There’s really no reason we should be going into this on this floor, but it’s here and people ought to have a right and the public ought to have a right to know why it’s here. Number one what it does is two things. We’ve set up in this state the Judicial Standards Commission to review misconduct or alleged misconduct by all of our judges, and it has functioned very well. And the rules of the Judicial Standards Commission, partially the commission being setup by the legislature, but the rules have been setup by the courts themselves, and the people who passed on these rules including the amended rules in 2006 or 7 were unanimously, unanimously. All of the present at the time Court of Appeals and Supreme Court justices, all of them voted for these rules. The rules provide one option to the commission, and it’s a good one and mirrors what we do here, which is sometimes judges have made errors. But they don’t need to be dragged through the mud in public. Much as sometimes we may make errors and our Ethics Commission, Ethics Committee has the opportunity to talk with members and issue a private reprimand as opposed to ordering a full hearing in public for censure or otherwise, and so judicial standards uses that and has reprimanded privately a number of judges over the years. Judge has to consent to that. If they want a full hearing they get a full hearing in public, but if they don’t it is resolved that way. This removes the power of the Judicial Standards Commission to issue a public reprimand. Still private concept exists, but the public reprimand would be the next step up where the judge says I don’t want a hearing. I don’t want to go through everything. I accept the discipline. Make note of it in public, and let’s move on. That even serves the public interest because now the public knows there’s been an issue with the judge, but it’s been resolved. As disciplines occur, the remedy is there. Let’s move on and the public of the next election cycle can take that into account. This removes the power of judicial standards to make that negotiation and do that, and instead it sends it on. That makes no sense, and every justice and judge voted for the standard that exists. I received the date that this was tacked on to Representative Stevens and my bill, our bill, the House Bill, in the Senate without notice to anyone. From Chief Judge Marin on the Court of Appeals, and from Chief Justice Parker of the Supreme Court, both of whom sent letters. Chief Judge Martin’s a long letter because he heads review of this standards commission, vehemently opposing this bill and provisions which have never come out of any discussion of the court, never come out of any discussion of judicial standards, and there has been no discussion as we know in any committee including the judiciary committee over here on this. And yet we’re proposing to change in this bill. Again a bill that the Senate defeated two nights ago. This commission, standards. The second part of the bill is even more scurrilous. Here, the justices had agreed several years ago that it didn’t make sense for an appearance of propriety. Also given the experience of what happened recently a couple of years ago at the Wisconsin Supreme Court nor based on some recent United States Supreme Court decisions that if there was a question about ethics or criminality on the part of a Supreme Court justice that the Supreme Court Justice colleagues themselves would have to vote on that. And that instead it made sense that the six senior Court of Appeals judges which are a mix of both parties would sit and review what happened. Now mind you there has never been a discipline by this group of any sitting Supreme Court justice. So there was no issue about or concerns about what had happened in a previous case. There were no issues of someone raising a concern about what they’d voted on because as I said the Court has never discussed this. They all had voted for the process a few years ago, and all of a sudden this emerges. If you want we can
today, I'm sorry it hadn't been to a committee over here. Just for example, Representative Daughtry, we got an excellent amendment that Representative Daughtry proposed yesterday. The Senate passed it although it had never been to a Senate committee. This is what you do on the last day. I ask you to oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman, we are on the motion to re-refer Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, let's be clear about what this motion is. The motion's not to table the bill, it's not to kill it. It's just to make sure that it goes to a judiciary committee. A committee made up of folks that are used to, and, in fact, have as their mission, to deal with exactly this sort of issue. There's no urgency to do this on the last day of session. Or at least no urgency that I'm aware of. So let's send it to the committee that we have set up, that we've established in our rules to consider and deal with this sort of issue to ensure we in the House do rubber stamp what the Senate sends over to us in the waning hours of session. I think Representative Daughtry, the gentleman from Johnston has made an excellent point about what we need to do. While I agree with Representative Stam's points about the ability of the House of Representatives in the legislative branch to deal with its own members, we're talking about a completely distinct branch of government - Judicial branch. They need to have, being a different branch of government with a different mission, a different way of dealing with things. For those of you who were here for the Thomas Wright matter, you'll remember that once it got past a certain point out of our legislative ethics commission, it was a completely open and transparent process. Meaning that even as we, the House, discipline one of our own members, it was open for all the people of North Carolina to see. The process that this bill here would set up in the Judicial branch is the exact opposite of that. The bulk of it would be behind closed doors. Not subject to the scrutiny of the people of North Carolina. It's not a direction that I think we need to go in, but if we do need to go in that very dangerous direction, again, it needs to go to a committee of the House set up to deal with exactly this sort of matter. So I agree with Representative Daughtry that we need to support this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To ask Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. What concerns me is the fact that we've got all of our courts who are not in favor of this. It's basically been said we've gotten letters and I understand that everywhere along the line there is bi-partisan... [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is not the case of these two Justice - Chief Justice Parker's opposed, Chief Judge Martin's opposed, who chairs the judicial standards commission, but it is not true that a majority of the Supreme Court is opposed to this. A majority of the Supreme Court is in favor of this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stam will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are going to be several, I apologize. Representative Stam, you agree with me that there was a long letter received from Chief Judge Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I haven't seen it, but I hear you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And from Chief Justice Parker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? but I hear you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You yield? My second question is, has there been any information given to you that the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals have met as a court, discussed this bill, and in any way, in any way, given its support to this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not that they've met as a court for that purpose. Or for the contrary purpose. I understand there's two letters from two Judicial officials that you have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And third. Do you have any letter? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] From any Judge or Justice in support of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as one of the co-chairs of judiciary committee, I would recommend we vote no on this motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, member, this is the last day of session. Please understand if you vote for this motion, you vote to kill...
