A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | August 5, 2015 | Committee Room | Judiciary IV Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

Members thank you for your patience and I apologize for the delay, we're going to go ahead and get started. House committee on JudiciaryIV will now come to order. To begin I want to recognize our sergeant in arms and our pages with us today. Our sergeant at arms are, Joe Osten, Martha Gadinson and Charles Godwin as always we thank you for your assistance and your service to us. Also want to recognize our pages. I believe we have four pages serving with us today, Phil Simons and wave your hands so we can recognize you. We have Foster [xx], sponsored by Representative Rick Catlyn. Caitlin Bird sponsored by Speaker Moore. Marie Carol sponsored by Representative Donny Lamberth, Andrew Connorway sponsored by Representative George Graham. Thank you, thank you all for serving with us today, and I hope that this will be an educational experience for you and that you enjoyed your time with us. Members we have, we're only going to consider one bill today. Senate bill 120 the Department of Insurance Licence Processing Fees, we're going to differ that until we meet next, which will likely be next week. Still just some questions surrounding some proposed language on other amendments that we would just like to have sometime to take a look at. So we will not be considering that Bill, Senator Haslam sorry for a trip over, we'll view again, probably next week. So we're going to now consider senate bills 429 labor, 2015 technical and conforming changes, there is a PCS for this, do we have a motion to have the PCS? Representative Setzer moves that we have the PCS before us. All in favor say aye? Aye. All opposed no? The ayes have it the PCS is now properly before us. Representative Brian is going to be walking us through this bill, Senator Broxville cannot be with us today so, Representative Brian. Thank you Madam Chair, committee member this is senator [xx] and he had a family issue his first commitment this morning and knowing and I agree to take a shot at this if we get too caught up, we'll push this in the next week too. This just little background, I'm going to give and a little update on the change of the PCS and then what I would like to do, this is an agency bill brought by the department of labor. I think after I give you a little background on why we have a PCS and what's different about this particular PCS then what passed the senate which I think pass unanimous in the senate by the way. I think I'll have staff give a little background explanation of the bill, and then I think there might maybe a representative from the Department of Labor here who may be able to help give the committee some sort of feedback on the bill. The first point that I'd like to highlight is the PCS change and if you go actually you don't have the right the bill in front of me. Sorry I didn't actually have the extra permit. If you go to part three, the very last page. Page five of the bill, you'll see there's a change in the section. You even point the exception for pointer sale for off- premises consumption, and this is an issue that was raised recently brought to the Department of Labor and ABC Commission regarding a circumstance that's arisen. I think particularly in grocery stores as many of you may be familiar now and typical sort of grocery store content cashiers at the front may be under 18 years old, 16, 17 years old better obviously great jobs for kids that age people can come through and buy alcohol at the point of sales, or you may be getting a 6 pack  beer bottle of wine, 16 years old cashier in that circumstance because it has been typically considered in all premises it's alcohol, it's for alcohol consumption all premises as you may be aware some premises now have galleries in the grocery where you can get a sandwich, you may also be able to get a beer and there is already existing grower water, we were done previously allow someone to dispense the grower for you, now that's all premises

