North Eastern High School in the city of [xx] county. I'm arising senior so I'm trying to decide what I want to do but I would love to major in theater arts for the focus in directing and double major in Political Science. OK, my name is Andrew Weatherman. I'm arriving sophomore, and go to Hickory Ridge High School in Cabarrus County. I hope to manage in Business and yeah, I could play soccer so. Try to tell me to assume a wrong direction. Oh yeah. I'm going to let you chair today, if you can field better. We welcome you all here this is Justice of Public Safety, and we're responsible for the courts, the prisons, law enforcement, emergency management, National Guard of Parole, and preside over here, you can talk to her, and we have a lot of the department heads here that take care of the State of North Carolina. You ever seen this gentleman here in the grey with the gold badge on it? You much rather have them in front of you instead of behind you, but it's a great resource that we have here with Colonel Grey with the North Carolina Highway Patrol, so thank you all for being here, any questions that you all have never so the committee you all have any questions for him? And commissioner, commissioner Gise with us this morning, he's in charge of all the prisons. Thank you for being here hope you get something out this today thank you. Any remarks from my chairs? I'm proud to be here. Yes sir. Mr. Chair it has been said that most guys who go to prison. I'm sure he's going to slow him a few minutes. Our Sergeant at Arms today is David Lithgum, V. H Pal and Barry Moore. Alright this time we're going to have our committee presentation of the house of senate budget comparisons of the [xx] provision, we'll start off with Christine we'll operate like we did yesterday, If you have any questions, please talk here for hesitation we'll address to the end of we have to understand 11 o'clock which [xx] Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair, good morning everyone. I'm going to start us off today we're going to do the special provisions that are in controversy that what you have in your package here are only the provisions that are different between the house and

senate budget, any provisions that were the same in this budget are not included in this budget. if you turn to page one of this document, the first one is actually a bullet page provision of grant reporting in matching fund the difference here is that in subsection B which allows the department to use existing funds to match federal grant the senate has only allowed that for the first year of the biennium, the house allowed it for both years in the biennium. Turning to page three, this is a house only provision that requires the department of public safety to report on any vacant positions they eliminated, that followed a money item that was in the house budget but was not included in the senate. On page four, this is a senate only provision that make changes to public record laws related to executve protection and prison security. On page five, is a senate only provision that follows the money, this requires the department of public safety to revert an amount equal to what was appropriated for the workers' compensation line items because in the previous years they've been using laps salary to fill in that workers' compensation that they should have an equivalent amount of money to revert from salary, if we're funding workers compensation in the budget. Page six and seven are the Boilerplates seized assets provisions, there's technical changes to the Senate version, just to add the words to seized and forfeited assets, you'll see it on line four and line 15, and some attorneys apparently wanted it clarified that the assets we were referring to there, were seized and forfeited and not just general assets. And then finally on page eight, The National Guard Family Assistance Centers annual report requirement, page 89, the Senate version has some technical changes, this session model has been changed in the House version had apparently been codified by the codifier of statutes there page nine, the Senate version is the technically correct version, and next up Mr. Chair is going to talk about the medical provision Thank you Mr. Chair, the adult question begins on page 10, this is the house only provision to have an autofy[sp?] request confirmation regarding inmate medical services on page 11 is House only item also, it to turn inmates access to cell phones allows the department [xx] isn't that already the law? Thought we already passed [xx] Are you referring to the inmate medical or [xx] cell phones. Yes sir, it's illegal for inmates to have cell phones in prisons what this does is allow the department to use some funds available to setup a managed access system which would, the SUC[sp?] does not allow the department to block cell phone signals and so what this kind of system would do is allow them to setup a almost an internal communication system that only would allow registered cell phone to operate within the prison facility. What this is doing is allowing them to use funds available if possible and with approval always being taxes that can lift system up? Ye, I'm looking over the commissioner's [xx] so yes So when this proposal first came up last year, they identified four facilities, four of them were close custody facilities including one that have had significant gang problems and so those were the prisons that were identified but I don't know if this they've gotten much traction sort of going beyond these authorities should do this or not. Bill correction juvenile justice. Great question we are actually have identified 12 facilities that we are focused on at this time this has become a very serious issue for us, not only sends the district attorney was kidnapped as a result of

