ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-ninth Legislature – First Regular Session
Minutes of Special Meeting
House Hearing Room 1 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Ms. Cajero Bedford |
Mr. Jones |
Ms. Sinema |
|
Mr. Campbell CL |
Mrs. McLain |
Mr. Williams |
|
Mr. Court |
Mr. Murphy |
Mr. Biggs, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Heinz |
Mr. Schapira |
Mr. Kavanagh, Chairman |
|
Mr. Crandall |
|
|
|
SB1168 – DPA S/E (7-4-0-2) |
SB1464 – DPA S/E (12-0-0-1) |
|
SB1316 – DP (11-0-0-2) |
SB1466 – DP (8-4-0-1) |
|
SB1444 – DISCUSSED & HELD AT |
|
|
REQUEST OF SPONSOR |
|
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
SB1466 – council on efficient government – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1466 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh six-line amendment to SB1466 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
Daniel Plumhoff, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that SB1466 establishes the Council on Efficient Government to review options for privatizing state goods or services (Attachment 2).
Vice-Chairman Biggs withdrew the motion that the Kavanagh six-line amendment to SB1466 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
Chairman Kavanagh read a letter
from Auditor General Debbie Davenport in which she stated that she does not
support or oppose the bill, but she is concerned regarding the role outlined
for the Office of the Auditor General. She discussed proposed changes for the
floor with House Majority Staff to alleviate her concerns so the committee will
do the initial analysis of privatization and the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee will calculate the numbers.
Chairman Kavanagh said he would like to move the bill forward with the understanding
that there will be a floor amendment that the Auditor General and sponsor
endorse.
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in favor of SB1466 but did not speak:
Tom Dorn, Lobbyist, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Heather Bernacki, Government Relations Associate, Management & Training Corporation
Susan Anable, Manager, Government Relations, Cox Communications
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, spoke in favor of SB1466 and the proposed floor amendment. He conveyed that this bill sets up a framework that has worked in other states to analyze potential privatization options and competitive organizations, and has the amount of resources and staff expertise to help the state push along these types of projects.
Leonard Gilroy, Director of Government Reform, Reason Foundation, spoke in favor of SB1466. He stated that many states have done something along these lines, but Florida offers the best parallel and is the inspiration from which the bill is drawn. It creates a state entity to help agencies develop business cases and justify the rationale of privatization from a third-party, independent perspective, which maximizes transparency and accountability, and takes this out of politics and places it into the policy realm.
Senator Pamela Gorman, sponsor, stated that this bill is a collaborative effort of many people. When it was first conceived, the gravity of the budget situation was not taken into consideration. The bill creates an independent commission to evaluate and consider privatization with objective data and establish true facts that privatization would save the state money. The language is a hybrid of a variety of different states’ pre-existing statutes to avoid the problems but have the victories other states experienced. In most states this has been done with current staff or slightly more staff, but due to the budget crisis, it will be done with no extra staff.
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, spoke in favor of SB1466. She stated that the Chamber’s mission is to further privatization of state activities when a cost savings can be realized. In other states like Louisiana, Virginia, Utah and Florida these boards and councils are being enacted using existing staff resources, but a floor amendment will work out those concerns.
Question was called on the motion that SB1466 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-4-0-1 (Attachment 3).
SB1464 – state financial condition; state treasurer – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: state budget reports; financial condition
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1464 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh six-page strike-everything amendment to SB1464 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 4) be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Campbell 17-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1464 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 5) be adopted.
Mike Huckins, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SB1464 requires the State Treasurer to submit an annual financial condition statement to the Governor, President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, and requires the Governor and allows the state Legislature to annually publish a statement indicating whether or not the total amount of state revenues appropriated for expenditure in the next fiscal year will or will not exceed the amount of state revenues appropriated for the current fiscal year, adjusted for changes in population and cost of living (Attachment 6). The 17-line amendment (Attachment 5) includes caseload and enrollment growth for several agencies in the adjusted appropriations statement for the executive budget and possible legislative resolution. The impact should be provided by the executive branch with submission of their budget request in January.
Mr. Campbell submitted that if
expenses are increasing because more people are enrolling in programs such as
the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), etc., the
17-line amendment (Attachment 5) adds that information to provide a complete
picture of the entire aspect of the budget.
Question was called on the motion that the Campbell 17-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1464 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 5) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh six-page strike-everything amendment to SB1464 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 4) as amended be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1464 but did not speak:
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Dean Martin, Arizona State Treasurer
Lorna Romero, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Heather Bernacki, Government Relations Associate, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Question was called on the motion that the Kavanagh six-page strike-everything amendment to SB1464 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 4) as amended be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1464 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 12-0-0-1 (Attachment 7).
