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 | June 15, 2016 | Chamber | House Judiciary

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Let me again call us to order this morning we got three bills to run through in J4 today and I'm hopeful that I'm actually here for this regional bill, it's going to be a smooth committee [INAUDIBLE] today so let's see how my hopes go. Let me thank, as always, our house sergeant-at-arms, please raise your hand, David Latin, Mushbury and J. Austin and then we've got pages, I'm not sure we've got pages in the back. If you guys would stand up. Like you Davis, Jesse Freehart, hally Hetchinson, Jake Messenger and Dilinwen/g said, thank you guys as always for helping. >> What's on the other channel? >> Okay, I just wanted to make sure that you're doing the math here,when we went through the votes here today. We got house bill 1044 [INAUDIBLE] this bill, a boundary bill and protects [INAUDIBLE] school boards and it's coming over from the senate and with that our house bill, is it a PCS? [BLANK_AUDIO] a motion to have the house bill 1044 brought forth by Representative Warren, thank you for that. With that, I think I will have Representative Hagar up to [INAUDIBLE] the bill for us. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I want to thank my great caucus leaders over their Director Lindsay for putting this together, it's a lot of detail and Mr. Chairman, if I still can I'd like to have staff explain the bill, go through the details >> [INAUDIBLE] Legislative analysis. I'll go over the bill somewhat section by section so [INAUDIBLE] What's going on the bill itself the change from the PCS in the first edition to the PCS. >> Can you speak up just a little bit I think we are having some problem hearing in the back, actually why don't you come to the mic [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] So changes from the personation to the PCS for simply removing certain sections from the first edition. Such as 2, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 and in your PCS the only editions from the first edition are section 7 and 8 in your current in your current PCS. Section 1 deals with what is called the blue alert system and deals with the aid of Of apprehension of suspects who have killed or have seriously afflicted injury on law enforcement officers. So North Carolina would create a blue alert system. Section 2 deals with firearms, or weapons that were used in crimes and basically deals with certain ways of disposing or confiscated weapons and what to do with them. One option is simply to order the weapons to be turned over to a law enforcement agency for use, or traded, sold to a federal firearms dealer by a written request of the Head of Chief of the law enforcement agency. The only change here would allow the designee of the Hendrix/g chief of the law enforcement agency to also make that written request. Section three deals with the changes to the silver alert system. And originally it just allowed for silver alert system alert for individuals who suffered from dementia or other cognitive impairments.

It changes the definition to individuals with dementia, Alzheimers disease or a disability that requires the individual basically be protected from others from harm. Section four deals with DMV and their ability to refuse registration or transfer of titles to individuals who when the DMV has notified the State Highway Patrol that the owner of the vehicle has failed to pay civil penalties and fees incurred with size restrictions, weight restrictions on the highway. And section five deals with the change of definition of emergency under the North Carolina Emergency management. Act including various additions including terrorism, radiological accidents, hazardous materials incidents etc. Section seven deals with the ability of entities to charge a fee. Normally you have to go through the General Assembly fee to charge a fee as an agency or increase the fee, this would exempt the state highway patrol to provide at a fee to reimburse salaries, travel, other expenses for providing traffic control at certain events. Section eight includes it details with career state employees. This simply includes forensic scientists as those who must be employed for 24 consecutive months before they can achieve what's considered career state employee status. Section nine will deal with appropriations and simply appropriates $8,675,924 from the general fund to the state bureau of investigations to replace air crafts and provide equipment for protection. And lastly deals with the effective dates section nine of the house bill will come into effect on July 1st, section nine dealing with the appropriations. Section four will become effective as of October 1st 2016. And section four is the DMV. And lastly the remainder of the act will become effective once it becomes law. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Representative Hager further comments. >> No sir I thought that was an excellent job. Thank you gentlemen. Mr. Chairman [INAUDIBLE] questions. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> All right. The Representative Torbett [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Would staff or the Representative so they are just going to a little bit of deeper detail. [INAUDIBLE] >> Not know what that actually would do or what problem and effect that would have. >> Mr. Chairman I think we have somebody in the audience that would probably like to speak to that either Colonel Grey Highway Patrol or Mr. Kolms/g would be good to speak to that either one. That so pleases Chairman. ->> Yes. >> There's a mic in the back if you would just state your name. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Bill Grey with the highway patrol. Good morning everybody. Everybody. >> I'm sorry can you clarify the question for me? >> I cant under section 5 number 6 hen he goes off to explain emergency I guess my ask is what are you providing for under section 6 and so you added or someone has added like [INAUDIBLE] public health that please? >> I'm gonna refer that to Ryan Combs please. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> [LAUGH] >> Ryan Combs, I'm the legislative director for department Public safety. This is simply [INAUDIBLE] project management has been asking for this for a couple of years. All it is is the emergency definition has not been updated since the 1980s and all this does it allow us to respond to man made disasters or like Zika virus. Respond to those type of emergencies. She's just asking Asking for more clarification. >> Follow up Representative [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you sir. That's what I was thinking it would be but I have to ask this. Are you saying that today that you haven't had that authority? >> It's just a debate with the lawyers on what we need for the definition to say so we can respond on those types of emergencies. >> [INAUDIBLE] Thank you. >> Representative Fletcher. >> At an appropriate time I'd like to make a motion to [INAUDIBLE] Report. >> Thank you Representative [INAUDIBLE] Here. >> Thank you. My question is regarding not amending the registration of the liquid fee. It is my understanding that we are legal in some cases when the person who owns the vehicle would change the name and then when they felt the vehicle was due for a new registration If they owned money depending on the old name if they don't have