use of cellphone in one of our facilities we have received intelligence that now leads us to believe that we have very serious activity, that we are not able to talk about public at this point, but it's very serious and we've got to find a way to ensure that criminal enterprise cannot be managed and run from inside the facility it affects victims of crimes. It affects the general safety of the public and it affects operationally, the general safety of the public and it affects operationally our staff, the saftey of our staff. This has become a priority for the department and the administration and we are putting forward some ideas to address this issue but we're focused on 12 facilities at this time. Excuse me. If you would just remind the committee how many total facilities you have? We have 56 facilities in the state of North Carolina. Again these 12 facilities are some of our closed custody facilities, but also facilities that we manage very difficult populations. We are in a re-missioning process, some of you heard me talk about that at this time, where we are looking at all of our facilities ensuring that we get people located at the right spot. The goal of the agency is to ensure that we provide the change in behavior for someone that comes in. Our goal is to ensure that when they leave us, they leave us better off than they come in. Now we also deal with a population that will never it's there for life, so we've to prepare to deal with that population also. And then finally on page 12, this is a Senate-only provision. This is a rework of a provision from last year, the changes occur in lines 23, 26, but I wanted to include subsection A to kind of give you some context. There was a requirement to have correction enterprises contract with an outside vendor like underwriters laboratory to certify kitchen and manufacture equipment that correctional enterprises uses. What happens is they get you certifications and then they have to come in and modify the equipment to put in security measures and then [xx] so what ends up happening is they can't find any outside bidders to come in and bid these contracts to provide this equipment, so this would do them lines 23 to 26 as it would from the [xx] laboratory inspects your requirements for kitchen equipment and manufacturing equipment including some research about this North Carolina is the only correction enterprise industry in the country that has this kind of requirement, and also the federal's present system does not have the same requirements. So this is sort of has been a real barrier in the past few years of them getting folks to bid on providing equipment to the department. Good morning. Turning to page 13. Oh, I'm Lisa Fox of Physical Research. Pages 13 and 14, this is the technical difference, the senate is the correct version. On page 15, this is the house only provision that transferred the responsibility of probation for all vehicles from the Department of Administration to the Department of Public Safety. The senators not to do that for this provision [xx] controversy. On page 17 and 18 this is a provision that allowed the department to use [xx] gathered for the inner state compact program to support some operating costs for the division the section of community corrections. What we found working on the Senate budget is that fees can only be used to support the program for which they're originally in. If you turn on page 18, the Senate address that, by not withstanding the language that's in the statute, and allowing the use of those to support certain equipment and training program for the section of community corrections in the next biennium. Page 19 this allows the nonprofit called Our Children's Place to use small amount of money that's remaining from the 2004/2005 fiscal year to support their general operations need. Pages 20 and 21, the House version and the Senate version much like the earlier provision in the sense differ in that the House version allowed for [xx] to be used in each year the biennium and the Senate version allowed that for only the first year of the biennium. [xx] for actual this place.