this bill at this point. My understanding is four justices on the State Supreme Court want this to pass. I believe Justice Newby and Justice Martin support it, Mr. Starling was confirming that, he talked with them. Members, I would ask for you all to vote no at this point on the motion to re-refer the bill. It's here on the calendar and I want to correct one bit of information. This bill did not fail in the Senate. The first vote did, but then they reconsidered it. We do that occasionally. We had a bill the other day, a conference report that we reconsidered. That came out, came in and it passed. I don't remember what the final number was, I think it may have been a party line vote with Republicans voting for it and Democrats voting against it. Regardless, this bill is here on the last day of session. It would seem to be the courteous thing to do to not send it back to the committee to kill it, but to go ahead and act on it. Again, my understanding gives a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court have asked for this bill. I would ask you to vote no on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, upon the motion the gentleman from Caldwell County, Representative Starnes, I'm sure is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Debrorah Ashley and the Caldwell County Leadership group. They're over here to my left in the blue shirts. Please stand and let us welcome you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the rules committee chair yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Speaker and thank you Representative Moore. Representative Moore we passed our adjournment resolution in the wee hours last night and I've been barely awake for a couple hours. Does it contain a provision that has this body returning to session next year? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does. And if the gentlemen is getting at would the bill be eligible next year, the answer is yes. But it would purposes, for this long session, kill the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, would the gentlemen yield to a follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield to all questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields to all question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Perhaps he and I have a different understanding of the words kill and death. Would he agree that the bill would be alive and eligible for consideration and passage in the short session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, would you like to redirect to Representative Bells? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, he is the expert on death. We do have an undertaker on the floor who can answer questions about death... [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? my jobs bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah exactly. Well, Representative Martin, we've seen a lot of bills rise from the dead and bills we thought were doing great suddenly find themselves on life support so we can argue the semantics of that all day long. I think that we would agree that if we don't act on it today for the purposes of long session, it would not be passed. Whether we call it dead, alive, whatever, I think we can at least agree procedurally where it would be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, what we have to look at with this bill we have in front of us is the underlying policy. I agree. I wish we had the time to send the bill to the committee to have a thorough hearing. Representative Daughtry is right, it has not been through the House Judiciary Committee, but we just received the bill late last night and the Senate has gone home. What would happen if this bill went to the Judiciary Committee. The members of that committee would examine the bill very thoroughly. They would look at it from top to bottom and in the end, they would come to the conclusion that this is a good bill just exactly the way its written. They would send it back to the floor and we would have it in its exact same form right now today. Yes, it should have gone to the J committee, but we didn't have the time. What we have in front of us is a bill that is good. I urge every member to please support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, should this motion pass, it is intended the chair have a judiciary committee today before we leave. Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the majority leader's ability to forecast the future of the judiciary committee and the actions they would take. I think the record probably show that most bills that have come through have, in fact, been improved through the process of examination and especially one like this. This is a policy change. It's something we don't have to do today. If we had adjourned last night, I doubt this bill would have been reached. We know that....
actual need for it before the short session does not exist. Again, I'd ask that we respect the institution we have, respect the process we have. This, again, is a matter that can wait. There's been no public outcry for it. There's been no example shown where there's a need for us to make this change. As a matter of fact, the folks involved at the highest levels have said in the past, this is the way they wanted to continue to do business. It has served the public well up to this point. Again, we don't have any instance where someone can show that there is a need for this bill to come forward or where the authority had been misused that we currently have. So I ask that you support the motion to re-refer. And even in that event that we give it a real hearing when we have in Judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, as interested in the discussion earlier on about Thomas Wright. I was the chairman of that committee to impeach a member of my own party and I sat through that and I did my duty. And thought he did the right thing. I don't want to have any lectures from the minority speaker pro tem about Thomas Write or making comparisons. That was the worst couple of months of our lives in this public service. There is a distinction. Number one, we set up the rules for how we governed our own misconduct. We are not giving the Judiciary the same consideration. Their body voted unanimously several years ago for these rules. They have never met to reconsider these rules. The Courts have never met to reconsider these rules. There has never been a problem that has been bought to the public or this body about anything happening with these rules. This is a pure matter of ethics and credibility of this institution. You can vote the politics of it if you choose. Or we can join together and say there is a time and a place and you can not set up the strawman, well it's late in the session and the bill came over and we don't have a choice, when that was the whole purpose, that it came over late in the session. This is a bill about the integrity of the Judicial system of the state of North Carolina. We owe a higher obligation to ourselves and our state than the politics of our party, either of us. I can speak from great experience there... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I'm going to be late getting home to let my dog out to use the bathroom so I might as well ask this question now. Would you clarify which Martin you were discussing when you said they opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chief Judge Martin of the Court of Appeals was the one that wrote the letter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The first name of that Judge Martin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chief Judge Martin of the Court of Appeals sent us the letter opposing and then Chief Justice Parker of the Supreme Court sent us a letter opposing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The first name of the Judge Martin that you referred to please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it's John. It's Chief Judge Martin of the Court of Appeals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. And not Mart Martin. Mart Martin's on the Supreme Court. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I understand that. Just wanted to make sure there's no confusion with the body which Martin you're discussing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am. I go back to my point. This bill, whether there is merit or not, it can be decided after a study by all of us and after we hear from the Court, the Judicial Standards Commission that we're getting ready to change and the Bar Association. I cannot, for any understanding, understand why we would want to do this today. I would urge adoption of the motion before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the motion to re-refer the Senate committee substitute to House Bill 652 to Judiciary Subcommittee B. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.
vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 45 having voted in the affirmative and 56 in the negative, the motion fails. We are now back on the main motion. The motion to concur. Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, down on lines 13, I think it's the third page in A5. There's some changes in there that make some of the information on the proceedings confidential that in the past were not confidential. I noticed in A6 there's a, it looks there's a provision there that would make information not confidential if a particular action is taken, if I'm interpreting that correctly, but can you - maybe you said it earlier and I just missed it. I'm always curious when we're changing, making things that were not confidential in the past that public had access to and knowledge of and saying we're going to hide that from the public. Can you explain how this is operating differently from what had to do? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. This relates to the public reprimand, not to the other remedies. In the case of a public reprimand, it all becomes no longer confidential, the entire record become not confidential if a public reprimand is issued. But if a public reprimand is not issued, then it remains confidential. We have judges all over the state who are accused of things all the time and a lot of times its because a person, well, they should appeal a ruling a law, but they think it's an ethics question as opposed to a legal question. You want to have some things confidential, just like in our legislative ethics committee, things are confidential up to a point, but then they become public at a certain other point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this mean that as a practical matter, you can have a judge that maybe was five yards off-sides and the folks bring him in and say we're going to give you a private reprimand, you better not do this again. In the past, that might have been available for review, but would not be available now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Representative Dollar. I think for a private reprimand, that's not changed, unless I'm misreading it that it was already confidential and remains confidential for a private reprimand. The change here is for public reprimands. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I realize that this is a tough one, particularly considering the hour and circumstance. The part that I'm still having some difficulty with is information that in the past, was not confidential that is now becoming confidential. In my view, I think we want to have this information continue to be out in the public domain for people to know that they can continue to have the highest confidence in their judges, because judges have tremendous power. I just have some serious concerns about that practical impact of what we're doing despite the assurances. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second and last time on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, for five years I co-chaired the legislative ethics committee. When we were putting in place following several years under a former Speaker of the House who had never let the ethics...
