silent all electronic devices. as the Reverend Peter Miller Senate chaplain at members and guests in the same day [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lord, we gather a rededicate ourselves to the same promises that you initiated a short fifty years ago on this very day with your blessings upon this building upon these leaders here today and upon all who exercise just and rightful authority in the states, unless the Lord builds the house, those who labor its labor in vain, less alert guards the city. the guards keep watch in vain. it is in vain that you rise up early and awake to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil fountain of your infinite wisdom, Lord Jesus and down these senators from a laugh into my right with the wisdom and courage to administer all the affairs of prudence and injustice and inequity of it,and that freedom and happiness may forever abide among us move, may your will be done in North Carolina in such a way that our community might become a beacon of the community in such a way that we might become a model for all other communities around the United States is really dedicate ourselves today. another fifty years. let us heed the words of Psalm one hundred and less by graciousness Lord our God be upon us, establishing balance of the work of our hands for us. yes, the work of our hands establish balance [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham, the advertisement today by most of the nurses there is with us in person today to Stephen that you can carry even a near season may be coming from the house and set off on applause for Stevens later we also have a facility to my attention that were centered around the heart is restless by Senator Hansen from nineteen eighty three to nineteen ninety.we'd like to extend codices of the floor designer office want to hear him. thank you for being with us today. members will also have an artist rendering of this building in honor of the fifteenth anniversary ofthis facility will be celebrating right after the session is to be passed around the floor today during session. if you will, please sign it and return it to the clerk and will make sure that this is displayed.once of any reports of standing committees, the Czech Republic US sent for the committee report abuse and forth reports on at high education committee regular report number to submit faster than real fourteen on February bill buffet will ask you committee substitute bill. I don't enact direct state Board of Education to develop career and college endorsement for high school diplomas, increase access to career and technical education teachers in the public schools work with disabled out of community college.this increase the number of students enrolling in enrolling in career and technical education and higher need employment areas suited the thirteen calendar to run the calendar for the Republicans on the second reading some of the town that certainly
Clerk: …bill 10, government reorganization and efficiency act. Speaker: Representative is recognized to explain the bill. Senator, you have the floor. Representative: Thank you Mr. President and members of the senate. What this senate bill does is it is for governmental efficiency and reorganization. It specifically does dseveral things. One, it eliminates redundant and old state boards. Second, it recognizes and modifies compositions of some boards. Thirdly, it just makes up – what we are doing her in following the rules and promises many of us ran on, to make government more efficient, to downsize it, to save money, and carry out our role as legislators. In a nutshell, that is what it does. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to send forth an amendment to that bill. Speaker: Senator do the members have copies? Representative; Yes. Speaker: Send forth your amendment. Representative :Thank you Mr. President. What this amendment does is it goes back to… Speaker: Senator, hold one second. The clerk will read the amendment. Clerk: Senator moves to amend the bill. Speaker: Senator Raven is recognized to explain the amendment. Representative: Thank you Mr. President. The amendment specifically addresses four parts of the bill. You all have it before you. These were brought to us and our attention yesterday and last evening as things we should possibly address. They have to do with the wildlife commissions petitions board, the industrial commission, and the utilities commission. I urge everyone to support the amendment. Speaker: Senator Apodaka, for what purpose do you rise? Representative: Will Senator Raven, yield for a question? Speaker: Senator Raven, do you yield. Representative: I yield. Speaker: Senator yields, Senator Apodaka, you have the floor. Representative: Thank you Mr. President. Senator Raven, my and Senator Nesbitt’s dietician and nutrition has been calling for beign off the board. Has that been corrected in this? Representative: Yes it has. Representative: Thank you and she is doing a wonderful job by the way. Well she works by the pound on both of us. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the senate is the passage of amendment 1. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Ten seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote: 34 having voted in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. Senator Clark, up or down? Senator Clark, affirmative. Here we go with a new count: 45 having voted in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. Amendment 1 is adopted and now the bill, as amended, is back before the body. Is there any further discussion or debate? Senator Stein , for what purpose do you rise? Representative: To send forth an amendment. Speaker: Do the members have copies Senator? Representative: I believe that they do. Speaker: Members have copies. You can send forth your amendment. Representative: Thank you. Members of the senate… Speaker: Senator, one minute. The clerk needs to read the amendment. Clerk: Senator Stein moves to amend the bill. Speaker: Senator Stein you have the floor to explain the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. President. Members of the senate, the bill is entitled, “The Government Reorganization and Efficiency Act,” and what this amendment does is essentially convert this to the government efficiency act. There are a number of boards and commissions whose utility has long since past so that we do not want the whole bill to go down. We want those expirations to go forward, and you can see them