SB1444 – appropriation of federal monies – DISCUSSED & HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
S/E: county elected officials; authority
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1444 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh two-page strike-everything amendment to SB1444 dated 6/17/09 (Attachment 8) be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Biggs 15-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 9) be adopted.
Daniel Plumhoff, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 provides elected county officials with discretionary authority to fulfill the statutorily prescribed duties of the offices held and reserves all necessary and implied powers or authority of those offices to the elected county officials (Attachment 10). The 15-line amendment (Attachment 9) contains the following provisions:
Question was called on the motion that the Biggs 15-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 dated 6/24/09 (Attachment 9) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 but did not speak:
Jack Zohar, representing self
Royce Flora, Chairman, District 8 Republican Committee; Maricopa County Treasurer
Timothy Rafferty, representing self
Richard Hanson, representing self
Charlene Hanson, representing self
Pamela Pearson, representing self
Kevin Myers, United for A Sovereign America (USA), representing self
Charles Hoskins, Maricopa County Treasurer's Office
Ann Flora, representing self
Ray Churay, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Jen Sweeney, Government Affairs Director, Arizona County Sheriffs and County Treasurers Mark Faull, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Rob Haney, representing self
David Fitzgerald, representing self
Tom Husband, representing self
Max McNeely, representing self
John Waughtal, representing self
Harlan Stratton, representing self
Shawn Dow, representing self
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 but did not speak:
Richard Lunt, County Supervisor, Greenlee County
David Gomez, Greenlee County Supervisor-District 1, representing self
Matt Ryan, Supervisor, Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Jon Tuepker, Government Relations, Coconino County
Mark Herrington, Supervisor, Graham County
Craig Sullivan, Deputy Director, County Supervisors Association.
David Tenney, Supervisor, District 4, Navajo County Board of Supervisors
Elizabeth Archuleta, Supervisor, County Supervisors Association of Arizona
Gary Watson, Mohave County Supervisor, representing self
Tom Sockwell, Mohave County Supervisor, representing self
Max Wilson, Supervisor, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
David Smith, County Manager, Maricopa County
Richard Searle, Supervisor, District 3, Cochise County Board of Supervisors
Hector Ruedas, Supervisor, Greenlee County Board of Supervisors
Shirley Dawson, Supervisor, Gila County Board of Supervisors
Michael Racy, lobbyist, Pima County
Chip Davis, Supervisor, Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, representing self
Fulton Brock, Supervisor/Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Paul Ahler, Executive Director, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council
Jim Norton, Navajo County
Marsha Bonham, Treasurer, Cochise County
Carl Taylor, Supervisor, Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Steve Peru, Manager, Coconino County
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to SB1444 but did not speak:
Yvonne Plascencia, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Dolores Doolittle, Pinal County Treasurer, representing self
Chairman Kavanagh announced that SB1444 will be held at the request of the sponsor.
SB1168 – federal monies; report – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: storage; firearms; motor vehicles
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1168 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh three-page strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 11) be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh two-page amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 12) be adopted.
Daniel Plumhoff, Majority
Assistant Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment
to SB1168 prevents property owners, tenants, employers and businesses from
prohibiting the storage or transport of lawfully possessed firearms in locked
and privately-owned vehicles parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other
designated parking area
(Attachment 13). The two-page amendment (Attachment 12) contains the following
provisions:
Chairman Kavanagh said this legislation passed the House, but there is concern that it may be lost in the Senate so it is being heard as a Senate bill; however, it has been improved and changed. A major concern by the business community was the cause of action where if a business illegally banned someone from having a weapon in their car and that person was robbed on the way home, he/she could sue the parking lot owner for unlawfully prohibiting the person from having the gun in the parking lot. The business community and National Rifle Association (NRA) agreed to remove that language. Also, there was concern about a defense contractor on or adjacent to a military base and problems this legislation would cause with respect to security and national defense, so an exemption is provided in the two-page amendment.
Question was
called on the motion that the Kavanagh two-page amendment to the strike-everything
amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09
(Attachment 12) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Sinema three-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 14) be adopted.
Mr. Plumhoff explained that the three-line amendment (Attachment 14) limits the number of firearms allowed in a vehicle.
Ms. Sinema added that the three-line amendment (Attachment 14) states that a motor vehicle can contain no more than three firearms, although she is willing to change the number.