Would you summarize that this is not really in controversy but that Senate picked it up than we're getting? That's correct, this came up later. So, [xx]? are appropriated at somewhere else? No. Okay, thank you. [xx] Yes. [xx] [xx] provide some context for this. [xx] the initial appropriation I received was for planning and design for the facility and there was a little over $48000 left over in the planning and design and so OSBM and department have concluded that they can not use those funds for any other purpose unless [xx] what this does is come back and authorize [xx] operation otherwise the funds what should do you have, what's the amount you have? It's 48000. $424.48 for. That's on page no, no it's not, not part of that. Thank you Mr. Chair I'm going to start with department of Justice page 25, the provision on page 22 and a provision on page 24 the house version actually implement the collection of the DNA for Albert Antonio that is sustaining that program, the senate just choose to study whether or not DNA is to be collected for everything. Yes Sir, Mr. Chair thank you very much. We sought of getting through this and I'm confused relative to dealing with dollars and cents, they are dealing with policy. It seems to me that there's a lot of information here, but I don't know which is good. And I was trying to read it, to keep up, get some idea, we know we just sort on the 17000 lapse [xx] I will say it going to be within having appropriation and that one will reappear and I was wondering if the money is going to be generated part with me into appropriate, and there is several things through here today is policy as opposed, exactly as opposed to budget and I don't know where the bad is, I can't, I'm confused. Thank you Mr. Chair, Representative Graham I think there is two questions that we asked, the first, a lot of in the discussion provision is generally passes is re-embaded to house budget, House budget extended in most cases and other entities, there is said a policy in here but for the next part, it has that commanding returned that money yesterday and it has got today's creations that you discussed yesterday. For the second part of your question which is about the 17 million and this dock on page five the requirements in the senate project that the department of public safery reverse $17.9 million if you recall from yesterday we discussed that senate budget is appropriating funds for workers come in all agencies per day and what they've done indeed there is true love that lie no items for workers comp, rigt now the workers comp-line is only budgeted in the base budgeted 16 million dollars the department of public safety spends 34 million dollars on workers [xx], and in order to make up that difference between what is budgeted and what they actually have to spend transfer money, non-recurring money from the salary line into that. So, what the Senate was trying to do we won't love carrying money to revert, we don't want you to spend [xx] money,. We are going read the the budget, we are going to appopriate amount that actually need to be expanded and so when I did that they all said that the DPS and actually I think DPS is the

only agency was seen to have this language in it. They said the DPS because we're giving you this, we're appropriating $34 million now for workers comp and that is what you're going to expend, we're going to require you to revert at least $17.8 million in salary. So that lot salary fund would otherwise have gone in the workers comp, but now because you're appropriating the workers comp money the lot salary money come back. It's really not to be curricular about it but a kind of a show game. if I remember it correctly that the workers comp claims have risen considerably in the last two years. Representative Mr. Chair I'm sorry Mr. Chair I think John has some information on that. Sorry. So if you recall from a couple of years gone jury, 2013 education process we're still a lot of time talking about workers comp this year and how much their claims have gone up we'll incorporate in this [xx] you should probably have something to be careful for I'm just thinking that the amount that has been appropriated would probably appropriate impact time but our claims have increased that's why they're trying to address it. Well [xx] it's been from here or here, and I think the public has started taking some steps to currently progress this issue but essentially from [xx] The nature of the work and the population [xx] describing earlier they have a lot of purpose [xx] and we also have those two factors are from 2007 to 2011, 12 70% from $ 50.31 million to $25.9 million that is just a connection, portion of also submissions you have. Thank you. Thank you. In all fairness to our committee I think often times [xx] we're working with staff we take things for granted [xx] what's going on. And I think Representative Gram has a good point, that What we're dealing with here is basically four documents, this morning for the house envision the document for the senate and then on money report we talked about yesterday we've got all [xx] working their and the staff serving both the senate and our comittee and in the joint committee we do work together and what we are doing now presenting information so you better understand where we stand in relation to the senate and then when we start getting together the committees together to get to the final product then all of these will come down in this two documents, and you are exactly right about the policy situation. We are talking about here a lot of wording a lot of dollars and cents but their is filling of the [xx] report  2004 policy,. Their is some additional language in the policy statement, a document that is outside of central funding and that's where the problem falls too, but basically we are talking about restore document and how we reconcile all that to get to one point where we have a final budget. Thank you. I hope that helps you? Yes sir.commissioner Guise[SP] the workers count claims have increased dramatically, for that is their any kind of a thing that happens to calls all that to occur.