to pay or didn't pay and there was no way to collect it at that time. >> The way I understand, that is exactly true. To get out of excessive fees there charge or penalties, there charge, all they do is change there there little fee name, transfer there vehicle vehicle to there little new fee name and therefore they don't want have to pay, they are not subject to these fees or charges any more, this that, basically the fees, if it's in the same ownership name of even those in LLC, these fees and penalties will follow that. >> Okay. Follow up. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. I guess I was just thinking that the registration is done with follow up. The person rather than if they remain might flight. I guess if your selling your house or settling somewhere else, if you owe on it, if you have Deliquesce fees or whatever then, some kind of way fees, that property can't be sold unless you pay those fees before that can happen. >> Representative I think this is clarifies this issue just to make sure that can't happen and move it to a third party, try to move it out of that fee or that penalty area that clarifies that issue that if it does transfer the fees the penalties do follow that. >> Okay. >> Further follow up Dickson. >> No, I may think I'm may have another question. >> Okay, let me get Representative Hamilton to come back. Representative Hamilton. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's actually on the same subject. I'm just kinda curious If I've touched on this a little, what's types of civil penalties are we really talking about here? >> Promise to be a good one answered, Ryan, are they - >> Parking tickets with it. >> Yeah. >> [LAUGH] >> Representative Hamilton is a separate mention in that cafe there and then there she's like [CROSSTALK] Highway patrol. Mostly those are overweight fees or out of service fees that have gone unpaid, so they're aligned against them pretty much against the company so they'll change the name of the company [INAUDIBLE] and then they don't pay the fine, they can keep a tag, because they won't renew the tag with the rings on it. Now, so they've the name to drip way with the little loop holes there. >> Oh up to- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> So, if that could raise, this is really more than commercial, and better than. >> Yes. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah [LAUGH] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah. >> Question in relation to the [BLANK_AUDIO] being made [INAUDIBLE] to pay highway patrol, or do this outside of,and its a regular duty, in events, that kind of thing. And I'm just wondering The US Oakland [INAUDIBLE] they took her there, the policemen. If this is what we're asking [INAUDIBLE] will be paid or reimbursed or will pay the state for the use of those [INAUDIBLE] during something like that because that is not a state sponsored [INAUDIBLE] >> Representative Hagar. >> Thank you, and I'll answer that question in detail and I'm sure Colonel Gray may have some say in this also. Presently right now we pay over a million dollars, the state does to have this events like Coca Cola 600 and those things and you got local law enforcement such as the speedway events where you have several Mecklenburg policemen ride beside or making time in a half and we have our state program being paid by the state making regular time and then they get cop time off, so it hurts the force we're down a number of Full of jobs right now in the highway patrol and this really allows us to use us folks and what we need in protection of our Citizens and if they do work they are getting paid by the entities which is the so called 600, the Gulf of Incher, all the events you were talking about. All those events like that. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Any further comments Hearing none, I'll take a motion from Representative Setzer. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> You heard the motion, all those in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? It's a favorable report, thank you Representative Hager. Senate bill 575, Rep Davis >> we guarantee the [INAUDIBLE] change up on our boundary. >> Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing the [INAUDIBLE] and committee members thank you for being here. As well as you know, back in the [INAUDIBLE] days when boundaries