him three or four pages of this amendment to the winds. whether it's the National Heritage area designation committee send the banners management Council will be worked on Turnpike Authority ones. the first licensee or utility goods don't have much need any more so with you. we want those to go by, that will wear as I have trouble is the reason organization point, which is essentially part two of your legislation. if you have a utilities commission entire membership fire by middle management commission entire membership fire customer service commission entire membership. five. industrial commission membership fire state lottery commission fire twelve spirit boards as a special student judges fire. it was truly breathtaking in scope, the extent to which you all propose to eliminate the commissioners Susan jobs and expertise. it is to serve the people of our state whether it's the people in the form about the entire consumer of electricity. whether it's citizens that he wants to have beautiful environment, lovely cause or an injured worker 's industrial commission. this is injecting politics into boards and commissions. we are in it is unnecessary in fact detrimental to the state and the people. the current structure works, it has staggered terms so that it recognizes when President pro tem Senator Berger or government court when they are vacancies that are created, you will should have the right appointed because you're in the majority. he's the God but as they eliminate the thousands of people and with all their expertise in all their knowledge isn't just bad policy. you will be visible all agree with that concept because throughout all the new commissioners have staggered terms. they have staggered terms. because you don't want to get with wholesale all that lost knowledge and experience and good thoughts. and yet that's precisely how you structure this bill. let's pass a good bill of good government bill, one that promotes government efficiency and not one that is a crass political power-play. I encourage you to support this member by this presence, the provision was the only amendment in the way [SPEAKER CHANGES] . I hope you are the first members often save sinners, but I've been around long enough to say a Republican governor, that Democrat governors. in Saturday's government comes in the design phase of unilateralism, management, Damon down vote on the table and I deserve the right to the typical fan as a new coach. whatever pain and bring their people. if you don't know those commissions. however well intended, then I'd be making policy and rule making that made via cross purposes with the management does not win and then when I was saving the government has asked out of the net is en route criticized by the Republicans for not doing all I was there I factor that I've been again so you go to the dentist in Memphis and happened very often those that have been him best as regular as high as so and I never criticize everything and I spent everything I is the best thing that they are not good and bad in the Atlantic division and recommends that you can do that darling. so I think that I have semi- purposes with a job as soon as back and have you actually know that a meeting was that it is that had either side of the Atlantic division. it is him and I was sad that I doubt the best prerogative of the management thing about this. this didn't like it is a good time would have been in possession of a
The question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 2. All in favor will vote aye, oppose will vote no. Ten seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Hold on one second, I’m sorry. Apodaca, no. Kinnaird, Kinnaird, aye. Hise, no. Cook, Cook no. Curtis, no. Count is 15 ayes, 33 nos. Amendment 2 is defeated and we’ll go back to the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bring forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, do all the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes they do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment, clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant is recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Senate, this amendment addresses the conflict of interest provisions that I hope were just inadvertently deleted in this bill as it references two of the important commissions. First is the Coastal Area Management Commission. If you look on page 4, on line 45 of your bill where it talks about the appointment of that commission, on the bottom of that page there’s some conflict of interest provisions that are deleted, beginning on line 45. The members of that commission who’s qualifications are described, are described in subdivisions 3 through 5 shall be persons who do not derive any significant portion of their income from land development, construction, real estate sales, or lobbying or do not otherwise serve as agents for development related business activities. The Governor shall require disclosure of those conflicts and the Governor by executive order shall promulgate criteria. And that is in reference to the Coastal Area, the Coastal Resources Commission, I’m sorry. Which issues, handles the planning and development for our coastal area and issues those permits. Clearly, we will want to provide, protect against the conflict of interest from those on the Commission who are providing for those rules and procedures and issuing those permits and people who are actually engaged in the business that will benefit from that permitting process. That’s a standard conflict of interest provision that was provided in specific for these particular kinds of commissions. They supplement what is already in the set States Ethics Act as it relates to these commissions and I would think that would be an important provision to keep in. It would not interrupt anything else you were doing in terms of changing the number of the membership. Then on page 9, line 10 through 12, on that page, it addresses the Environmental Management Commission and it will talk about the 9 members appointed by the Governor under this section and it just provides in lines 10 through 12, they shall not be persons who derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to the permits or enforcement orders under this chapter. So that means you won’t have people sitting on the commission who derive, who make money from the people coming to get the permits. Again, a standard conflict of interest provision that would prohibit pay to play, and I think you would want to include those provision in along with the other changes you are making. Again it does not keep you from creating a new team or reducing the numbers or creating the efficiencies you had in mind. I thank you and I hope I didn’t go over the box meter limit. Mr. Chairman. Senator Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Apodaca? Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. We thank you for your amendment but everything you addressed is already under the existing law.