consumption, that the person dispensing the beer or selling you the beer for premises consumption at that little part in the grocery store have to be 18 and over and but what they realized was the on- premises law and looking at the statute, appeared to be requiring that every person including the cashier be 18 years old or older. Even though that cashier is not changing their function at all, and so in our main affair to deal with this, where you have a section of the grocery that may have an on- premises consumption, but they're still generally a grocery store where people are just coming through and buying their groceries, and not wanting to have to hire only people 18 years or older or not wanting to prevent groceries store, and other similar entities from having these on- premises consumptions is through the language with themselves. A youth employed under 18 years of age can't prepare, serve, dispense or sell any alcoholic beverages including it makes beverages except at the point of sale for only off-premises consumption, and in fact maybe since I've given that long explanation of this, I'm glad to take questions, and Andy Allen[sp?] from retail folks here as well that we might be able to answer these questions. Thank you, Representative Bryan. For a few questions, Representative Hager you had a question. Thank you [xx]. A question, I don't know if someone's here from probably think you said they were Representative Bryan, but the question I had was on the part where you're deleting, repealing the Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Rules, could you explain why we're doing that? And if somebody is here from the agency or not? The [xx] agency can do it.   You want to state your name and who you represent for record please. Thank you. I'm [xx] What we're trying to do in this bill is to just delete some language is antiquated, outdated. The water board is a board that has not met in some time and before that [xx] we don't see that as need to function anymore. Representative Adam, did you have a question? Yes, just so I can explain this later. New grocery stores are having areas that do sell sandwiches and now some alcoholic beverages, but they don't have a check-out for that particular area, is that correct? Is that what we're contemplating, and so when the person checksout they're going to check out the cash register at the door? I think they can actually purchase their, I do know with the growlers[sp?] I met that Andy Allen gives some further insight that he's had from the folks he's been working with. With the growlers, you actually do purchase and the checkout line, they have to be dispensed by someone 18 or older so that if they fill out the cover the top and then you put it your basket when you take out and check out at the front. But Andy do you have I mean the council I ask you would you repeat your question Just trying to understand that grocery stores are changing and now we do have this new feature where alcoholic beverages are sold openly in some portions of the store and crawlers that are checked out during check out lines and my point was, do these grocery stores have the seating area for the sandwiches or whatever and the outside beverages do they checkout in that area of the store? The whole process in the store That's right. That is a separate activity Representative Torbett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions, pretty much about the security docket. My first one goes back to what Representative Hager touched on the Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessels, I'm going to make a wild assumption. Back in the day as it were, my guess is that these people might have dealt with nuclear reactor containment vessels, would be my guess, and since there hasn't really been activity in that sector for quite a long time. What would happen should

a nuke, or rather some other [xx] sometime in the future decide to build a nuclear reactor vessel? Who would be at the State level of the group looking at those types of issues? With the assumption that this was a group that was doing it. Is that clear as mud? [xx] Yes we'll need to prove activity our department of labor, Representatives. Exactly, exactly I might be the only one here, but I got it. I'm not the only one, but I think I've got it. So just to clarify what our Boiler Safety Bureau does we actually inspect thousands and thousands of boilers and pressure vessel devices across the State every year, and these are boilers like heating boilers and businesses, things like in every dry cleaner has a boiler. So we're going to still continue to do that, as far as what you're asking about at the nuclear reactors, I am not sure who looks at those. Members, we have a few more questions, a few more individuals that are key, but we have a clarifying amendment that Representative Blackwell is going to run, and I think may eliminate some questions that may be coming up. So Representative Blackwell, you're recognized to run your amendment. I think everybody heard it, this is just to clarify [xx] although the every language on page 5. On page 5, and item 2. it talks about preparing, serving, dispensing or selling just to clarify that what we're talking about here is not authorizing anybody under 16 to be involved in anything other the sale, but after the word 'Except' on line 44 we would insert 'For sale of alcoholic beverages' so it would read, 'Except for sale of alcohol beverages at the point of sale or [xx] off-premises consumption. Are there any questions on the amendment? Representative Torbett.   Thank you Madam Chair. My question would be with respect to the amendment offer, to that change what we're trying do with the bill as far as if you're having like a line taping thing in a grocery store and then [xx] still that random wine does that change that? This is intended just to clarify that the only exceptions we're making to the normal rules that someone in 16 can't be involved they're allowed to sell this things at the point of purchase for all kind of [xx] and this is just trying to clarify that and that I think everybody that involves [xx] ABC and everywhere, does that answer your question? Further question or discussion on the amendment, representative Blackwell moves that we adopt the amendment, all in favor of the motion say aye Aye. All opposed say no, the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted and back to [xx] Representative Willingham. Thank you madam. I have a question does this mean that, and this might be correct that ABC is to lose, which is the retail outlet. And how people 16 to 18 years old. That's all. Representative Brand do you want to? I don't know because it's a point of sale although that will be recruited and I don't know if any representatives have any thoughts on that and if you've any. I might to answer Representative Williams' question. I think that's current law is the 18 issue of all previous consumption. This doesn't change that at all in any way shape or form, that amendment doesn't. Thank you Dave to clarify point, this does nothing to the existing law, that is, in with respect to our premises so this is completely an off premises retail if they can do it this type of change whether they can do it right now. Follow up? Follow up. I have just one question to ask, if ABC is stolen, you can't hire anybody under 21, I'm just wondering this is all the liquor sold in liquor stores, ABC stores for all purposes.