committee meet for a number of years. And we had a lot of things to clean up and we did it with Representative Stam's help actually in a bipartisan way. And the ethics committee I sat on went after far more democrats than it did republicans. And that wasn't easy but it was utterly the right thing to do. And we have a bill here today that's being proffered by several folks and not in this chamber, that is attempting to do the exact reverse. To protect members seeking or in judicial positions, who are republicans, from having their cases heard in an appropriate manner. I don't know whether those cases will turn one way or another. It is irrelevant. But, I know that the process ought to be fair and it ought to be public where it needs to be. It ought to be transparent and we ought not be doing this and everyone of you know it as well. I been asked and I guess I could start naming names and I'm sure the press will ask and I may well answer to the press. But, the dignity of this floor is about the integrity of this process and the bill, not a particular justice and not particular candidate. And so as much as I would want to, I will hold that but I will not hold it later. This bill should be defeated. I had hoped it would be sent to committee where everybody could talk about it, but it's not. This bill should be defeated out of respect, self respect, humility, one or the other or both. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To ask Representative Stam one more question please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Stam, I'm having the same problem that Representative Dollar has because I'm seein in A five, we're goin to, are not confidential, to confidential, but in A six, it becomes not confidential again. So, can you explain what we're dong in A five and then A six? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. And it's, Representative Avila, it's very similar to what we do at the lege, well, I, I formally chair the legislative ethics commission and server with Representative Glazier for many years. At a certain point, even though information is gathered confidentia, confidentially, at a certain point when you take certain action, all that you gathered s no longer confidential and that's on line thirty-three. All the skeletons are there and exposed to the world. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, Stam, because of all the questioning I've been reading through, reading and re-reading and re-reading through that same section, it looks like to me what you're saying, I just want to make sure I understand it, is that, if somebody brings charges and investigation done as so forth and the commission finds that the charges really don't, are not, either are not well founded or the error is not egregious enough to require public reprimand, then it remains a private issue. But if it is large enough to require a public reprimand then obviously the knowledge is public. Is that, is that basically what it's sayin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. And the same thing we do for the member of this House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the motion to concur in Senate committee substitute for House bill six fifty-two. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The floor float from the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. Fifty-two have voted in the affirmative and forty-eight in the negative. The motion to concur has, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I voted, but I never did actually double check to see that the light came on. If I did not vote then I'd like to be recorded as voting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will record his voting, therefore the tally on the monitor is off by one. Fifty-three having voted affirmative, forty-eight in the negative. The House has concurred and the Senate committee... [End]
for House bill 652. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. May I, after further review, may I change my vote on House bill 92 to a "no"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Baskerville, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I be recorded as voting "no" on House bill 92 and 112? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting "no" on both measures. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Same, Mr. Speaker, on House Bill 92 there was a vision problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 74, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives conferees wants to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill 74, a bill to entitle an act to improve and streamline the regulatory process in order to stimulate job creation, to eliminate unneccesary regulation, and make various other statutory changes, the conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives dock this report. Conferrees for the Senate, Sen. Jackson, Chair, Senators Brock, Brown, and Wade. Conferees for the House of Representatives, Rep. Moffitt Chair, Rep. Murray, Millis, and Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, for the remainder of the session, if you don't know how you want to vote I would suggest that you ask that a bill be displaced. The votes as recorded, once the bill leaves the chamber and we are going to allow the change of the votes to 92 and 112, once the bill leaves the chamber the chair will not allow any of the votes to change. So please be mindful of the votes you cast. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'd like to change on 92 to "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is one minute remaining on any vote changes on any bills that have been taken up this morning. Rep. Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I'd like to have my vote on 92 changed from a "no" to an "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, it wasn't 92. 652 sir, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted "aye". Rep. Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, the motion. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the House, I'm gonna keep this short. This bill was bad when it left the House and it just got worse when it came out of the conference committee, I urge you to vote "no". Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 92, no please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will be in recess for five minutes, every member wishing to change their vote on 92 or 112 will approach the clerk and confirm. We'll be back in five minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. Rep. Moore is recognized to state his motion. Rep. Moffitt is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that the House do adopt the conference report for House bill 74, as agreed to at the Senate on its third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Rep. Moffitt would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moffitt, is this the bill that yesterday we discussed at some length and had a lot of issues that came over from the Senate that were not very clear as to what extent we had debated them in the House? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, I think that could be said about a lot of things that have come to us from the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this bill not just have a lot of features in it that in terms of environmental policy are very very risky to our state and that we ought to take more time to consider? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Everything has been through a committee that's in the spill, so I would urge the body's support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Rep. Moffitt a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moffitt, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[0:00:00.0] …I’m told here that the Compliance Boundary Loophole was not discussed in a committee here and just came over from the Senate un-discussed by a committee in this house, can you confirm that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luke that’s on the House Bill 94 portion of the bill that I represented the Senate Bill 112 part of House Bill 74 I would refer that question perhaps Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson does the lady yell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, my question Representative Samuelson is about the process and the fact that when we debated this yesterday there were references to issue in the bill that had not been seen before by house committee and one of them is the Compliance Boundary Loophole and the other were the changes regarding landfills and I’m just like you to confirm if you would that is the case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I won’t confirm it because it’s not exactly the case on the Senate side they had debate there and the committee that would had discussed here would have been the conference committee, the conferee committee did discuss the compliance boundaries on the landfills that was a different section I have prefer that to Representative McElraft that I was involved in conversations on the Compliance Boundary and it was the conference committee and then I explained it and went over it on the floor yesterday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But Representative Samuelson it did not go to a sustentative committee in which the public was present, the media was present etcetera. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not on the house side. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was a house and this is an example of in the 11th hour major changes being made, we heard them reported yesterday but we did not hear clearly reported that at least two major parts of this bill that a landfill changes which could affect your community and then of the Compliance Boundary Loophole that they did not in fact go through a house substantive committee where there could be debate. I think we have talked before about process and these are two major points and we should not move forward to accept the conference report when we have two parts of the bill that have never been discussed by our House Committee and I urge you not to support the conference report, vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion to adopt the conference report for House Bill 74. All in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brown, which lady record aye? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 63 having voted affirmative, 33 in the negative, the motion passes. The house has concurred or house adopted the conference report for House Bill 74, the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor by special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Rodney Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker I was driving late tonight got here in time for the vote but I wanna be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will record his vote no. Senate Bill 553, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President and Senate, the Speaker of the house representative and conferees appoint to saw the difference between senate and the house representatives on the Senate Bill 553: A bill to be entitled an act to establish grievance and appeal procedures for local management entity/managed care organization (LME/MCO) Medicaid enrollees. The conferees recommend the senate and the house representatives to adopt this report, conferees with the senate, Senator ___[04:07] Chair, Senator ___[04:08], conferees with the house representatives, Representative Dollar Chair, Representative Burg. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for the motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is to adopt the conference report. This is a happy bill everybody voted for it yesterday, everybody can vote for it today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion to adopt the conference report for Senate Bill 553. All in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Representative Starnes will be recorded as voting aye. Ninety-eight having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House has adopted the conference report for Senate Bill 553. The Senate will be so notified. Senate Bill 317, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives conference report to Resolve Differences between Senate and House of Representatives on Senate Bill 317, a bill to be entitled An Act to Reduce in Size of the Guilford County Board of Education from Eleven to Nine Members, Establish Revised District Guilford County Board of Education Subject to Referendum to Provide for Partisan Elections for that Board, in District Stanley County Board of Commissioners, Stanley County Board of Education, the conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives to adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate, Senator Wade, Chair, Senators Rucho and Tillman, Conferees for the House of Representatives, Representative Hardister, Chair, Representative Blust, Faircloth and Burr. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make a motion, debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You may recall we had a debate on this bill yesterday and it passed this chamber and went to the Senate. They objected. We went to conference yesterday evening. And essentially, what we've decided to do is to align the Board of Education districts in Guilford County with the Board of Commissioner districts and we would delay the implementation of the new maps to 2016 in order to prevent existing members of the board from being double bumped. And we would keep the Board of Education terms at four years and stagger them to match the Board of Commissioners. You may recall there was some debate on partisan elections of the House PCS would have put that through referendum and conference. We agreed to the Senate. The Senate wanted to, we agreed with the Senate on where they wanted to go. They wanted to go straight to partisan elections. In the House, we preferred to just go to referendum, but we reluctantly agreed. If you looked a the progress of this bill, the Senate has compromised with us, much more than we compromised with them. But, personally, I support partisan elections that would have preferred to put this referendum, but I think this is a good compromise and I'll speak to that briefly. I know that there's some disagreement on the merit of partisan elections, but the way I see it, is it provides more information to voters. I think that beneath the surface, these elections are partisan. The political parties tend to get behind their candidates even if the party affiliations are not on the ballot. Special interest groups get behind the candidates. I think it would likely increase voter participation. I'd also point out that in consultation with staff, it's 16 local board of education and local boards of education in North Carolina do have partisan elections. Also, the superintendent of public instruction, North Carolina runs on a partisan ticket. So I think this is sensible. I think this is going to work good for Guilford County. Again, this bill also relates to Stanley County. If you have any questions on that, you can perhaps ask Representative Justin Burr to yield. And with that, I'll be glad to take questions and I would appreciate your support on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams? Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak briefly on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's actually worse than it was. We're now saying that the citizens will not have an opportunity to even vote on the partisan part. We don't need partisan elections in Guilford County. And we don't need to compromise with the Senate in this way. This is not, and I just regret that the Representative compromised in that way. I certainly didn't hear anything about it until today. It's no better than it was when it left here. We should not pass this. Guilford County does not want it. There may be a few people that the Representative spoke to who wants it, but that does not consist of the majority of the people in the county who should have an opportunity, first of all, to have had some input in this in the first place. School board still opposed to it. They voted against it.