desires of the times us that he could be a policy against the defense session that this has a survivor's us to seek a second avenues have forced the second-half the time of the exhibit is the fact the production site, and many of the Harry and I least offended provisions that since the fed the Puck cities are you all are its end, the times and one of the activities that eagle awards that met several competitions provisions that would not cover these affecting activities such as that of warranties that a selected because the history of problems that doesn't plan to contradict his own having the city's President Boris-time two, section eight end, the question, since the passage, estimate of the event by this one-section of the department ?? DC-1030 in the men and women and 3¢ the back of the finance staff and this has been arrested, just had that has this measure the past, China and India as an outpatient center for the sense that was founded on Westwood one-time aisles are enough of the Cisco was medicine and the send-as-as-span, that has positioned itself as-a-half section and the-section and state and status-section seven, sometime Sunday and give-and- a-half-second half-cent -a-half inch and time-and-five-cent-section of fish of either as a video driver of the victim of the end of the 1981 and one person you are a time when: Monday they pose fish and although then, the official business that the mid-to-session and 1/2 minutes, as common staff dissent, fashion event , 7¢ at that time, and then the events that, then send the sessions--send riled to added that the-ocean, seven-hour sessions, § 10¢ the half of that stuff happens if this happens if that happens to us, that has some sense question please send your actions-, time-this-1987 -to-school-Semitism and germinate a position of not-that we're going to spend time sessions seven has been a dominant force for months and, of Manhattan staff, and this wasn't much of the via a half cents as fast as seven § event, set-to-asset-since-operations the USS-date, the position and sadly, saying it is often office salary and one that I have to one of lawyers, is why this has a ?? domains a doubt, and he says when seminars for the other four years ago by the end of section stored at Tyler ??..............
Senators, we'll be in recess until ten after three. Senate will come back to order. Senate bill ten is back before us. On it's second reading, is there any further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissik, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator do the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You send forward your amendment Senator. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissik moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissik, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ironically enough, this amendment was circulated to you at the beginning of session today, but addresses the same question that Senator Hartsell has raised. When I was looking at this particular provision in the bill that dealt with the superior court judges, the special superior court judges, it gave me a great deal of concern because it seemed to be the type of matter which is certain to result in litigation and that litigation will be on going for quite some time. And I'm not sure it's really worth it to get into that litigation, to have the courts deciding this issue. I mean, what we have here, and I went back to try to get some data about what these twelve superior court judges did and what they contributed as they're related to all the superior court judges here in North Carolina. And we looked back to the most recent physical year, what we find is that all of our superior court judges in this state and roughly two hundred three thousand nine hundred thirty-five cases, roughly two hundred four thousand, of those cases, roughly twelve percent were handled by these special superior court judges. So, they're carrying a substantial degree of the case load. A lot of the work. They are desperately needed. If they are deleted, which I think is the wrong thing to do, you're gonna have a superior court system that is back logged with cases. And it's absolutely unnecessary to do it. I think it's not very good public policy. It's certainly appears to violate the constitution of the state of North Carolina. And, I think this particular provision is extraordinarily problematic. So, I would strongly encourage you to delete this particular provision in this bill. Avoid the time consuming litigation that will inevitably come. And the potential of us really losing their qualifications, the experience, and the wisdom of the twelve seated judges that are in these particular positions. So, for that reason I've sent forth this amendment. And I would request your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise?[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you have the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Number one, I always find it a little bit comical when I hear an attorney say they hope we can avoid any litigation when they do that to make a living. So, I might just lay that out there first. We had a meeting over here of, probably would have cost somebody a few thousand dollars for that thirty minutes, but what we heard there was no definitive decision made upon this group on whether this is or is not. I think one can always take issue with appointments made in late December, when someone's leaving office the first week of January. We won't get into that being the choice to make for jurist. So, I think in essence, we should defeat this amendment and let's let the courts decide if they do indeed think this is a problem. So, I ask for you to vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you have the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. President. And to my colleagues here in the Senate, I learned a long time ago that participatin in acts of futility wasn't a wisest thing to do, but let me ply one. I made a reference to try to find something that's relevant to the conversation that's going on because part of what has been said is we are doing this bill as well as the part of it contained in the amendment, because it was done before. And, there was justification for doing it before. First place, well, there's two reasons and I wanted to point out to you. First place, I do still remember that passage in Leviticus 24:20, I believe, that talks about, you know, if a man breach, you breach him back, an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. So, I always learned that's the worst reason to do something because somebody has done it before, done it to you. Second thing, I don't remember anybody doing this specifically to me, but let me tell you this, I also remember on of the passages of...