Commissioner David Giuse[sp?] don't correct juvenile justice it will just be the population number of inmates  we and deal with in addition to the risk factor, and what we've seen in the last year we've every 11 hours I believe the governor mentioned in his state of the safe address which is true we have a sale resulted that tribute to those 850 sales last year, this year else over the past one week and we got five officers assaulted. We're just dealing with the dangerous the population and again the same from this here is one of the big reasons that are attribute to they can communicate inside with all inmates and communicate outside with fox that are wanting to do that stuff creates a very difficult situation so hopefully we are able to talk to we're about there, because we have found the solution. It's more than just talking about managed access we have found a way to be able to implement that and some of our most difficult prisons and we need your all support to that. [xx] do something about this serious problem [xx] also assaulted is like serious thing and I hope we can do something about it I think is important. thank you Mr chair I can alright we can do more in terms of protecting the inmates as well as protect myself but I'm trying to own workers confidence, it seems What I'm seeing is what those calls maybe a catch on when we have stressed our budget and we hell know all the place to go to do personnel or to health care whatever it is, we go that line and pull the money from there, would that be on Tuesday? Mr. Chairman. I think what we're doing here and workers compensation [xx] But the control or work with company throughout the fiscal year and transparent expenses. Mr. Chair for me, [xx] the workers compensation living is added to you. What's been taken is the lap salary money, that's generated from the vacant position, remember so anytime there is a vacant position you generate that salary amount for however long that position if they vacant and then in the department of public safety they generated about a 100 million every year in the salary, and there's a section done how that can be used. They can only be used on nonrecurring purposed and OSPM has to sign off on any expenditures for it except for [xx] and personal services. Well what I was looking at is that at personnel. Yes. And this would be a personnel cost. Will there be workers' comp [xx] and how that is being managed. And that's what the Senate is trying to get at, that management of those personal services cost. Workers' comp, overtime, holiday pay, shift premium pay, there's a whole litany of things where the funds are sort of shifted around, where some of the line items are not adequately budgeted even though we know they are going to expend more and workers' comp is the biggest one of those. And that's why the Senate chose to address workers' comp this year and then with the provision that directs OSPM and the agencies is to eliminate vacant positions, they are addressing more of that in the interim. But their focus this year is workers' comp I think because a workers' comp is the biggest problem and because we've expanded it, the state has spent so much money on workers' comp. I think what they are thinking is that if it is fully funded, if it is adequately funded then we can look more carefully at how it is payed out and how what the policies are for it. So that's where they are going with that workers' comp item. Representative [xx] follow up. Yes Guise is that all correct, [xx] I need to go back and address a couple of issues that Representative Daughtry mentioned and we were talking

one of the issues regarding workman's comp, also is the fact that we have eight facilities where we have over 43 vacancies. I have some facilities that, we have vacancy rate as much as 26%. These are some of our most dangerous facilities. And also a tribute to the assaults, tributes to the workman's comp claims and other issue that we deal with. Now we within the Department have done some things that we feel are appropriate to help with the workman's comp situation and that now all of our staff coming to work has to pass a physical test what we call core part which Frank tells us whether or not that individual is able to do this type of work so that will help with the curb complains potentially. Also We have mentors now, coaches that work with our new staff to help them as they develop. There's a two year on boarding process where we are working to help them get in a position where they understand the job, where the know the job well with those risks situation extra, so we think those factors as well help us but won't go back and say to you that when you talk about after shifting money from one part to the next and you end the gate where we've got lapshawry here that we can bare pain and take. I want to imagine that there's is many many Adams that are under funded and budget and have been for many many years that we actually pay out of those laps salaries. The laps salaries are generated as result of vacancies and money that accumulate there. We are now working and have changed our hiring processes where we hope to, in the future be able to have [xx] within one week. We're actually working on a pilot project will hiring people within a day, we are going to begin filling this vacancies, it's not going to be money [xx] salary in the future. Somebody is going to have take a strong look at how all of those operating calls that pay from lack salary and this call truth in budgeting and I hope that this committee will embrace that but I think you will see as we fill those positions there is not going to be that big pool of money for like salary. So moving back into the department of justice budget, I believe we were on, we just talked about correcting DNA on arrest. So page 22 and 23, the house version changed the laws of the [xx] collect DNA for all felony arrest currently starting on felonies DNA only collected for certain violent felonies. The senate is studying collection of DNA for all felony around, so the difference in that queue and there was a money item that follows the house version, there is any money in the senate version. So technically the house version is correct Page 25, the house is studying the implementation and the use of body worn cameras by the law enforcement officers. The House also appropriated funds budget, you may recall the floor amendment the House appropriated I think it was wanting to have million dollars non recurring in each year from ending litigation reserve into a reverse and SPM full body worn cameras, so you studied any appropriated funds for it, the Senate did neither of those things. On page 26 this is a Senate only provision that says the private labs that were doing forensic analysis must comply with [xx] requirement that is the federal DNA database and it also says that local law enforcement agencies can not operate private DNA databases. Page 27 is WIlliams item Mr. Chair and I'm going to turn everything else as Williams, so the senate be the WIlliams trial sir. Thank you Mr. Chair, William Charles, with fiscal staff, we're going