I’m going to ask you not to support this conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill very briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Here we go again guys, and we get another bill that the civic lessons does not teach us what it is about in terms of what we do in the House and the Senate. And so I guess we’ll just have to engross into our civic textbook that it is the Senate that gets the role the House instead of us standing to our principles and making sure we do what we know is right. Please vote no on this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I don’t want to drag this out, but as it’s been pointed out the school board’s unanimously opposed. We had a Republican member of the school board come down to the lunch and law meeting and talk about how bad this was going to be for the school board, that we have to be focused on the interest of the children and not on party politics. And she worried what a bipartisan election might do for the school board and its policies, and one of the strongest board members is an unaffiliate which is going to be sort of impossible to replicate now that we go on to partisan elections. I urge you to vote no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report for Senate Bill 317. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please check your vote. The clerk will allot the machine record the vote. 63 having voted in the affirmative, 37 in the negative. The House has adopted the conference report for Senate Bill 317. The Senate will be so notified. House Bill 725, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for number 2 for House Bill 725, the bill’s been titled an act to establish juvenile jurisdiction adviser committee to create and pilot civil citation process for juveniles and to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 16, 17 year olds who have committed misdemeanor offenses. General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen. I would like to ask that if you have questions if you wouldn’t mind hold them till I finish my presentation. They may be taken care of at a later point. Thank you for this hearing on a bill that’s been around for quite some time, and many of you are familiar with it, in various forms. This one is different, and the difference primarily is the fact that we have compromised quite a bit in being able to move this forward for the youth in the state of North Carolina. This bill will only cover misdemeanors, 16 and 17 year olds. If you will start looking through the bill, we’ll take it by degrees, and I’d ask first of all that you pay close attention to the juvenile jurisdiction advisory committee that is being established, that will be in charge of the review study recommendations from this point forward in the implementation of House Bill 725. The first thing we’re asking them to do is to establish a subcommittee to study civil citations in order for us to do a pilot here in the state of North Carolina. The civil citations cover a broad range of different types of programs that deal with the intake and disciplination of the juveniles once they have committed an offense. The implementation for the actual change in age is six years out to 2019, and one of the reasons we’ve done that and one of the concerns that has been paramount in peoples’ mind is this will be an expensive proposition. And that is true because we’re changing and adding because of a system that’s been cut and cut over the years and to be able to introduce new juveniles into the system we’re going to have to rebuild it to a certain extent. And for that reason in the year 2017 and two years before the actual implementation, we have requested this advisory committee that’s made up of the people that will actually be in charge of the implementation, and the money for it is coming out of their budget. They will report back to the General Assembly with a detailed plan of how we want to make this change in our juvenile justice system and include in that the cost that will be necessary to put that plan into practice. That plan will then be presented to the General Assembly for us to take action on in terms of will the plan work, is it good, and
More significantly for many of us in here, can we afford to pay for it? That is the stop measure that I felt like was necessary. Because I have vowed from the first day I took this project to own, that I would not ask that it be implemented if it could not be funded correctly. And, lest you think that North Carolina that is starting down some radical rash path, we are only one of two states that still puts 16 nd 17 year olds in the adult court system. 48 states recognize 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. 38 of those states actually recognize their misdemeanonts as well as their felons as juveniles and treat them accordingly. A couple of states I can give you recently is Connecticut. They took it in a measured step, just as we’re planning to do. Their first step was their 16 yr olds, but they included misdemeanonts and felons. That was successful. Their plans came in under budget, and they made the decision to move to the 17 yr olds. In just this past July 8th, the state of Illinois added their 17 yr old felons to their juvenile system. The system, in doing this, must work because I cannot see that if it’s a failure and if it’s not successful that states would continue to move forward in their plans of moving 16 and 17yr old from their adult system to the juvenile system. In committee we’ve had a lot of issues, and this has been studied in committee. Contrary to a lot of the complaints around here, this has been studied “out the whazoo” for a cliché kind of a talk. We’ve talked about it in a governor’s crime commission study. We’ve put up a youth accountability task force that studied it and came out with recommendations which has led to the progression we have reached at this point which has led to the legislation before you. The bureau institute of justice did a study of our North Carolina system in 2011 and all of them have reached the conclusion that it’s the best way to go. Contrary to the horror of it being expensive, it is a savings. It’s not always in tangible ways, but it is a savings. One of the reasons is just simply a recidivism rate. I can give you a quote. It said, “Conclusions from a centers for disease control and prevention task force suggest that recidivism rates for youths who have been sent through the adult system are far far higher than those of similar youths who remain in the juvenile system. Through a comprehensive review of every published or government conducted study on transfer policies, the CDC found that the youth was %34 more likely to be re-arrested after going through the adult system.” Everybody talks about the cost. Here again this bureau reports states, “In 2011 the bureau institute of justice performed a cost benefit analysis of North Carolina’s proposed plan to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18. Concluding that the economic benefits of the plan to raise juvenile jurisdiction in North Carolina outweighed the economic cost.” And lest any of you brush this off as the results of some soft on crime liberal research, I placed on you desk (I think it was either yesterday or the day before yesterday. I’m totally confused on the days here) a spotlight from that other bastion of liberal think our local John Locke Foundation. They in fact referenced that study in their spotlight article. Stating, “the 2011 study estimated that raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18 for those charged with misdemeanors, and at one point low level felonies was included. They’re no longer including those as I said. Re-state it again: only midemeanonts. This would generate 52.3 million dollars in net benefits for North Carolina. But, here’s what’s critical: that number factors in the combined perspectives of tax payers, victims, and young offenders. Leven said, “these net benefits include savings to taxpayers and reductions in the human cost…