In one of Martin Luther King Jr's speeches which helped shape my viewpoints on obligation to each other and the whole concept of nonviolence, and his point was that if we really believe in this eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth thing, what we will end up with is a nation that is without sight, and toothless. And that doesn’t serve any real purpose to anybody either. But let me set the record straight on two things. First, the judicial issues in 1987, when in fact the superior court judges and specials were eliminated, was a result of an effort led by Governor Martin who had the power to appoint these superior court judges. And in fact had appointed most of the special superior court judges because every governor who serves more than 4 years appoints all of the special superior court judges, they always have, these superior court judge terms are for 5 years, and so if they were made before the last year of the sitting governor’s term the new governor appoints them too. That’s simply been the case, but in 1987, the state had been sued by the North Carolina Republican Party, by the NAACP, by the North Carolina Black Lawyer’s Association, and the crux of that suit was that the way superior court judges had been elected, had prevented first Republicans and secondly African Americans from being elected to the superior court bench. In ’87 there were 12 superior court judges I think, either 6 or 12, and after redistricting, with the effort of all these parties that I’ve mentioned coming together, the urban areas of the state, specifically the big counties, were essentially broken apart into single member judge judicial districts. There were minority districts, majority/minority districts created. Rather than spending the millions and millions of dollars that it would take to create new judgeships, it made sense since you were having the same number that you would use these special judgeships that were already funded. Governor Martin realized that he would make the appointments, and in fact, there was some terms that would not have expired in time for these elections. They were extended for one year or two years, I forget exactly how long, but they were extended so that we wouldn’t have to confront this question; whether you could end a term while a judge was still sitting in it? But let’s go back to the real reason that you got there. We were talking about earlier, my good friend Senator Tillman was talking about bringing your team in. The last place you want to bring your team in, and make them think they're a part of a team, is to the judicial branch of government. Everybody over time has learned that you do want to separate decisions made by judges when they’re supposed to interpret the law from decisions made by politicians, especially those who make the law. The whole march of history says that you don’t want to do that, so I hope that Senator Tillman didn’t mean that you want your team in these judgeships. I can understand that argument and some of these quasi-executive areas, some of these quasi-judicial places, the Utility Commission, and some of the others, although I think that the logic about judges applies equally well to the Utilities Commission, and the reason these things are staggered, that is the Utilities Commission is so that you get some continuity and you get some sense of history as to why the rates were this at one point or why these arguments prevail differently now, but let me get to the issue in the amendment. The question of us getting up, and have somebody sue us, get the court, and join this action from taking effect on them, then taking the time to go up through the court system is a year or two years. We’ve spent the money, and I will tell you, I doubt that you will be able to get lawyers to do it for the cost that it will take to have the judges serving during that term, but Governor, Governors Heredafor, and this governor, Governor McCrory will have a chance to appoint I think either 3 or 5 judges as of June 30th, because their terms expire. Another 3 or 4 of them will have their terms expire next year, and all but 2 of them would expire over Governor McCrory’s term. Now you do something different in this bill because you’ve got sense enough to know that there was a reason to have these business courts. Now we could have set up business courts, and let these judges run statewide, but
We made the decision, that is following the advice and lead of the Judicial Branch, Supreme Court, to use three of these special judgeships and designate them business for judges. One is in Charlotte, one in Greensborough and one in Raleigh. And they’ve been some of the most successful courts that the state has ever seen. Most litigators, especially business litigators will break their ankles to get into one of these business courts to get their issues resolved. Because you get consistency, you know who your judge is going to be, but your reserving these judges out of eliminating the special. So even if your argument, that you can eliminate a whole class of judges were to hold water, you’ve now made an exception to it. Because you’ve accepted 3 of the 15 Special Superior Court Judges from what you’re doing to all of the others. Now, I’m glad you did because these judges have cases spread over long periods, the litigants again major corporations and the businesses of this state wouldn’t know how their cases are going to end up and wouldn’t know ultimately where they’re going to go. But I certainly hope that you will vote for this amendment, you probably won’t, but I hope that it will stimulate some of you to think. You should pull this provision out of this bill and you ought to re-think it. Last point, I’ve been fortunate enough over the years to try cases before dozens of judges. And I tell you, there is no difference in the quality, and in fact, sometimes it’s better, that you get from Special Superior Court Judges and from Resident Superior Court Judges. Early in my legal career, Governor Holshouser had made one of the better appointments of a Special Superior Court Judge .He had been the prize city attorney here in Raleigh. His name