Item 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Mauch noted that the language was changing from “may” to “shall.” Ms. Bettman ascertained that there would not be a second to a motion to change the stand on the bill. ? HB 2321 – Relating to court-ordered license suspension. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Mauch explained that the bill was seeking to extend the statute of limitations to 10 years for the DMV. She said Municipal Court could take action again at the end of five years to renotify the DMV but the work load at court in order to do that prohibited it. She underscored that people do respond to taking care of outstanding court matters when there was a drivers license suspension in effect and that the court strove to work with people. She stated that there were processes by which people could make payments. Ms. Taylor said she was thinking of poor people who could not afford to pay the fine and that upon occasion a person received a fine that was not “just.” Ms. Mauch responded that a person who could not afford the fine could pursue alternatives such as community service or the road crew. Ms. Taylor thought it was “horrible” that a person would have to work on the road crew. Ms. Bettman said in the effort to get through dozens of bills, if it appeared there would not be a second to a motion to change the priority or stance on a bill the CCIGR should move on and the committee member who felt strongly about such a bill should pull it for council discussion. She ascertained that there would be no second to a motion to change the stance on HB 2321.. ? HB 2353 – Relating to juvenile court jurisdiction over pregnant women. Recommended to Drop Ms. Taylor had pulled the bill, but she indicated she was amenable to keeping the stance as a ‘drop.’ ? HB 2357 – Relating to the courts. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Mauch explained that electronic signatures were becoming “the reality.” She said what was outlined in the bill was a direction the Municipal Court was looking at pursuing and was also the course other courts the City court interacted with were charting. She stated that because of the Chief Justice all of the necessary checks and balances were in place and this bill would allow the Municipal Court to have the necessary laws in place to change to electronic signatures. Ms. Bettman said she was “fine” with the electronic signature component of the bill. Her concern lay with the potential for the elimination of records once there was an electronic copy. Ms. Mauch responded that this applied to the Circuit Court and would not apply to the Municipal Court. She offered to research it further. Ms. Bettman suggested that they monitor the bill. Ms. Pryor asked if the bill specified the time period records would be retained and then destroyed. Ms. Mauch replied that she was uncertain. She noted that the court archivist and the administrator were coming together to determine this. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 5 Relations