crime, such as lost or damaged property, medical costs, and pain and suffering. In addition to avoided costs to victims, the state would benefit form an increased rate of employment and earnings from formerly troubled young people who do not end up saddled with a lifetime adult crime record. The "Levin" that was quoted in this article is Mark Levin, and Mark Levin is the director of the center for effective justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. And that name may be familiar to a lot of you, because the Texas Public Policy Foundation was instrumental in the movement that North Carolina made in our justice reinvestment act of 2011. Ladies and gentlemen, we worry about the cost. But we're paying and we're paying dearly for these juveniles. An example is actually a requirement from our own justice reinvestment act, which states it requires most misdemeanors to serve their sentences in jail. The new law requires that all felony sentences and misdemeanor sentences require a confinement of more than 180 days be served in DOC. The law retains the rule that sentences of 90 days or less should be to the local jail. The law establishes a new program for misdemeanants other than impaired drivers, the statewide misdemeanor confinement program, administered by the North Carolina Sherriff's Association. The Sherriff's Association will place covered inmates in jails that have volunteered space for the program. The cost of housing and caring for covered misdemeanants will be paid by a statewide fund pursuant to the terms of a contract between DOC and the Sherriff's association. Yesterday a request was made for a fiscal note, and a fiscal note has been turned in, and as everybody knows, there's no impact for the first 5 years. There will be an impact, and I'm not going to cover it up or try to hide the fact that it may be significant. But we're already paying, as I've already said in the examples. In North Carolina, Mecklinburg county in 2012, they payed $659,243 for 16 and 17 year olds, a total of I think it was 680 16 and 17 year olds who were sitting in jail waiting for their trial. Durham county, in that same year encouraged $265,588.64 in expenses. Two counties, in one year, a million dollars. That's a million dollars that should be in the credit column for this cost, the program and there is no telling how much more that we could add as far as the money that we can save. These kids are sitting in jail, and they're cut off from their families and their education, in many cases unfortunately. The data shows, and I think all of you in here knows how critical data is to me, and for that reason I would like to thank Rep. Daughtry for a handout that he sent out. It's a section from the North Carolina department of Public Safety, division of Juvinile Justice 2011 annual report, in which it states for those of you who do not have copies, that for the fifth consecutive year, the juvinile delinquency rate, juvinile crime in the state of North Carolina has decreased. Over that 5 year period, the state has experienced a 28% decrease in juvenile delinquency. This alone is a great achievement, but when one considers that at the same time, the courts have been committting fewer and fewer youths to long term stays at the division of juvinile justice's youth development centers, these numbers are truly exciting accomplishments. Last year, only 307 youth were committed to youth development centers. This is th lowest level ever recorded and represents a 14% decrease from the year before. Over the last decade, commitments have dropped almost every year and since 2000 they've dropped about 670 committments, or 69% overall. These 2 tremendous accomplishments, reducing
[0:00:00.0] …Crime and reducing juvenile commitments. Our achievements that can enlarge measure be attributed to the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999 and to the hard work of the carrying and competent juvenile justice professionals in the division of juvenile justice and their community partners. Ladies and gentlemen the argument has been made we need to move our juvenile to assistant networks and I ask for your support on this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and members of house I don’t really think this is a matter of money but it doesn’t save money. If you look at your fiscal note when it goes into operation it will be 17 million the first year, 63 million after that in four years what it does is set the assembly on automatic pilot so it would take another act to the assembly to avoid those costs but if it’s a good policy I will be willing to pay that much but it’s not good policy. We all want transparency the matter of fact the last bill 652…The bill we have passed recently 48 people voted against it because of transparency concerns and I’m sure the people who voted for the transparency concerns but let me tell you what this bill does to transparency because there are couple of features about Juvenile Court that you need to know, one is that there is no transparency it’s all confidential, it’s confidential for allegations of sexual battery assaults on handicap persons, assaults inflicting serious injury, assault choosing the deadly weapon, assault on a female, assault on children under 12, assault on the state officers employees, assaults on inflicting serious injury, assaults choosing the deadly weapon in the presence of a minor, assaults by pointing the gun, taking in these celebrities with students, yeah that allow to come confidential, the public won’t know about it. Those are serious that we call things misdemeanors and it sounds little but misdemeanors also includes serious things. There is another feature of Juvenile Court that you need to know and that is if you are innocent you don’t wanna be in Juvenile Court, there is an entire different model in Juvenile Court, it’s how can we fix your problem whether you are guilty or not? Now, they have to adjudicate the ___[02:40] to deal with and guess what you don’t have a right to a jury trail in Juvenile Court but according to this bill you could be accused of a misdemeanor in cases where he said or she said, she said the case and you can be convicted and you can be kept in lockup to your 18, 19 or 20 years old never having been convicted by jury that’s the effect of the bill. It was mentioned that conference of DAs opposed it, the ___[03:16] Association opposes it, it’s just a bad policy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Randolph Representative McNeill rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, fellow representatives. Let me take just a second to start this by reading in a title to this bill because I think this is very important and I think you need to understand what you are fixing ___[03:50]. An act to establish a Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee to create a pilot civil citation process with Juveniles and to raise the age of Juvenile Jurisdiction to include 16 and 17 years old who have committed misdemeanor offenses. This is not a study on whether you should raise the age to 16 or 17 year old, if you vote for this bill today you will be voting to raise that age of 16 or 17 years old to Juvenile. So, it is not just a study if you do it, it happens, it sets in the motion. I know ___[04:34] in the session and everybody has ___ to hear allow the rhetoric and allow the things we talk but this is a very, very important and is a very, very complicated issue and I hope each and everyone of you will take a time and you would actually read this bill and you may already have and ___[04:53] you haven’t. But anyway I beg you to read… [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]
bill 725. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Rep. Brandon rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a very quick question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Randolph yield to the gentleman from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will treat him like he treated me earlier. When I'm finished. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield at this time, however if the gentleman wishes to ask a question later he will be recognized for such purpose. The gentleman from Randolph continues to have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill makes sweeping changes of the juvenile justice system disguiesed as a study bill. After the first 2 pages, the remaining 9 pages makes numerous changes on how the criminaljustice system deals with 16 and 17 year olds by classifying them as juveniles. It almost seems like the bill calls for a study, but then goes on to tell you what the results of the study is going to be. The main thing this study does do is it does study a civil citation and how much all of this will cost. Well you know you've heard Rep. Stam talk a little bit about what the expected costs are going to be. I don't know a whole lot about this civil citation part of it, that might not be a bad thing to study but only as it relates to the juvenile justice systems and maybe 15 year olds and those younger. Let's look at page 2 for a minute,of the bill, lines 30-39, and that talks about the comitte and what it's gonna do, as you see it says "advisory committee shall develop a specific plan for the implementation". Implementation of these changes in the juvenile justice system that would be required to extend jurisdiction in delinquency matters, and preceedings toinclude 16 and 17 year olds charged with misdemeanor offenses within the juvenile justice system. The plan shall include cost for each portion of the plan, including capital cost, operating cost and staffing cost. As the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Justice to include persons of 16 and 17 year olds who commit crimes or infractions becomes effective persuant to this act. So even this own bill tells you it realizes a lot of this act is going to become, and a lot of this is just how are we going to implement this policy. But make no mistake, you are changing the policy and I think that in the following section it talks about this pilot program to be developed in 3 to 6 different counties on this civil citation program. And I assumemost of you know what a civil citation program would look like, you know a juvenile would get a civil citation which might include a fine or some other type of punishment. I won't speak a lot to this because it hasn't been studied and I don't claim to be an expert on civil citation programs. But I just kinda wonder exactly how that would work and if that's really a good idea on how to deal with our juvenile problem, whether it be 15 year olds, or 16 and 17 year olds. Let's be clear on what we're talking about here. Most of your ideas, I'm sure, are sitting in this chamber today about 16 and 17 year olds is maybe your own children, maybe your grandchildren, maybe the kids in your neighborhood, maybe your child's best friends, maybe the children you see at the football game or the basketball game, but there are a lot of other juveniles that are 16 and 17 year olds that belong to gangs. A 16 and 17 year old looks a lot different, and maybe not quite so innocent when they're holding a gun on you and aksing for your wallet. Or when they're breaking into your car at midnight stealing your stereo. And as far as Illinois passing this, maybe it'll be like the 8 juvvenile girls in Chicago within the last week that mugged a lady there for her cell phone. So I don't know that Illinois and Chicago, especially with their murder rate in Chicago, and a lot of it amongst juveniles, would be a good model for North Carolina anyway. Over the past last several years state laws dealing with juveniles