was Donnie Smith. And I want you to know that the entire bar, or most of the bar in Wake County, especially those of us who were younger, but the established bar in Wake County in 1977 led the effort to have Jim Hunt reappoint Donnie Smith to Superior Court. And Donnie held that position as long as he wanted to until he was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Martin. And so I tell you that the general feeling in the bar is it’s good to have these judges around because they do as good a job as any. And I said last but I’ll give you one last thing too. I may be arguing against the best interest of Wake County. We have 10% of the state’s population in this county and among the highest case loads and court loads of any of the counties. There are 112 Superior Court Judges I believe so just ?? would say if that’s the case there ought to be 11 or 12 Superior Court Judges resident in Wake County. There are 6 resident in Wake County. So a lot of these Special Superior Court Judges end up holding terms of court in Wake County because of the case load. We just built the most expensive building in the history of this county that will open in a couple of months. 200 and something million dollar new courthouse with quarters for not only these Special Judges but for any other judges who are visiting. Because of the case load that we have in this county. So it may be that these additional judges will end up as resident judges in Wake County. But clearly you cannot reduce the number of judges without directly impacting the Party of Justice in the state and I think that the Supreme Court, both Republicans and Democrats on it will tell you that, the administrative officers of the court will tell you that. And they will tell you that the system is designed, maybe not all over the state, but certainly in these half hour marriages. So that the number of Superior Court Judges that we have is the number that you need to deliver justice in this state. We haven’t created any more residential Superior Court Judges that I’m aware of in the last decade. At least not in this county and we could have been one of the counties to receive it. So I hope that you will rethink this willy-nilly manner of just eliminating the judiciary because you think that judges of all people want to be part of the new team. I would argue to you that they are the last people that want to be part of anybody’s team unless they’re teaming up with justice and fairness. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this does move forward and I don’t believe there’s any thought about teams. This is a matter of specifically dealing with the Superior Court Judges that there are many of us in the Senate and in the General Assembly that believe that a Superior Court Judge should not be appointed at large in that manner but more importantly, ultimately come from a designed or a Superior Court District like the rest of them do. And this is really the first step of moving in that direction so that the people will have the ultimate choice of who are the judges not.
?? officials. So I would hope that everyone understood that is the purpose behind why this moves forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you have the floor to speak a second time to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If indeed the long term plan is to revisit the ?? superior court judges are elected in this state and what we need is a bill that come forward that addresses that issue. But that's not the issue before us today. Today the issue is eliminating 12 sitting judges that are on the bench that handle 25 thousand cases. 12 percent of the workload. You're just gonna fire them? What's gonna happen to those 25 thousand cases that they handle? What's gonna happen to those litigates? Those people in your districts? Those people from out of the state North Carolina that either file lawsuits ?? superior court or individual criminals, some might have been involved in pending matters before superior court judges. What's gonna happen to those 25 thousand cases? You have now inundated an already back law judicial system by firing 12 judges. If you wanna revisit the way we handle our superior court judges and you don't think they need to be special judges, you wanna revisit how we go about doing that, then come forth with a comprehensive bill that addresses it. But don't go out there and fire 12 sitting judges, particularly when you know you're dealing with some potentially constitutional issues, and if you fail, you owe all these people back pay. You're gonna end up having to address a broad variety of other issues. So if you trying to fix a problem, fix it in a fitting an appropriate comprehensive way, not with this type of solution, which is only gonna put the judicial system behind the 8 ball with all these cases that will now need to be handled without the capacity ??, these judges that are special judges, they ?? throughout the entire state, all 100 counties, they get involved in lengthy cases, complex cases frequently. When there's a sitting judge that can't handle a case for some reason, they come in and do it. So they handle a lot of the work of a system. So if we are trying to do what we need to do in terms of helping those that are in our superior courts, we don't need to fire 12 sitting judges, over 10% of the man power, and leave those 25 thousand cases just to be some part of a back law. That's not the right thing to do in terms of public policies so I hope that in terms of this particular provision of this bill, we can delete it, move on, avoid the litigation costs and not impact those who have ?? the impact in our superior courts today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? What makes you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator McKissick would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? McKissick, thank you sir. You know, we're talking about a very back lawed court, and all of these individual, would you consider to help this entire process to increase the number of supreme court justices so that we can help the entire system? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that's a completely different issue, they take on a pellet cases, these are the sitting judges that decide cases that are original jurisdiction. We get the supreme court, you've gotta go through superior court and has to get appealed up to the court of appeals and then it has to go from the court of appeals to the supreme court. I'm open to all types of issues dealing ?? judicial system, if they are part of a total solution to problems that we may have. That's not the issue before us, the issue today is deleting 12 sitting judges on the court of original jurisdictions superior court. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, do you have the floor for a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In that same ??, Senator McKissick, you know information we've received, and I'm sure you being an attorney, you know better, but there are a lot of cases that the supreme court can't seem to get to because of the fact of their workload, so this would help the entire process in getting a lot of questions answered. So don't you think that would be a good idea to expand this ?? ?? by two more justices? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, when a supreme court hears, they're unlike the court of appeals, whoever appeals they help court in different panels ?? three judges. Supreme court sits as a whole. So I don't think it's gonna help them deal with backlog cases, no. If you want, perhaps, a different diversity of people that are part of that court, then that's one thing, but it won't increase the speed of which they can address cases that are backlogged. I think you ?? for more fundamental solution to address that issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor to speak for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One of the great things about our constitution it's written in plain English for many normal people to understand. Not that I claim to be normal, but we're all looking at, I believe the wrong section and we're confusing the difference between regular judges
[Speaker Change] And special Judges. And there’s a large print addition for those of us who are visually impaired. If you’ll look at your Constitution, Article Four, Section Nine, when it talks about the formation of Superior Courts. The General Assembly may provide by general law for the selection or appointment of special or emergency of Superior Court Judges not selected for a particular judicial district. We are the General Assembly. We may or may not provide for these Judges. It’s in the Constitution. We’re not looking at other parts of the Constitution talking about regular Judges. We’re talking about the special Judges. Which we, as the General Assembly, may or may not appoint or select. I urge you to vote against the amendment. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] To speak to the amendment. [Speaker Change] Senator Newton, you have the floor to speak to the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I’ve heard the comment and arguments so far this morning on this amendment, this question on special Judges. And Senator McKissick, I heard you recite some statistics. That, that is candidly show that is not my experience with special court Judges. Some information that we’ve had, and I’ve had for some time is that these special Superior Court Judges average less than ten hours a week on the bench. That’s less than two days. You and I both sir know that many of these appointments over the years have been blatantly political. And a number of these positions that you are referring to about being fired in a heavy case load, we all know we are just appointed here at the inter Governor Trace Term. One fellow, I believe his name is Young. I’m, I’m not sure what his qualifications are to be a Judge. Maybe, maybe their good. Maybe they’re not. The point of the matter is that when you have a new management team, which we are. And we have new government, Governor, which we do. It is the prerogative of this Body, as Senator [??] pointed out, to make fundamental changes to our State government. We have an opportunity to change the system. Many of us do believe that our Judges should be elected and not appointed, for political purposes. Or political payoffs. Or retirement plans. It’s a nice part-time job. I wish I had a part-time job that paid that well. I don’t. I work here. As we all know. It’s time that we make these kinds of changes. I know it’s not pretty sometimes when new management comes to town and says, we got to make fundamental changes. Sometimes good people have to be removed. New, as the analogy went, new football coach, sometimes good assistant coaches and other staff have to go because the new team’s there. That’s where we are today. This, this Bill, this section of the Bill says we’re going to eliminate special Superior Court Judges except for the business core. Part of the reason for that is because they’re not pulling that much of a workload. Part of it is because we had a plan to have elected Judges going forward. I urge you to defeat this amendment. [Speaker Change] Let the record show that Senator Brunstetter’s absence is removed. He’s back in the chamber with us. Is there any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment Four. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed no. Ten seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Sixteen having voted in the affirmative. Thirty three in the negative. Amendment Four fails. Now the Bill is. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] My vote does show the negative, it should have been positive. [Speaker Change] Senator Blue wants to change is vote to affirmative. Then the new count is, the new count is seventeen in the affirmative. Thirty two in the negative. Amendment Four fails and now the Bill as amended is back before the Body. Is there any further discussion or debate on Senate Bill Ten as amended? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Committee Substitute Senate Bill Ten as amended on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote no. Ten seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote.
