Item 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 1 Oppose. The motion passed 2:1, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. ? HB 2357 – Relating to courts. Recommended Priority 3 Support. Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at Ms. Bettman’s request, and had to do with the use of electronic documents. Ms. Bettman said her concern with the issue was that it destroyed the archive. She posited that a virus or a change in technology would be a problem if there were no backup. Ms. Mauch said the court’s intent was to not destroy the paper copy until a case was closed, which was consistent with how archiving wass currently done. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Mauch said the use of electronic documents would streamline the administrative function, but they would review the matter thoroughly before accepting electronic filings. Mr. Pryor asked if in 15 years someone wanted to review a document, it would still be available, albeit in electronic form. Ms. Mauch said it depended on the retention schedule as set by the archivist as well as database usage. Speaking to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding a mandate for change and the amount of work involved, Ms. Mauch said they had not decided what method to use, but that a time-forward process made the most sense. Ms. Bettman said she was still nervous about destroying archives, but would defer to Ms. Mauch’s judgment. ? HB 2367 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures. Recommended to Monitor. Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at the request of Ms. Taylor, who suggested the bill be dropped because it did not seem worth spending time on. Ms. Mauch said the motivation for the “monitor” recommendation was the relating clause. If something unforeseen was added and get through, it could greatly affect what the court does. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor felt the recommendation was fine. Ms. Taylor acquiesced. ? SB 83– Relating to terminology describing persons. Recommended to Monitor. Ms. Taylor also suggested this bill be dropped. Ms. Mauch explained that the bill was huge but was “just a lot of terminology clean-up.” However, she said their experience in the past was that it was the type of bill that could have something different inserted, which they would want to track. Everyone agreed that it could continue to be monitored. ? SB 267 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures. Recommended to Monitor. Ms. Mauch said the bill, which involved operating the court as a court of record, had been pulled at the request of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman said she had heard that they were pursuing this idea. Ms. Mauch explained that a previous policy was around being a court of record. Now, the Supreme Court was overseeing that courts opting to be courts of record did so appropriately and consistently. In response to Ms. Bettman’s question, Ms. Mauch said they were not pursuing the matter, not because of the associated technical cost, but due to the amount of staffing required. She added that they had originally pursued the matter because it was enacted during the last session and they had the option. Ms. Bettman said she was fine with the recommendation. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 3 Relations