used to drawn, when the [INAUDIBLE] doing their work, they might just do a collection by the stars, they might markings on trees, they may refer to stems when they refer to rivers they may refer to streams. Over the years, those streams might widen, they might shrink, they might meander, walls can get built, destroyed, trees can rot, also be destroyed. So this is what happened between North and South Carolina concerning the boundery line that consists of 334 miles. And it was determined to be that there were certain locations in North Carolina that thought they were really in South Carolina. And there were places in South Carolina that really thought they were in North Carolina. So what the two states agreed to do was to use Modern technology to find out where that boundary was and it was done. Actually government did a good thing for once. And rather than implement those new boundary laws, because they knew people that it impacted, the decision was made for a North Carolina South Carolina Boundary Commission to be established so they could study the impacts that might be held upon individuals as well as businesses. I'll tell you that there are 173 potentially impacted land owners who are contacted during this study to ask for their comments, and at the time that this was being done, soon as [INAUDIBLE] Tucker was appointed by the governor to the commission. And I was appointed as a house representative by the governor to that commission. So what we were tasked with doing, was to listen and study those impacts to see what we could do to try to help those people that would be impacted. For instance the boundary line went through 54 homes, and businesses. The boundary line affected 16 homes in South Carolina and the remainder in North Carolina. They were actually homes that were not only located in a different state but also split, the line went through the middle or a third of a house. Which raised an instant question about what state would you determine that house would live in and we used an old legal [INAUDIBLE] where the master bedroom was located. One of the most significant impacts affecting the business in South Carolina that sells gas, beer and our firecrackers. And they are now gonna be in North Carolina. It affected their ability to sell those things. And what they could sell [UNKNOWN] the price so the solution there was to allow that business even if it's in North Carolina to keep the Grandfather and allow to continue that as long as the property remained in the owners ownership. If the owner transfer it then that Grandfather clause would be eliminated. So I'm just trying to give you an idea of a lot of work that was done by this commission. To resolve these issue. It has come time to implement all what has been done. I will tell you that South Carolina waited until North Carolina did their bill first. Senator Tucker and I filed companion bills. Senator Tucker followed up with 30 meetings that I could not attend. So I thought it was fair that Senator Tucker's Bill be PCS and brought over in my Bill which is stay/g in rules which was done. South Carolina has passed their companion Bill both in the House and Senate has been signed in law by the Governor and they are waiting for us to do the same. I'll tell you this went through all the Senate committees, past the Senate Floor, we've heard it rules favorable report, heard it in finance favorable report and we are now here before you and Mr. Chairman I'll answer any questions at your discretion. >> Got a couple of questions Representative Hager. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> All Right. >> Representative Warren. Any further discussion. All right. Representative Hager will take your motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move for favorable for senate Bill for 575. >> All right , you have heard the motion. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed. The aye's have it, we have passed the vote congratulation. [LAUGH] >> All right, our last Bill of the day, we have, this is a PCS going to have a The motion to have senate bill 867 PCS, [INAUDIBLE] Representative Warren thank you for that mission. We've got Senate Barefoot here from the senate to present the bill

to us. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. [BLANK_AUDIO] In February of this year, USA TODAY published a report rating the teacher's schooling system for all 50 states. North Carolina received an F. How I heard about the story of the teachers Teacher in Charlotte, his teaching licence was pulled in Georgia after exchanging sexual text messages with a high school student and being accused of assaulting two other students, his teaching licence had also been pulled in South Carolina. The states that received the highest marks on USA today's report had one single common Many characteristics. A state world requirement, for the state to convert senior plan, criminal background checks, for future applicants. In response, the State Board of Education suggested pursuing legislative changes to give the board authorization to conduct different checks. This proposal was also presented to the board, at their work station in Wellington and [INAUDIBLE]. And to the house committee on education strategy and practices. Current teacher licensing laws requires worker boards of education to have that background check policies. The same board of education panel was at Work on criminal background policies for employees varying from district to district. And that finger print criminal background checks were not conducted by the state, prior issuing a licence. This bill directs the state board of education require all applicants for teacher licensure who have not been previously being licensed in the state or applicants for licence renewal who have not being previously checked for criminal history to be To be checked for a criminal history using fingerprints in state and national criminal repositories. This bill also directs local boards of education, regional schools boards of directors, and charter school boards of directors to require applicants for school personnel physicians to be checked for a criminal history. And if the Chair wishes, staff can walk through the bill and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Let me ask members. Members, is there a request for staff to run through the bill? No. >> No request okay Representative Warren? >> Just to be recognized for a motion at the appropriate time sir. >> All right, Representative Richardson. >> I have one question [INAUDIBLE] of the bill and it's line [BLANK_AUDIO] 935 here says the board of [INAUDIBLE] Refusing to consent with major employment decisions and decision with that regard to contractors. I just want to reply if I didn't consent with you do not automatically disqualify me before that decision this day and may consider it but it doesn't so I made consent not to Due to background check of the way I read it it still implores to still consider me with the job and I'm just wondering I'm I reading that correctly or cuz to me if I refuse to give my consent they have a background check then I should not be considered for the job but this reads that you may consider that person That person for the job anyway. The way I'm reading it and maybe I'm reading it wrongly. >> Representative Barefoot, her staff [INAUDIBLE] >> Cara did you hear that question? Okay. >> I'll deffer the staff on that. >> Carmel College made an analysis decision. That is actually a board of education policy has been that way in the statutes since 1995. I agree with you it is [INAUDIBLE] does not absolutely forbid them. I do not know why it was drafted that way in 1995, but I'd suspect it might be to allow some discretion to the board for unusual circumstances where someone might have additional explanation. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Adams. >> Yes. This sounds similar cuz background checks might be used [INAUDIBLE] purposes would this integrate with the national background check system and nick/g system with that be consideration? >> This is different because it's FBI criminal background check [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] >> That would be more likely background check for a