[Speaker Changes] 33 having voted in the affirmative, 16 in the negative. Committee Substitute Bill 10 as amended passes its second reading. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise. [Speaker Changes] Object the third reading, please. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apodaca objects to third bill reading. Senate Bill 10 as amended will be placed on the calendar for tomorrow. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Changes] I’d like to send forward a finance committee report. [Speaker Changes] You can send forth your report, Senator. [Speaker Changes] Clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Senator Rucho for the finance committee submits the passage of House Bill 4 Committee Substitute number 1. U I fund ?? and program changes. Favorable. [Speaker Changes] House Bill 4, calendar. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. President. Motion please. [Speaker Changes] Senator, you have the floor to make a motion. [Speaker Changes] House Bill 4, just read in by the reading clerk, I move that it be placed on the calendar for Tuesday, February 12th. I've talked to Senator Nasbuh, and we’re gonna give it time to look at it a little more, so Tuesday the 12th. [Speaker Changes] Without objection, so ordered. Messages from the House, the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] The Joint Resolution 64. The Joint resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the state legislative building. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apocadaca, for what purpose of you rise? [Speaker Changes] Message from the house just read in from the reading clerk of the 50th anniversary. I move that the rules be suspended and it be placed on today’s calendar and brought before us for immediate consideration. [Speaker Changes] Without objection, so ordered. Members you are receiving copies of this joint resolution right now. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. President, while we’re passing out the message from the House, if we could, I move that we go ahead and bring Senate Joint Resolution 47 before us, and then we'll do the 50th anniversary after that. [Speaker Changes] Without objection, so ordered. Senate Joint Resolution 47, the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Senator Joint Resolution 47, state of the state speech. [Speaker Changes] Senator Apodaca is recognized to explain the resolution. [Speaker Changes] Thank you members, this is the resolution we always have before we invite the Governor over for the state of state speech. I ask that you vote in favor. [Speaker Changes] Is there any discussion or debate? Hearing none. The Question before the Senate is the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 47. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote no. 10 seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. 48 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. Senate Joint Resolution 47 is adopted. We need to have a third reading on the Joint Resolution. So for the third reading is there any discussion or debate? Hearing none. Clerk will read Senate Joint Resolution 47. [Speaker Changes] North Carolina General Assembly enacts.
?? ?? business section eight hand, questions sent his time passage of senate joint resolution 47 on this happen at an abandoned by his predecessor that made the request ?? seven by day and by the time AM and five and 1987, the solution was seven passes to remain in prison, and times such as server the times's- I-6402 150,000 residents say-no trial , that often as expected-spent some vision is that, as he suspended the indexes on resolution or house that is as safe for humans, then just so were the only is channeled entity, the demolition, it is evident statements that the only where the state has made the most weight gain a reputation for a ride on a 13 times in 10-member of the high as five of the late 1950s to the state have reviewed the session of downtime is making life were recently become an insufficient for content, dell said time is sat with the idea that doesn't mean that the funds rate of the victim, identified enacted legislation establishing the statements made in the commission in time and patience and the fire members of the Davis Mts bombing last year alone, the defendant Ivan our presidents day time. Monday and then once you have access to the posted that time, the depressing than speaker of the house rejected a defending the 20-month when the time of the hottest weather-a division -star with one site suitable for statements that time it happened perhaps the building and contact information about the care of the national endowment for the anti-business-development and weather conditions selected rival that of a fellow of the doctors down as of late have been the failure of an insight into the time has been with us, and another son 8-2 and a lot of time, for instance, is set to the American update the defendants, through the lens that would have cost us a trial that ended up spending more than internationally recognized that are designed by the fire, and, of the other hand, then that he did not say whether the information-the-making system of the assembly provided additional funding to five-foot building date, time is different than the $5.5 million in mezzanine-building that is, about 345 Mac, you'll have to hide that time that was as though the build and operate, Scott, space conservation from London international affairs have and whether they can just use state-owned 0.8595118 upgrade Salem State must provide ?? and-a-billy, chambers said it must have been members of his rest for fast as the Rangers phases of the second half and outstanding that month, the first page of the shutdown 1000-acre where, sending them as sessions investment, which ??............
