Since, as you will see below, there weren’t a lot of notes to take from the meetings attended on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, they have all been compiled into this one entry.  They are edited notes, not a complete transcript of everything that was said.  You can go to the House webpage and view the video for the House Floor session.   Links provided take you to more information about the bill including the actual language and vote details.

House Conference Committee on Judiciary, Public Safety and Military

CCR to SB447 by Armes

Armes: there was a part in the bill where a gun inventory would be done if a suspect was violent. That was removed. I think it’s a fair compromise and strengthens protective orders.

Morrissette: it says the court can consider the safety of any and all alleged victims. That will expand the scope of these hearings. They’re pretty much a free-for-all now.

CCR is signed out of cmte by six members

CCR to HB2535 by McCullough

McCullough: extends rule against perpetuities.

Morrissette: I feel we’re voting on something we don’t know anything about. How does this help the folks of Oklahoma? McCullough: constitution requires us to have a rule against perpetuities. This protects the interests of family farmers and small businesses. Allows you to transfer accumulated wealth without having to sever those interests. It protects our farmers and businesses from federal estate tax and provides income for the state off of these trusts. Morrissette: it’s insulating these trusts from federal estate taxes, right? McCullough: yes, that is the intent of the bill.

CCR is signed by 8 members.

CCR to SB1055 by Enns

Sherrer: there’s language that says successful treatment for PTSD will not be included as treatment of mental illness. Is that subjective? Enns: there is a standard out there. It would be the purview of the physician. Sherrer: doesn’t striking the language that someone adjudicated as incompetent is precluded from getting a concealed carry permit mean someone who is incompetent can get one? Enns: the OSBI and DA’s office all agree this is the language we should have. Sherrer: is PTSD something that someone, particularly a veteran, gets treated for and cured or is it something they carry with them the rest of their life? Enns: anyone can have PTSD. It’s the body’s reaction to a stressful situation. It could be someone who was in a tornado or someone who was raped.

Wesselhoft: why make a special provision for PTSD for veterans and not others? Enns: the idea is to help veterans, but it does not preclude other sufferers.

Sherrer: is it possible to be successfully treated for PTSD and not be stable? Enns: no, once you’re treated, you’re stable.

CCR is signed out of cmte by 6 members.

CCR to SB1067 by Roan

Roan: the Senate restored the bill to its original state and added the language allowing tag agents to give the written test.

Morrissette: there is new language on fees. Roan: that’s the language from HB2367 that we already passed. Morrissette: it says a police officer has probable cause to detain someone on their own property for almost any reason? Roan: this has to do with towing, not detaining a person.

Jordan: if I read this correctly, you have a vehicle in your driveway and a police officer thinks you don’t have insurance he can tow it? Roan: if there’s a complaint that a vehicle is blocking a driveway and there’s probable cause then it can be towed. They can’t tow from private property right now. Jordan: I understand the spirit, but that’s not how it’s drafted.

Roan lays the bill over.

CCR to SB1887 by Jordan

Jordan: I think this is the solution to the military divorce retainer pay situation. Provides a calculation on the amount a spouse can get in a divorce based on the length of the marriage and the rank and pay of the military member at the time of the divorce.

Wesselhoft: was there any consultation with Rep. Banz on this? Jordan: yes, Sen. Russell worked with Rep. Banz on this.

McCullough: there are some veterans who think that in no event should this retainer pay be part of the property that is divided. We allow the court to make that distinction. What would happen if we left it as sole property of the soldier? Would that run afoul of federal statute or current divorce law? Jordan: under federal law, they are already dividing that, but in a way some consider unfair. This provides the court a standard to split it in the fairest way possible.

Wesselhoft: do other states use this same formula? Jordan: I don’t know the answer to that. Phil Tucker, Edmond attorney: the formula is used in other states. It’s called the Marital Fraction. It’s not identical language, but it is language the federal government will recognize.

CCR is signed by 9 members.

House Floor session

HJR1113 by Nelson

Nelson: approves rules of DHS allowing them to recoup cost of collecting child support.

Morrissette: we’re adding fees to those who owe child support, isn’t that what’s going on? Nelson: allows DHS to recoup costs. Morrissette: that’s one way of looking at it. Another way is we’re taking money from those paying child support. Nelson: another way is we’re currently taking the cost from taxpayers that don’t pay child support. I think the people that owe the money ought to pay. Morrissette: parents that owe the money do their best to pay and to tack on another fee is unfair. Nelson: I don’t think it’s unfair it’s a cost taxpayers are paying now.

Williams: is the $25 tacked on to the person paying or the person receiving? Nelson: it is taken out in addition to the payment to the custodial parent where allowed by federal law.

Morrissette: How much money is this going to raise? Nelson: this is only on delinquent cases. I don’t have a figure on that. Morrissette: so this is a way where the federal government is helping the state? Nelson: and there are a lot of ways that is not the case.

Reynolds: this is a fee for service, who is getting the benefit? Nelson: the child, ultimately. Reynolds: but the person paying the fee is not getting a benefit. Nelson: I don’t think I follow you. Reynolds: what does the fee cover? Nelson: transmitting of documents and other costs.

Resolution fails 47-46.

House General Conference Committee on Appropriations

CCR to HB1979 by Pittman

Pittman: held over from last year. Creates Oklahoma Freedom Trail. Now has no fiscal impact.

Cox: in my district I have a park with bathrooms locked up, empty swimming pools and unfilled maintenance positions. So I’m concerned about no fiscal impact. Pittman: it’s starting with just a website. They will put QR Codes on signs so people can get more information via their cell phones. Cox: I want to hear there’s no impact to the Tourism Dept. budget. Leslie Blair, Dept. of Tourism: we had some issues with this bill in the beginning. We have a solution we think is workable. Will be part of our regular web development.

Billy: what changes were made in the Senate? Pittman: we’ve removed the amendment that added Parks and Recreation to put it back in its original form.

Peters: if everyone is willing to do this, why do we need the statute? Pittman: we thought it was better to have it in statute so that as people retire from agencies, it will continue.

CCR is signed by 13 members.

CCR to HB2510 by Coody

Coody: says a person cannot use an organization’s tax exempt status for personal use.

CCR is signed by 13 members.

CCR to HB2523 by Steve Martin

Martin: combining two wildlife request bills that both passed out of the House easily.

CCR is signed out by 13 members.

CCR to HB2659 by Jordan

Jordan: changes interest penalty calculation on uniform building code from 1% per day to 1% per month.

CCR is signed by 13 members.

CCR to HB2242 by Denney

Denney: simply restores title

CCR is signed by 13 members.

CCR to HB2273 by Cox

Cox: this is the same bill that failed last week. We took out the part that the pharmaceutical industry opposed.

Dorman: is part of the problem that pharmaceutical reps try to get doctors to prescribe their drugs which may be more expensive, but not better? Cox: that’s a problem with the industry in general.

Sears: this has a savings to the state? Cox: probably has no fiscal impact. Might give more control by reducing from 120 days to 30 days.

McPeak: if the doctors would conscientiously base prescriptions on what was most effective, there wouldn’t be a need for this? Cox: that’s true for more than just Medicaid doctors. McPeak: this will not eliminate the doctor from prescribing what he thinks it is best, but might prevent Medicaid paying for it? Cox: the doctor can call Medicaid and get approval in 24-hours. It’s been that way for more than a decade.

CCR is signed by 13 members.