Chairman Kavanagh opposed the three-line amendment (Attachment 14), stating that these negotiations are delicate. He does not want to make changes that may jeopardize the entire measure.
Question was called on the motion that the Sinema three-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 14) be adopted. The motion failed.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Sinema four-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 15) be adopted.
Mr. Plumhoff explained that the four-line amendment (Attachment 15) adds an additional exemption and allows day care centers to prohibit firearms on their property.
Ms. Sinema related that federal law currently protects K-12 schools and calls those gun-free zones, but a day care center does not have any kind of protection.
A brief discussion followed,
after which Chairman Kavanagh remarked that many meetings were held with
stakeholders, one of whom was a day care representative. Most of the people
who opposed the bill have parking lots and do not install signs banning guns on
the premises. He checked several day care centers and did not find any with a
sign banning guns. Also,
Harkins Theater provides day care, which could involve the entire mall. He
does not believe this amendment is necessary.
Question was called on the motion that the Sinema four-line amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 15) be adopted. The motion failed.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Sinema two-page amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 16) be adopted.
Mr. Plumhoff explained that the two-page amendment (Attachment 16) removes the civil liabilities provisions and allows property owners to post signs prohibiting firearms.
Ms. Sinema stated that the two-page amendment (Attachment 16) allows property owners the right to make decisions about safety on their property and strikes a good balance between Second Amendment rights and private property owners’ rights.
Chairman Kavanagh commented that the purpose of the bill is to give individuals the right to have a gun in a locked car, hidden, but the two-page amendment (Attachment 16) undoes the entire bill.
Question was called on the motion that the Sinema two-page amendment to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/23/09 (Attachment 16) be adopted. The motion failed.
Ms. Sinema noted that SB1113, restaurant; handguns; posting, will be heard in the Judiciary Committee. She understands the NRA representative endorses posting language about guns in restaurants, so she is puzzled as to why it is not okay to post signs in parking lots.
Chairman Kavanagh responded that he believes that bill is a perfect complement. The NRA says that if a restaurant is going to be allowed to ban guns, it is reasonable to allow a person who takes a gun into that restaurant for protection to walk out to the parking lot and safely lock and hide the gun in their car.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that the Kavanagh three-page strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 11) as amended be adopted.
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 but did not speak:
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Incorporated
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Incorporated
Gary Christensen, Arizona State Rifle & Pistol Association
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 but did not speak:
Wendy Briggs, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association
Jason Bagley, Government Affairs Manager, Intel Corporation
Rip Wilson, WalMart Stores, Incorporated
Michelle Ahlmer, Executive Director, Arizona Retailers Association
Dale Wiebusch, Legislative Associate, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Susan Anable, Manager, Government Relations, Cox Communications
Shirley Gunther, Government Relations Officer, City of Avondale
Russell Smoldon, Lobbyist, Salt River Project
Jerry Fuentes, President, American Telephone & Telegraph Arizona
Joseph Abate, Counsel, American Telephone & Telegraph
James Stabler, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund Arizona
Kathi Beranek, Government Relations Coordinator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Jason Bezozo, System Director, Government Relations, Banner Health
Gabriel Rushing, Public Affairs & Economic Development Representative, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
Katie Decker, Legislative Liaison, Town of Fountain Hills
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Michelle Bolton, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
John MacDonald, U.S. Airways
Jim Norton, Goodrich Corporation
Michael Preston Green, Lobbyist, The Boeing Company; BNSF Railway
Sherry Gillespie, Government Relations Manager, Arizona Restaurant Association
Marcus Osborn, Raytheon Corporation; Arizona Manufacturers Council; Goodrich Corporation, opposed the strike-everything amendment to SB1168. He said the measure has been improved but needs more work. He would be glad to provide additional language to allow an exemption for military defense contractors that handle top secret information and follow federal requirements.
Chairman Kavanagh noted that state law does not trump federal law.
Mr. Osborn indicated that he would be more comfortable making the clarification in state law. He endorsed removal of the language regarding private rights of action, but expressed concern about the following:
· Language stating that a company policy that violates the act is null and void by a mechanism of law, which could be clarified to state that only the gun elements of the policy would not violate the larger employment policy, etc.
· Language referring to any policy that unduly burdens a gun owner’s rights or abilities. He does not know what that means and it could open up companies to potential litigation.
· Section 4 of the two-page amendment (Attachment 12) refers to an individual’s locked and private vehicle in which the owner can possess legally authorized products. The focus is on weapons, but in many cases employers ban alcohol or other kinds of chemicals from the facility that are legal to possess.