to turn down to the administrative office of the courts and the office vintage in defense services out of all provisions of both budgets, there are five NAOC that are agreed to, so strap in. Page 27 is the house only item, consoled dating business card reports. There're two business card reports. They've mostly the same language and tell them that the senate didn't put the senders, there's some slight differences that staff was unaware of, so this need to be reconciled. Pages 28 and 29, the difference here, this is the annual report on criminal report cause waivers to different series on Senate headlines 13 through 17, the Senate added language direction A. O. C to made modifications to it's implication this is an order to comply.  The're still some language here I hear about listing the judge is so far unable to compile with, but this language changed that, pages 30 and 31 as was DPS and DOJ this allows AOTCU funds 1.5 million for match but the Senate nominated to the first fiscal year of the up coming Biennium. Pages 32 and 33, this is the collection of worthless cheque funds the Senate added language making this effective at the end of the fiscal year, yesterday in fact, so you've to reconcile that. Page 34 this is a house only, item [xx] the house project came out this has already been quantified. and this is unnecessary. That means we don't need this in this report? Yes ma'am, I think that one doesn't need to get forward. Thank you. It's already in statutes. Pages 35 and 36, this deals with funds that you've already given the conference of District Attorneys and the Senate added language that's on line 11 on page 36 that allows this money to be used for other purposes besides other practicality providers. Practicality is not much drawn to you. Okay pages 37 and 38 are virtually identical, there's a tiny technical change that that would cause you to side long if I explained it to you, but if you're interested I can go into pages 39 through 43 the senate version to the house version has a section A1, A2 and section B, the senate added language to some page 42 starting on line 30, they added new section B and new section C and move the house section B down section D, this direct AAC and the district attorney officer when there is a vacancy to move a position from one that is overstaffed according to the workload formula to a district that is understaffed according to the workload formula. I've got a question about that. Yes sir. That's kind of like the tax package if somebody sneak me the needs of aid taken of some money given to another person and seems to me the better approach could be add the A to the place that really needed rather than taking one For the purpose of another, I'm sure of that, just probably fair to do it that way [xx] That is something that you have to consider as you go forward Sir. I just wanted to say, let me go. That was a punch Page 40, sorry. Excuse me, [xx] Nelson that we have done that with Clerk, and I think it's the work of when we don't have the appropriations to fund other provisions. Well the truth is with 75 the system DH's short, and that's alot and then you try to cope with it by moving some around all that is better, I would think to fund the

DH assistance DH rather than driving some other way to make those. There is a way to accommodate when we're in dire state. Which we are. Yeah, the best case scenario would be to fund It would be $8 million recurring to fully fund the ADAs called for in the workload formula. Okay, page 44, this is a House-only provision, amending the Certificate of Relief and adding a fee. Okay, page 45 and 46, this are virtually identical the senate added some effective language and the section B, this language mainly need little bit of twinging[sp?] as we go forward. Page 47 and 48 are the health[sp?] in the senate basically at the opposite and dealing with the full report so the house repeals this provision that limited the court reporters per page compensation. When they produce transcripts, the state pays them for these trans clubs on top of the salary and 2013 they eliminated the amount of the prepaid compensation so upper will listen to the previous Belinium so in page 47 the House got rid of that provision and said group is compensation debate up to where is the 2000 and went to 13 millennium. The senate on page 48 repeated the provision so maintain perfect compensation where it is. So that is another thing that you will all have to decide your own forward Page 49 and 50, the difference there is that on 131 on the house version, this is not any language but this one is surprise such that the director of ARC, this is meeting IDS as the Independent Commission under ARC on 31 directed the AUC couldn't reduce or modify the budget. On the senate version, the language says that AUC shouldn't modify the budget I think the reduce language in there was providing some confusion out there and the Senate wanted to clarify that by just saying, "Don't change it. " Thank you sir, what's the clarification sir? The clarification is that reducing modifier are kind of redundant terms[sp?] I can't modify it, and I can't reduce and I can't increase it, so by throwing reduce in there was making modify seem like it was not as final as it should be, does that make sense? AOC was asking what does this mean that we can increase the budget does it mean that we can change the budget and the senate came back and said no, it can't change the budget at all, cannot modify it, so modifier is the operative term here by including another word in there made it sound like