care 6-63 well as the state legislative bill yesterday as the 71 times the most important parts of-the-Kennedy center time you have done it once the state of the high, medium, billionaire say that the state-of-court press to trial and joins me in the Simpson estate for 50 years, and for the video, halftime and incentive for a section on the deal was announced memory and later a strong and well as many others in the conceded that is, and the own statements that I'm sticking to retailers and express appreciation of $1955 in the contents of the accident, Richard Ellison hadn't been finding the source time state-owned with been significant several similar state, and that after the 2-3 different machines that have already has several of the show's hosts times and services become a solution that his best memories of high-density time * means an average of (a an economy has evidently have legislated the time of 50 years, and this happens sad time, and its asset-Wednesday in the Soviet advisers, that he has is a NBC made today, the man when using those still has lost someone wants, the democrats, we had the opposite side is designed as an instance, has tables with higher and if you find it is the people's work here and make various half-an idea of the sentence and one grandson, and the pages and some have time to a six-inch center for speakers list as presidents is sent to me at that time most of them, as the plane and all we did the first day of a seven-the DSM-the time the Andes is-as the main worry is a state that wasn't designed by architect of the Canadian-would all be happy that for some of this and that all the members of the assembly had the late 1950s to construct this happening as a place I'm happy that the selection of its business will have the foresight on the off-the-aged 50 years ago when we, the MIT and the office I have, but is this was familiar to sportsmen's lodge makes the sense that I'm just have as many fish speak only some of them-and-compact center, but he did not like we're in the auditorium ?? Is time-and-pop up a bit, and the 30 when you drive home here also were different of enough that you and you know we fast I'm never going to have your of request, offices when I came down time we have enough; I've known as the democrats have an ax to office in your hand if you a headache that came out about the day I'll add this to the state of war have been the key thing that's happened when that the capital and say what they were given a higher and higher if you are missing a fair China is all land of the city offices and condensate boys were made about that the date of the city and of course I have three years-week low. The first legislative building it, with a different route despite his later and I'm hard-headed for New York if we have the ability to make a decision on some time, for people who are ??.......
this state to come here and view us and participate with us. And I would just pitch it out to you. I guess I'm known a little bit as a progressive, but where would we be had there not been some foresight for them to move ahead with this building. It would be a substantially different state, and we would have substantially less of a product coming out of the general assembly than we have. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, senator. Is there any further discussion ordebate? Hearing none, the question before the body is the adoption of house joint resolution 64 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote no. 10 seconds will be allowed for the voting, and the clerk will record the vote. 49 having voting in the affirmative and zero in the negative, house joint resolution 64 passes its second reading. Without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] North Carolina general assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and house joint resolution 64 passes its third reading as adopted, and will be enrolled. Notices and announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you have the floor to make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The international business and trade caucus will meet at 4:00 in room 1228. I am aware the house is still on the floor, so we may adjust that a little bit. But room 1228 for the international business and trade caucus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The friends of state parks are having a reception tonight at 5:30 across the street. I'm sure they'd like to see you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats will caucus immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To appoint a personal privilege, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate has the floor to appoint a personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the senate, I believe you'll find on your desk a page that has been forwarded to you by me, and it is entitled "Cancer Prevention Study Number Three". This year, the American cancer society celebrates its one 100th anniversary. Today, you have a unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to fight back against cancer by enrolling in the American Cancer Society's new research study, called them the cancer prevention study - three. By joining this study, you can help researchers better understand the genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors that cause or prevent cancer, which will ultimately save more lives and create more birthdays. You're eligible to join if you are between the ages of 30 and 65 years, I have never been diagnosed with cancer, not including squamis or basal cell skin cancers, and are willing to make a long-term commitment to the study, which involves completing periodic follow-up surveys at home for the next 20 to 30 years. For more information you may see the sheet that is on your desk. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appoint a personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton has the floor for appointing a personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, senator Pate. I appreciate your invitation. I want to take a moment to thank those members who put together and invited us to the fish fry last night. I thought that was a very, very good opportunity for us to meet and greet and mingle and to remember our good friends who are no longer with this, Senator Jones, Senator Preston and senator East. I think it was very worthy of them, and I enjoyed it immensely. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further notices or announcements? If not, the chair recognizes senator Berger for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. If I could, a short announcement, or couple of announcements before that. First of all, it's my understanding that in recognition of the 50th anniversary of this building that there is cake upstairs for those of you who would like a little refreshment after session is over, and I think they'll be in the process of cutting that once we get finished. The second thing, for those of you who have not been here before, tomorrow is the day we do our panoramic photograph, and I know you've all seen, for the new folks you've all seen the pictures of the senate
panorama and it’s interesting how that comes about with the camera. The gentleman will explain the origin of the camera and how old the camera is, all while it’s spinning around in the chamber. Make sure you comb your hair, brush your teeth and get here with big smiles on your faces. We intend to do the picture just before session begins, and we’re going to have session at 11:30, so get here a little bit before 11:30, probably 11:20 or something like that, so we’ll all be in our seats. Mr. President, with that, I move that the Senate do now adjourn, subject to the receipt and reading of messages from the House and the governor, and the receipt, referral and re-referral of bills and committee reports, to reconvene tomorrow, February 7th, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is the Senate do now adjourn, subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Berger, to reconvene Thursday, February 7th at 11:30 a.m., seconded by Senator Meredith. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it and the Senate stands adjourned.