· A certain group of railroads prohibits weapons on the facilities because of federal law, for which he would like an exemption.
· A group of members maintain very secure parking lots. The original bill required a search of 100 percent of the vehicles 100 percent of the time. A lower threshold of these secure facilities is warranted.
· Businesses are responsible for maintaining and assuming the liability on their property, and therefore, should have the right to tell visitors and employees what can be done on their property.
Todd Rathner, Legislative Consultant, National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke in favor of the strike-everything amendment to SB1168. He said the NRA simply wants to make sure that its members and gun owners in Arizona can take guns with them for self defense or sporting purposes on the way to work or home and lock them in their vehicle. It is perfectly consistent to have a bill stating that if someone is carrying a gun into a restaurant and the owner bans guns, the gun owner should be allowed to lock the gun in their car because the restaurant owner may not have banned guns at one time but then decided to do so, and the person was not aware of the change. The S/E amendment is different in that the private rights of action language is removed. He said the NRA asked the business community on numerous occasions for specific places and situations where firearms may need to be banned such as the Raytheon plant in Tucson, which is half military base and half private. The NRA was willing to make accommodation for that, but is not willing to agree to blanket exemptions, i.e., if a company handles top secret documents according to a federal code or has a day care center on the property, the entire company is exempt.
When asked how many guns should be allowed in a vehicle, Mr. Rathner stated as many as the person wants for self defense or to go on a hunting trip. For example, he goes to Oklahoma every year with family and friends. There could be six hunters in the car, and if each brings one shotgun for deer and one for bird hunting, there would be 12 guns. If a few bring a handgun for self defense, there could be more than 12, so he is not sure where to draw the line.
Mr. Jones remarked that he goes to the shooting range with a half dozen different firearms because each has its own characteristic, and he practices with all of them.
Ms. Sinema commented that she can understand a person’s interest in wanting to have a firearm for self protection, hunting or shooting at the range, but sometimes it may be inappropriate for a person to have a cache of guns in the back seat or under the seat of their vehicle.
In response to questions, Mr. Rathner opined that Second Amendment rights and private property rights are equal, and one of the roles of government, when rights are in conflict, is to legislate and settle the differences.
Chairman Kavanagh remarked that he struggled with the issues of private property rights and Second Amendment rights, but he believes this legislation is a reasonable compromise. A brief discussion followed.
In response to how this legislation will benefit the people of Arizona, Mr. Rathner related that the NRA received hundreds of emails regarding instances with specific company policies that negatively affect gun owners. He offered to provide a list of 300 cases with the names redacted, noting that the people indicate they cannot defend themselves on the way to work or home or go shooting after work.
Chairman Kavanagh remarked that the NRA magazine has a section about citizens who prevented crimes because they had concealed weapons.
Mr. Rathner stated that within the sampling he mentioned there are a number of stories about how people were able to defend themselves in situations, sometimes on the way to or from work. The genesis of the bill is a complaint from an employee of a particular company who said this bill was passed in other states and questioned why it cannot be passed in Arizona.
Chairman Kavanagh related that he grew up in New York City when there was a lot of crime. He was a cop and because he is large and carried a gun, he went everywhere he wanted to and whenever he wanted to, but women are not large and most do not have guns, so they are afraid to go out at night. If women have a concealed weapon and take a concealed weapons course, their lives could be improved because they could go to a lot of places they normally would not go. If they could not keep a gun in a parking lot, they would just not go there with their friends.
Mr. Heinz noted that when the removal of photo radar was discussed, Mr. Biggs insisted on data proving the benefit of retaining the system; however, in this case, he does not see any data, but hears only anecdotes. Chairman Kavanagh stated that it is not possible to record something that is preventable.
Mr. Rathner recommended books by John Locke, an economics professor, who conducted studies on crimes prevented with firearms, most times without the firearms being fired.
Matthew Dogali, State Lobbyist, National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke in favor of the strike-everything amendment to SB1168. He said in relation to the First Amendment issue, there was a case in California, Pruneyard Shopping Center vs. Robins, where individuals were leafleting a private shopping center and were told to leave because they were in violation of a rule that posted no soliciting or posting. The outcome of the case was that there was no taking of property, no violation and the individuals were removed from the property illegally based on free speech and First Amendment protection. There is no confluence to the argument that the strike-everything amendment is different for the Second Amendment than the First Amendment; it is the same argument. Beyond the First Amendment argument, he is not sure what else needs to be elaborated upon.