North Carolina and I'm talking about current juveniles, has been watered down a lot by Federal guidelines that threaten to cut of Federal dollars if you don't do this, if you don't do that. You know judges now can't even do anything that shows contempt to the court, they can't really do anything with them. Their hands are pretty much handcuffed, and I have had judges in the juvenile justice system that have called me that very very frustrated about how they are able, how they can't deal with juveniles anymore because a lot of the power has been taken out of their hand by statutes. And now we're going to add 16 and 17 year olds to that group of juveniles that judges can't do anything with? And let's make no mistake, there are gang problems in North Carolina. If you don't believe there are gang problems in North Carolina then you've got your head in the sand. Most of your law enforcement officers or agencies now have a gang investigator ro a gang unit as part of their agency. And who do you think that most of the people in those gangs are? The biggest part of them are juveniles. I hope you all realize that gangs recruit juveniles. Why do they recruit juveniles? Because juveniles can go out and commit crimes for the gang and basically face no punishment. You realize that a 15 or a 16 or 17 year old gang member can go out and commit 20, 30, 40, 50 crimes before they're ever caught the first time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Iredell, Rep. Brawley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since I hadn't turned him down, I thought I'd try Rep. McNeill for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Randolph yield to the gentleman from Iredell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please let me finish. I actually?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? continues to have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But anyway, can commit a lot of crimes before they're actually caught the first time. And then when they're caught the first time they're not going to get any real punishmen if they're in under the juvenile system. And this bill will now allow them 2 more years to commit crimes before they're really punished. By then the gang will recruit other juveniles. Pass this bill, and the bloods, the crips, and maybe MS-13 will send you all a thank you letter. Also in page 4 section 3, when you're talking about holdover facilities, you know, and I know this bill just defines holdover facilities, but please realize that under these new regulations of what a holdover facility is, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the assistant rules chair, Rep. Floyd rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In according to the rules, the- are we using 10 or 15 minutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well under the rules, the gentleman has 15 minutes to speak on the question and under our adjournment resolution I guess we could be here until midnight tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, how much time is left? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 5 minutes and 26 seconds, and I assume that the other 13 people want to speak too, so, maybe a little while. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, followup? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his further inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we continue at this pace, will we be allowed to get a lunch and dinner break? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Maybe we'll have to order breakfast. The gentleman from Randolph continues to have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, but I would like to make a point that I sit her patiently last night while everyone debated about things that were important to them, and this is important to me. So if you think I'm taking too long I apologize. I haven't spoken a lot this year, and when I did I've tried to be brief, but this is a very important to me, and I will finish up as quickly as I can. Thank you. But anyway, It's an unfunded mandate. Your local jurisdictions, your local jails are going to have to make serious changes in their jails because of the provisions in this about how the juveniles now the 16, 17 year olds have to be sight and sound separated and everything like that. And those of you who are familiar of how jails - it could be a great cost to those countites. And that's not even part of the fiscal note that we've already seen. But anyway, let me skip a couple of things. You know this whole philosophy of dealing with juveniles is supposed to involve the family. 16 to 17 year old
Persons are much different than the younger juveniles we're talking about. One big difference between a 15 year old juvenile and a 16 year old juvenile is they have a drivers license. Lets be clear juvenile problems have always been around and there has always been the disagreement between how do we best deal with those problems do we incarcerate them? Do we fine them? Do we give them community service? do we give them probation? Gangs use juveniles Gangs started in the US in the 1820s in New York and in the 1860s in Chicago, So gangs is not something that just started, its been around for hundreds of years and people have been trying to figure out how to deal with them for a long long time and I really don't care what other areas of the country are doing. The one other state does not, that keeps juveniles 16 and 17 year old's is New York and probably one of the most liberal states out there. I don't think just because other states have changed it means that its the right thing for us to do. Make no mistake we buy things on credit but there's always a day that we're gonna have to come pay for it you've see the fiscal note on it that is millions of dollars it costs. Representative Avala wanted to tell you that the 1 million dollars cost of incarcerating those people in Mechlenburg and Durham county, I hope you don't realize that just because those 16 and 17 year old's aren't sitting in jail they aren't being dealt with in the juvenile justice system. You're not really gonna save a million dollars just because they're not incarcerated. If Juvenile justice people are dealing with them there's gonna be a cost too, its just not gonna go away. Crime nationwide is trending down across all age groups, this includes juvenile crime, This bill goes too far; If crime is trending now then I'm not sure why we really need this. You heard representative Stam talk about what some of the misdemeanor crimes are [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? For what purpose- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm about 30 seconds from finishing- [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Union Representative Hornrise inquiry the chair? The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If, Whatever action we take on this bill, What happens next to the bill according to the rules of the legislature? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is on for its second reading for today. Should it pass and any member objects a third, the bill would have to carry over to the next short session. Should the bill pass second and third readings today the bill would still have to carry over to the short session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So under any circumstances no matter how we vote on this bill it goes nowhere this session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct sir [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Randolph continues to have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand its late and everybody wants to go home, I do to. But anyway I skipped alot of it and maybe I have been long winded but anyway I finish by saying this, Our district attorneys are against it, our law enforcement is against it. We can't pay for it, vote against it and I will be objecting to third. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham Representative Jones Rise- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Floor motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, I move that this bill be re-referred to the judiciary committee [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has properly moved that the bill be removed from the calender and referred to the committee on judiciary, Discussion and, the gentleman was recognized to speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I would ask that the members who do not wish to debate the motion, please turn your lights off and we'll deal with the motion and come back to the bill if the motion fails. The gentleman from Rockingham has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman of the house I think you just heard the Speaker's explanation and I was waiting to, in deference to my friend who is the bill sponsor and also my friend who is speaking and we've heard eloquent speeches on both sides today but as has been pointed out, there's not gonna be any action during this session. Now unlike the bill we took up before, the senate has not voted on this bill so certainly they will not be taking up action and we've already heard the gentleman will be objecting the third. I think we've heard enough debate today to re-refer this to judiciary and take it up in the short session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, speak on the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm now owing one on the motion to refer, I hope I can make it to at least one in one in the motion to refer. Its a good idea, this is a massive program