modifier was not as final as it should be [xx] Yes sir, that is where the sender was going for permission from the sender, from the [xx] you're going to study future of IDS [xx] the next two provisions, 51 and 52 the house directs set the legislative research committee to study the future of IDS and the [xx] commission, the senate on page 52 turned that into a JPS oversight committee study, so it would be handled by JPS service side in the senate language, it would on ORC in the [xx] language Okay, page 53, this is senate only provision this follows money in the senate budget that abolishes three special superior court judgeship's at the end of the term of the current occupant. Page 54, yesterday we talked about the difference in the house and the senate money item dealing with AOC technology. The house funded AOC's technology request at I think it was 11.6 million non recurring and 300, 000 recurring in the upcoming fiscal year. The senate gave AOC 567, 000 none recurring in the upcoming fiscal year and this provision in directing AOC to establish a strategic plan about

their IT request going forward and report on that There's minimal amount of money, there's 500, 000 560, 000. It's for the E-compliance project. Well that depends on page 55, this is a provision that is amending child custody laws. For those of you who are freshmen. page 55 is a provision of the senate that is totally policy. It has to do with who get [xx] the child also has language of [xx] and  it sounds  like it's a very good language [xx] this was as part that as a bill and it came to the house and the domestic lawyer section of the bar found that to be objectionable so they [xx] headed in her committee and she was not in favor, she wanted to hear the bill but because the bar have some issue with it it was one of hers, so it wound up in our budget, but this is the kind of thing we haven't debated, in whether it's good or bad it in the budget doesn't have any money to end it all just policy is that right? But there is no money to deserve here being a human services? I don't want to answer yes or no. I would think that it should be human services probably social services, I don't think the agencies that handled [xx] services program it is hasday[sp?] was the court hen they heard this hearing about who should get cross to children you know most of times they are horrible cases because everybody is so emotionally charged and it is true in many cases the mother gets custody of the child has been going on for a long time and this it should be equally, but the way the court decides previous custody it is on the best interest of the child rather than the para-rage and the language here I don't know what is wrong with it should be heard before a chair committee to make sure that everybody understands it, and everybody is on board with it. Right now we're just looking at it and we're not a J[sp?] committee that's why I don't like policy in the budget, it doesn't belong in a budget. I agree with the with the gentleman again, it's based on my knowledge, it would be relative to the department of help for human services it is the child it would be child custody they're geered and help the same programmme in place arrest or shorting them from a place to address this kind of issue if it was a juvenile detention or juvenile the requine type of a problem it may have some relevance, but as it is, is totally, totally inappropriate for it to be where it is nothing. We all witnessed, this is the same bill that came through J2, isn't it? Directed shared custody. Right, but it doesn't have that in here where the bill had to direct share in custody accepting cases where there was good reason not to. So I don't know whether this is good or not, I'm  not here to say I'm forward or against it, I don't know. We did pass it out of J2 though, but it never got any further than that, did it? No. Not that I'm worried time should be noted thanks that's all for now [xx] I encourage you [xx] committee members provide state stamp on the [xx] concerns of what you see in the provisions Are the others like this? Well, we shall see We shall see.

I think in a whole budget there are other, Other in this section In this section there's nothing that is exactly like that. There's one like that in the department of public safety budget provision on, the security issues, the public records for executive protection and prison security, that is not related to anything in the budget. Can we make to identify them, pull them out. If that how the house choose to move forward or accomplish to move forward, but that one is strictly policy Okay, turn into page 56. This is a provision, senate only provision for modifying the use of the coded Information Technology Fund, even this allows either CDE is the span for data connectivity as well as telecommunications, there is a technical change that does need to be made I think as going forward, if you all choose to continue with this provision. 57 this is dealing with remote access to court record it's clarifying who is responsible for the remote access currently the director of ANC is responsible for electronic record under the control of the clerks this kind clarify where the chains of responsibility goes this is the senate only provision another thing for you consider. Page 58 start agency of defense services, section 18 B. 1 this is very technical different, you may not even been able to noticed it and that is probably true, so the senate side is correct, page 60 and 61, this is again the match for grants, the senate limited it to the first fiscal year, page 62 and 63 the Senate added language making this report on [xx] commission system effective on June 30th because of the money involved, page 64 and 65 this is the language dealing with the automated kiosk [xx] the house directed IDS to study this, the Senate directed ASC in conjunction with IDS and the Sheriffs' Association to study [xx] so and then page 66 this is a Senate only provision directing JPS oversight to study fee schedules for use by IDS and that concludes the four sections of the [xx] document house version is correct. I'd like to have the public comment. I'd like to say one thing, I move we're adjourn. Thank you we're adjourned. The members if you'll just watch out for your emails we'll let you know when the next meeting will take place.