Suzanne Gilstrap, Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife, spoke in favor of the strike-everything amendment to SB1168. She noted that Mr. Rathner described the kind of issues hunters run into when guns cannot be taken to work or a hunting trip is planned, etc. She opined that people need to have the ability to carry guns and lock them in their vehicle in a parking lot.
Clint Bolick, Litigation Director, Goldwater Institute, neutral on the strike-everything amendment to SB1168, stated that there is no clash between Second Amendment rights and private property rights. The Second Amendment, just like all of the Bill of Rights, ends the moment someone else’s property is entered. He said an aspect of the strike-everything amendment not mentioned is the possibility of compensation for property owners under Proposition 207, which was passed overwhelmingly by the voters a few years ago, and needs to be factored into this legislation.
Vice-Chairman Biggs noted that if someone leaves for work and carries a gun in the trunk of the car, no one would know, and questioned if that is a problem. Mr. Bolick responded that businesses have a legitimate interest, whether it is reasonable or not, in believing, in some instances, that it would be a bad idea to have guns so close.
Chairman Kavanagh stated that this bill is in the interest of public safety because it has the element of not depriving someone of a weapon for self defense.
A brief discussion followed concerning private property rights. Mr. Bolick stated that the strike-everything amendment may carry a very hefty price tag, possibly $263 million, if all of the affected businesses filed a lawsuit.
Ms. Sinema remarked that this legislation necessitates a delicate balance between the Second Amendment right and private property rights, but without the sign posting amendment she offered, she does not believe the language is on the right side of that balance.
Delia Garcia, Senior Manager of Public Affairs & Government Relations, WalMart Stores, Incorporated, spoke in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1168 because of the risk to public safety. She said even if no one knows someone has a gun in the car, the owner of the gun knows it is there.
Chairman Kavanagh stated that he was in a WalMart store where anyone could break the display case, grab bullets and load a gun.
Ms. Garcia said WalMart respects customers’ right to bear arms in the store, so it is not unusual for a customer to have a firearm on their hip or on the property, but WalMart would not be able to prohibit employees from having firearms in their vehicles in the parking lot, which is current company policy. It is not an automatic termination offense, but it is punishable up to termination. She noted that a store manager in the East Valley last year had a loaded firearm in his vehicle. He saw two shoplifters leave the store, chased them in his vehicle and brandished his weapon, which created a risk to public safety. There are occasions when people show poor judgment, which cannot be legislated. She added that employees have not indicated a need to defend themselves on the way to or from work.
Vice-Chairman Biggs asked about someone who purchases a gun at WalMart and places it in the trunk in order to continue shopping. Ms. Garcia responded that a customer who purchases a gun in the store can do that, but the particular objection is to not being able to set a policy for employees, which should be okay as an employer and private property owner, just as policies are set for any other issue related to employee conduct.
Ellen Poole, Executive Director, Southwest Region Government Relations, USAA, opposed the strike-everything amendment to SB1168, stating that it will increase liability for employers in three areas:
Mr. Jones asked if an employer could use as an affirmative defense the fact that the state prohibited the employer from denying the employee the ability to have a weapon in their vehicle if something occurred as a result. Ms. Poole replied that the Rules Committee recommended the inclusion of affirmative defense language, which was removed in the two-page amendment (Attachment 12), so reinsertion of the language would be appropriate.
She added that the USAA sought an exemption because it has a day care center contained within the property, which is fenced, and armed guards patrol the property.
Question was called on the motion that the Kavanagh three-page strike-everything amendment to SB1168 dated 6/22/09 (Attachment 11) as amended be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1168 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-4-0-2 (Attachment 17).
SB1316 – nuclear emergency management; appropriations; assessments – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Biggs moved that SB1316 do pass.
Mike Huckins, Majority Research Analyst, explained that SB1316 appropriates the sum of $1,523,108 in FY 2009-2010 and $1,569,091 in FY 2010-2011 from the state General Fund to the Nuclear Emergency Management Fund (NEMF). The bill also levies an assessment against each consortium of public service corporations and municipal corporations operating a commercial nuclear generation station in an amount equal to that appropriated to the NEMF, plus any interest (Attachment 18).
Vice-Chairman Biggs announced the names of those who signed up in support of SB1316 but did not speak:
Russell Smoldon, Lobbyist, Salt River Project
Edward Flinn, Director, Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA)
Aubrey Godwin, representing self
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Andrew Carlson, Government Affairs Representative, DEMA
Question was called on the motion that SB1316 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 11-0-0-2 (Attachment 19).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
July 7, 2009
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
2
June 24, 2009
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------