Does this allow I guess what I'm asking would this allow then this package so you will allow ABC stores to hire persons under 21 years old? Mr Williams this doesn't change the current law in that subject matter in any way, because the current law say you have to be under the age of 18  sell all purposes functions. I think there is a different regulation, I actually for the ABC stores as compared to other stores but it does not change in any way who can sell for all [**] essentials where you pass it or not this only deals with where there may be own premise sort of operation in the same location. For instance you may have a 50, 000 square foot grocery store in this area maybe 150 square feet of your store where that is being conducted. Somebody never even go in that section in the store do their weekly grocery shopping take the cart to the cashier, to the checkout counter and they processed their whole weeks worth of groceries. Representative Willingham let me, I'll give one additional [**] that may or not help, but this statue relates to a person holding an ABC permit. Interestingly I'm not sure an ABC store has an ABC permit. There are separately setup and staff is actually trying to look and see. I don't know what the existing policy is from an ABC store, but I think to clarify again, this is only addressing the existing situation for all premises with an ABC permit. I don't actually think  ABC stores have ABC permits. Representative Warren? Obliged Representative Warren did you have a question? Yes I did does relate to that though. This bill would seem to relieve the Department from some accountabilities such as annual report to the Governor, statistical report to the Governor a couple of other reports I just wondered maybe somebody from the department can tell me why we are eliminating those or for just being done, or just relieving them of those accountability.  If you may maybe clarify for us. Yes sir and if you would again say your name, Jennifer Haguin[sp?] legislative liaison for the Department of Labor, the statute  you're referring to were originally drafted in 1931 and have not been updated since then. The statistical reports are for information that our department does not even collect, I'm not sure if in the I guess in 1931, we maybe did collect that information but it's sort of labor market information and unemployment number, the wage information that we simply don't collect. What we're trying to do is to clean that up, clarify that this is not information that the department corrects and therefore we don't have any need to report to the Governor to that regard. Follow up? Follow up. Thank you for that, that's informative. The bill does seem to relief the Governor from some authority in some respects, particularly in section one, point one. I was just wondering does anybody know where the Governor position on this Bill, I take one, I did inform the governors office when we assault this legislation, I received no negative feedback from the Governors office. I think we as a department see this as somewhat of a separation of power issues there's that user requiring the commissioner of labor to get the governors authority for making such hiring decisions and adopting rule which is not, it's not something that in our memory that we've ever done. The Governors office and I'm not away of any opposition. Thank you. Representative Torbett. Thank you, we've got two [xx] in my initial question. One is somewhere along the lines of Representative Warren is the bill analysis system, the one in bullet point says to issue, suspend, and revoke bond and pressure [xx] commissions. Now with this group individuals gone with this bill, it states that all of those powers. the commission used to have is now the [xx] the commissioner of life. And with all due respect to the labor commissioner Barry who does a great lawful job five years, 15 years from now or 20 years from now. And is that not knowing the possibility is that putting in my emphasis on one individual to make all those decisions. Mr Edwards, and I understand, I certainly understand what you're asking. I do want to put it in contest that actions to suspend or revoke a commission is something, is incredibly rare. I think that in the past five or ten years we've done it maybe one or two times. I think I would contend

that the commissioner and her boiler safety bureau chief are probably in the best position to evaluate that and make that decision and there is an appeal process for that outside the department of labor if that person is not happy with the result Follow up madam chairman, I think it's going to be my last one, thank the Lord. With that being said I want to make one thing certain, also under bullet point GS95-11 Division of Standards and Inspections, it says that statute [xx] staff should study information research and rules, I want to make sure that they are not [xx] on the stage [xx] making profit that rules we still have the ambiance under certain [xx] we have everything in progress we Mr. Edwards [xx] we are the leading batch faction because elsewhere in chapter 95 in separate articles we are giving the authority for what's actually done under The Standards and Inspections Division, and then each of those separate articles, we are given the rule making authority so, we are not being exempted from any rule, process, everything is going to stay the same, it's just the way that that statute is written, it's not clear what The Standards and Inspection Division does under that section, also in the statute it does clarify, it does give us the authority to do other things. Thank you Madam Chairman, thank you. Are there further questions and points of discussion? Do we have a motion for the PCS? Representative Hager, you're recognized for a motion. Thank you Madam Chairman, I make motion for a favorable, for House Committee Substitute PCS Bill 429 unfavorable to the original as amended. Thank you, Representative Ryan. You've heard the motion, all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed No. The ayes have it, and the PPS is adopted. There being no further business before this committee, this Committee on Judiciary IV stands adjourned.