considerable period [INAUDIBLE] from a professional licensing board to [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] >> If I can comment on the FBI's involvement. They need this statutory language to be able to work with our SBI to deliver this service to the state. That's why the bill was needed. >> Rep Hager. > I was just wondering who is gonna pay for these background checks? >> So the way the bill is drafted is, at the district level or the state board, they are given the ability to charge that fee to the applicant or they can decide to pay it for the applicant. It's up to them and in their discretion The discretion. >> Representative Hanger. >> Thank you, [INAUDIBLE] today >> No >> [LAUGH] >> And we look on to each other's lane. Couple questions here, number one is with what purpose Richard is bringing up on the take that Michele, take that to where is more definitive, is that a problem The problem if we do that there may be staff who wanna do that. >> If you wanna prepare an amendment for the floor, I'd be totally acceptable to that and I think it was a good catch by Representative Richardson. I think as we go through this process, most of the questions that have come up is not regarding what we're trying to do but actually the old law and I think that's one of the reasons Reasons why North Carolina got dinged so bad. So if you guys wanna come up with the amendment for the floor, I'd be totally open to that. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman do we know who's gonna carry this on the floor? >> We don't but this has at least one further discovery committee so in fact we might either finance or House ED, we might wanna amendment there so that maybe we can follow up on that? >> [UNKNOWN] >> [INAUDIBLE] we had some folks that came up from Georgia and talked to us about how they did theirs. Two questions, one they were talking about accessing information at some sort of national level but I take it was different than the FBI. Which relates to my second question, this seems to address criminal records. What about the record of [INAUDIBLE] for the sake of argument the school district agree to accept their resignation rather than to go to court and have some sort of litigation [INAUDIBLE] that would make that [INAUDIBLE] have in the classroom. Do we have an alternative way short of a criminal record of one school system in North Carolina learning that information or another. >> We can both take crack on that. So there are a lot of recommendations made to the state regarding, and when I say the state not necessarily the legislature, to the department of public instruction, to the state board regarding how they could do a better job of vetting our teachers and school personnel. One of those recommendations was to be part of the national repository that's new, that's building where schools and systems are starting to upload the data exactly like what you're talking about regarding whether someone's license has been revoked in another state but maybe they don't have a criminal history and all that stuff is brand new. Staff can correct me on this. But we are currently piloting that in Charlotte Mecklenburg? >> I don't know if Charlotte Mecklenburg, I know that they were [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. >> But they're not fully providing all the information. >> Is that the same system that Georgia [INAUDIBLE] >> It's the national association for sate director for future/g education and verification/g clearance [INAUDIBLE]. >> That's right. And I think that is the goal, this is the Bill that is needed for the criminal history search from the federal level. But there's a whole lot more that the State Board of Education and Department of public instruction can do towards kinda [INAUDIBLE] these things up and hope is they will. >> Comment. >> I just wanted to say amen to that and encourage Senator Barefoot or others that are interested to follow up on it.

I understood that they were saying that they had some sort of technology problem in being able to communicate with this new magical repository. Georgia is doing it as I understand it. And it is more of a repository of adverse actions taken against someone education saving and I think we needed not stop but and continue to work on. >> Any further comments? Hearing none, Representative Warren formation for the PCS and referral to finance? >> I personally refer Representative Hager to page three lines one through five, that answers your earlier question about the compensation for the case. I would like to make a proposal, a motion for a report to the PCS for Senate Bill 867 unfavorable to the original. >> I think you all heard the mention all those in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries, thank you Senator Barefoot, and we're adjourned for today. Thank you all. [BLANK_AUDIO]