cost a tremendous amount of money, and a third branch of government, and it's been around for five years. The DA's opposed it, the Sheriff's opposed it, the department says they have no way to fund it, so I hope you will vote for the motion. Make me one and one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, upon motion of the members from Durham County, Representatives Hall and Michaux, the chair is happy to extend the courtesy of the gallery to AOK Summer Outreach Program and their coordinator Mr. Daniel Brown. Please stand to let us welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, the chair is going to allow not more than seven minutes to debate this motion. So, we will take a vote at 11:20. Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By making the motion ladies and gentlemen, the motion-maker has intimated, like many of you on the other side have, regarding things that have been stuck in our bills over here, that it hasn't had a justified hearing. Let me remind you, that in the 2011 session, this bill went through a judiciary policy committee, was discussed, recussed, lot of public input by opponents and supporters, and passed favorably from that committee. This session, the same thing happened. It went through a judiciary committee with the same level of discussion, for and against, and passed. It went through a rules committee because of some parliamentary changes. Same thing happened. Heavy discussion among the members of the committee, public input, for and against, and passed unanimously. There is no reason, no reason, for those of you that object to this bill, to sit here and push a yes button to refer this to a committee at all. You are being dishonest in what you are trying to do. Stand up and let it be heard. Let it be voted and put your no when we vote on the bill. Do not use parliamentary procedure [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If Representative Avila would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, does the Lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, I would love to be able to vote on this bill. Would you be willing to call the question on this and let us vote if we were to vote down this motion? Otherwise, I'm going to vote for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will call the question to go directly to the vote on the bill if I'm allowed to defend some of the arguments that have been made against it. And, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to call the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The previous question is being called on the motion to re-refer. If the Lady's intent was to call the question on the main matter, the bill itself, the most expedient way to do that would be for the Gentleman who introduced the motion, to withdraw that motion, after the Lady who introduced the motion for the previous question, withdraws her motion, if that is her intent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whichever way gets me the closest to being able to discuss the bill and honestly vote our convictions on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady's motion for the previous question has been withdrawn. Does the Gentleman wish to withdraw his motion to re-refer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, and if I may, briefly, I'd like to explain. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman has withdrawn the motion. The Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to the bill's sponsor, who is my good friend, I want for you to know that I did not make that motion to kill your bill. I do intend to vote against it, but that's not the reason I did it either. The fact of the matter is, it was made very clear that it wasn't going anywhere until the short session. And, in deference to the members here, who I know have heard the debate today, and will continue to hear the debate, I felt like the most prudent thing to do was to go ahead and move forward. I'm happy to withdraw my motion so that you can call the previous question and we can vote on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now, the Lady is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I make a motion to move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila moves the previous question. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.
The clerk will opt the machine to record the vote. Sixty five having voted affirmative thirty two in the negative the motion passes. Representative Avlaw is recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you mister speaker. Ladies and gentlemen you've heard a lot of opposition and you've heard a lot of reasons for the opposition. And I took notes as we went along and I will try to refute and educate you where knowledge is lacking with why the arguments are not valid. We hear first of all hype about significant violence in the crimes well you must understand that North Carolina's justice system is pretty smart and they understand violence and they know that it doesn't serve the public well to have a violent person out among us. And the court has flexibility in dealing with a person who commits violence against other individuals. We can talk about other misdemeanors, shoplifting which is much more prevalent I think than some of the violent crimes that Representative Stan referenced. Representative Neele referenced the gang impact and all of this in transparency but even the state of North Carolina recognizes that there needs to be some type of handling of our juveniles and why I realize that is because of an expunction that was passed a law that was passed and put into place for our juveniles who commit misdemeanors and our connected with crimes have a two year period in which if they keep their nose clean. Those records can be expunged so that the children in North Carolina can have an equal footing against children in other states as Representative Stan said whose records aren't seen. Representative McNeele seems to have a little bit of a misunderstanding about the study. We're not studying raising the age in this bill. We're saying raise it and I'm very open about that because as I've explained we've studied it to death so far. And his concern about the fact that it's on that path and we can't stop it. This general assembly can't direct any future general assembly by actions that we do in the statue and why? For the same reason that the members of the other side have ranted and raved about some of our legislations come through because we've repealed things that they like. This can be repealed in twenty seventeen if it's not needed or it's not popular or it's too expensive and people don't want to go down that path. Many of you have been highly pressured by your sheriffs. Representative McNeele talked about the costs. They're getting paid now. They won't get paid under this bill. Pria costs federally fix your jails. There's gonna be a cost if they keep the juveniles. Ladies and gentlemen there's a lot of misinformation. All I'm askin' is that you look at the facts that we've got a juvenile justice system that works and works well. Please vote yes for my bill. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Hall. SPEAKER CHANGES : Thank you mister speaker I'll yield my three minutes to Representative Mobley. SPEAKER CHANGES : Representative Mobley is recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. SPEAKER CHANGES : Thank you mister speaker. I want to start my remarks by saying, how many you would not want your child to have the best of education and the support that they can give. That anybody can give. I want to ask a question. How many of you know what the age of the youngest child in the state of North Carolina can be prosecuted in a judicated delinquent. It's age six. We want the best for our children and a dollar won't stand in the way for most of us who are parents, grandparents. It doesn't matter what the cost is when it comes to protecting our children. I want you to think about that. I can't believe...
[0:00:00.0] …That there are some of us talking about we wanna do…16 and 17 year olds, I have been in juvenile system for a longtime, I’m a mother and a grandmother but I have you to know that I will fight for not just much I could remember when I was a Court Council, the judge who is quite for that particular day took a 15 year old in custody and turn the child over to me and I was kind of new in the process and I said, “What am I gonna do with this white girl?” I took her home to my mother who eventually became a foster care parent and we live right next door to one another. So, I have been parenting not just my children but other children like you and like me for a longtime. I don’t have a problem with hugging and embracing another child. The experts tell you that the brain is not developed in the child until they get to be about 25 years old. We know we are gonna start this process of looking out for our older teens this is just the beginning if I had to make a law I would say 21. Let’s start and let’s start now with voting yes on this bill. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is passage of the House Committee Substitute number two to House Bill 725 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 61 having voted affirmative 37 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute number 2 to House Bill 725 is passed his second reading and without objection… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised by Representative Setzer, the bill remains on the calendar, ladies and gentleman that completes the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker… [SPEAKER CHANGES] And last night at about 12:30 the rules chair came to me and said that there are people who wanna to just ___[02:46] through the calendar. I think if we had added the lack of productive dialogue that happens after midnight if we had done that we probably be finishing about right now anyway. Representative Jackson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had a motion as put to the last bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I knew that we set the rules decide to the end so that we may have third reading today on this bill and get it over to the senate, let the people inform and against and work on it during the ____[03:20] and let the senate take it up when the first comes back in session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry will yell for a moment, Representative Jackson the practical affect of the objection is that the bill remains on the calendar for third reading. Therefore, when we comeback in May it will be on the calendar when we return. So, the Chair will be happy for you to discuss that the Chair is not sure where we go but I think ultimately if we get to the other chamber it would be a matter of one day or two days, once we comeback if the votes were there when we return. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to a motion that we have third reading today and maybe I’m just unclear and how we are supposed to make that happen? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house… [SPEAKER CHANGES] [Inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the gentleman wishes to make that motion it will require two-thirds president voting to support the motion. The gentleman’s motion is actually to suspend the rules to the end. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under rule 58B…Yeah, 58B, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the gentleman’s motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is about to channel his ____[04:50]? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of rules I don’t think we have done… [0:04:59.7] [End of file…]
[0:00:00.0] We suspended this any of this year I think Dr. ___[00:03] want us to suspend it, he wants before and we didn’t, we have not suspended the third reading rule where there is objection, often there are bills that are not controversial and off course will let those bills have their third reading and go forward. This is obviously the bill that is controversial, if we have third reading I imagine more lights will come on, there will be more debate unless we call the question which the minority has been critical every time I have call the question this year. However, I would point out that, this is a major Sub-Senate Bill, it’s not gonna go anywhere right now, it’s not like by objecting the third that you keep it from being passed in the law where the Senates already acted, it can go through the normal channels next year and go through but at the end of the day members I would ask you Chairman that we not suspend the rules that we disclosed with the reminder the calendar and we go home. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this is the last ___[01:00] calendar, Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and even though this is suspending the rules we know that under the rules we have laid items on the table 30 times this session and call the question 31 times this session. So, I understand this maybe a suspension of the rules but we have had…The fact is a suspension of the rules at least 60 times already to ___[01:35] a degree, I think this is an important matter and people will only be asked to just vote their opinion, I think that’s what our sponsors have asked for vote whatever it is you decide to vote like give it the vote and let them move on to do whatever else it is they need to do. So, I would ask you to support this motion to suspend the rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just like to point out that under the definition of dead or kill ___[02:08] that propounded by the rules committee chair if we don’t vote this bill on third reading it would be dead. Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[02:18] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ___[02:20] Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his ___[02:22] [SPEAKER CHANGES] The point of clarification rule 58B ___[02:26] takes two-thirds of votes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct and based on the count I believe that would be 66 in the affirmative, further discussions further debate on the motion? If not the question before the house is the motion to suspend the rules, all in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 44 having voted affirmative and 52 in the negative the motion fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of Personal Privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I have a little bit of great news for Stanley with an A, we just have a little bad news for Representative ___[03:24], a week ago this Friday they went into a Dixie Baseball Championship series best-of-three with East Duplin and my wonderful big little town of Stanley, North Carolina defeated East Duplin 6-3 and they advance to the World Series and that would be held in Lauren, Mississippi and it would be in August 3rd to August 8th. So, I wish them the best of luck and this is for the 10 years old and under all stars thank you very much Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen the conferees for Senate Bill 236, Stam Chair, Malone and Tim Moore, the senate will be so notified. Announcement of Chair appointments the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker made these following committee assignments: Representative McElraft removed from appropriation sub-committee on natural and economic resources appointed his Co-Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Representative B. Brawley Co-Chair of Finance Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen this completes the calendar, we will have any notices and announcements, points of personal privilege, thank you for your hard work, I hope you have a good time, what's left at the summer and a prosperous time between now and the time that we start convening probably in the September timeframe for annual meetings, thank you very much for you service this year. Representative… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may speak his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry if I kinda missed something along the way, but I was wondering what happened to SB 287. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It remains on the calendar, and will be on the calendar the first day we return in May. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order, the gentleman may state his point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to continue my invitation to come to Folk ?? USA, it continues right on to Sunday night at Lake ??. If anyone wants to come up to Hayward county or western North Carolina, I think it's up in 5 or 6 of our districts over the next several days, you will be welcome to where the world meets North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, if I may have a point of personal privilege from the chair, I would like all the members to stand and thank the staff who are listening, the staff in the room, and the clerk staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A moment of personal privilege first of all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order, the gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking a few folks, first off I want to thank you as our- I want to thank you and the services that you've given us as our speaker, you have allowed plenty of debate, have done an excellent job in your second term as speaker and just on behalf of all of the members of the House I want to thank you for the time and sacrifice that both you and your family have given in allowing you to be here and just think we would like to express that. And I'd also like to thank the person that really runs the house, and that's this young lady seated to your right, Ms. Weeks and her staff, if we could all thank them. And with that Mr. Speaker, just also to the members I hope everyone has a great summer, I know we're going to start working in the interim members on study committees, you know we did not have a study bill, we looked at one in the Rules, we talked to the Senate, it just seemed a waste of time to go through that process to pass it so I want you to know that we're going to continue working on LRC studies, of course the speaker, the President Pro Temp will have an opportunity to appoint those as well as the other committee, so those folks who have an interest should probably direct their interest, feel free to send those to my office as well as the speaker's office if there's subject matters you're interested in serving on during the interim. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The other day I announced that the World War II exhibit was open, it wasn't yet. I got told wrong. But now I have been informed that it is open on the third floor of the history museum, I realize you may not want to take time to go see it today, I'm going to try to, but I just wanted to let you know that it is open on the third floor under the name "A Call to Arms". And one other thing, if I may, I have a house for sale in Concord, as long as you don't run against me I invite you to consider buying it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Pittman, I think technically that may have been a violation of the rules but... Rep. Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All due respect for the representatives from the mountains including Rep. Queen, all the ?? county beaches are open for business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements, Rep. Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief, there's been a lot of thanks that have been expressed to you and to the staff, I wanted to add one more if I could. There are many of us in this room or in this legislative compound and whatnot who very well may not be here when spring arrives, one of those folks who has announced his intention to retire is Stanley Moore. And Stanley's not with us here on the floor just now I don't think, I wanted to commend him for the dilligent work he has done for
For, I think for nearly 30 years in paying close attention to safe guarding the important things, like the state employees retirement account and what not. I did want to share one brief story, my first term here, which was in 2003, I had had a concern. It was much like it had been in the last few days, it was towards the end of the session and everybody was busy and tired. I called ??, and I said, Mr. Moore, I have a concern. I wanted to address this particular policy issue with you. His response was, well, Sir most people go through their legislator. When I had to tell him, well I was one of them, we've been really, really good friends since then. Stanly's service to the state and the institutional knowledge that he has brought, and continues to bring, and will bring until I'm sure his lay day, will be missed. I'm sorry he is not here on the floor, but I did just want to publicly thank him for his time here. [Applause] [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore is recognized. Speaker I move that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on May the 14th, 2014 at 12:00, noon. Subject to ratification of bills, re-referrals of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the county. Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Lewis, that the house will now adjourn, subject to ratification bills and resolution, re-referrals to the bills, and modifications to the calendars to reconvene on May the 14th, at 12:00 pm. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed say, no. The aye's have it, the house is adjourned.