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 | June 19, 2014 | Chamber | Proceedings Thursday

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members please take your seats. Visitors please retire from the chamber. Ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, members, please silence all cellular phones, electronics, basically anything that makes noise. Representative McElrath and West are recognized to send forth a committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McElrath and West for the Environment Committee, Senate Bill 38, various emergency management changes, favorable as to House Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to Senate Committee Substitute and serial referred to Transportation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The serial referral to Transportation will be stricken. House Committee Substitute, calendar. Senate Committee Substitute, unfavorable calendar. Petitions, memorials, papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, House Bill 1139 which was reported in from the Committee on Environment had a serial referral to Finance. It has been determined that it does not need that referral to Finance. Ask that referral be stricken and the bill be calendared for today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion to strike the referral without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised. The gentleman may make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, House Bill 1139 which was heard today which was the, I believe the environmental amends bill, the environmental, I forget what the title was but it originally had a referral, strike that, it's not the environmental amends, this was the one that changed the property, it had to do with the act to remove certain lands from the State Nature and Historic Preserve as recommended by the Environmental Commission. The bill passed unanimously in the committee. It originally had a referral to the Committee on Finance because of the way it was coded. Upon further review and consultation with staff, it does not need a referral referral. If the gentleman wants to withdraw, this is totally non-controversial, if the gentleman would like to withdraw his objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to withdraw the objection on that bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again on the motion to strike the referral to finance. Without objection, so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen the Chair would like to offer a welcome and a thank you to the nurse of the day. The nurse of the day is from Asheboro, Karen Lemons, welcome and thank you for your service. Calendar, House Bill 1246, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute to House Bill 1246, an act to provide that the law prohibiting weapons on campus or other educational property does not apply to an armed detention officer when the officer is discharging his or her official duties in Cabarrus, Forsyth, and Wake counties. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to thank the House members for your unanimous support of this yesterday and hope I still have your support today for third reading. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1246 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1246 has passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and sent to the Senate by

…special message. Senate bill 226 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Substitute for Senate bill 226. A bill have been fired a natural repeal to a 1935 Durham County local act concerning fire arm registration general assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we begin the debate ladies and gentleman upon motion of representatives Goodman and Pierce from Richmond and Scotland counties. The chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to the Leadership Scotland Group. Please stand and let us welcome you. (clapping). Rep. Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A very odd situation for me, let me tell you. This has been on the books in Durham County since 1935. It says that any gun purchased must be registered with the clerk of court. And, this was aimed at a problem they were having with so called liquor houses in Durham at the time where they were having problems. Laws have changed since then. Gun registration and everything has been taken to another method. We just wanted to get this off the books in Durham county. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the Senate Committee substitute to Senate bill 226 on its second reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it. The house committee substitute…the senate committee substitute for Senate bill 226 has passed it’s second reading and without objection. It will be read a third time. Further discussion? Further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate of North Carolina will act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not the question before the house is the substitute for Senate bill 226 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it. The Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 226 has passed it’s third reading and will be enrolled. House bill 1195 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 1195 a bill to counter enact in any spiking (??) by legislation a contribution based benefit cap to allow members of the teaching and state and retirement system and local government boys retirement system who leave employment within five years and return to their contributions with accumulated interest and return to a five year resting period for members of the teaching and state employees retirement and the consolidated judicial retirement system who become members on or after August 1, 2011 and may make form of change to the special separation allowance for law enforcement officers. General assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill although looks long. And, remember, and pension bill we’re bringing you looks long because every paragraph gets repeated over and over again until we’ve covered all the retirement plans. Actually, it does three things. Section 1 has an anti-pension spiking provision in it. If you’ll notice on page 1 lines 20 and 21, this will affect less than ¾ of 1% of state employees. If you’ll look on page 2 of your bill line 9, it also cannot affect any employee who is making less than 100,000 dollars. So, we’re not talking about the rank and file state employees here. The benefit cap formula that has been come up with here is pretty complicated. I don’t think we need to get into it. What you do need to know is that on page 3, pension spiking is not outlawed by this bill. It can still be practiced. What happens is this, if you look starting on about line 12 , section 1C on page 3. If a members is determined to have, a member and his employer by the way, have decided to commit pension spiking, then the amount which is owed the pension plan in order to make the pension plan whole is determined and that member can offer a lump sum to do that. And, there’s nothing in here that prevents the employer from doing that. Now, remember to accomplish pension spiking an employee and his or her employer have to conspire to do this basically. What the legislation is saying is if you want to do pension spiking, fine, you can do it but you’ve got to pay for it. You’re got to make this retirement plan whole in order to do that. And, in case you’re wondering, the league of municipalities and the county commissioner’s association are both in favor of this bill. And, they represent those that could be affected because the cities and counties could be the employers that are doing the…

Pension spiking. We know of no opposition to this bill and this is probably the most controversial provision in it. The second thing it does, if you look at Section 2, is that we used to say if you are in the state retirement, any of the state retirement plans and if you terminate employment for any reason you'll get your contributions back and if you've been with the state more than 5 years you'll also get interest on those contributions. Section 2 does away with that 5 year provision. We found out, I think we were the only state, or one of a very few states that's actually getting an interest free loan from those people who don't work with us at least 5 years. So we're doing away with that provision. And then in section 3 if you'll look at that, what we're doing is, there's a lot of repeats in there, the year 2011 is struck several times in there and a 10 year mention is struck several times in there. What that does is take us back to 5 year vesting for pensions only. Again this is a pension bill, this doesn't have anything to do with health insurance or anything else. Again, what we found was going from 5 years to 10 years in pension vesting really didn't save us the money that we thought it was going to save us. Also it is, and this is a benefit to our employees by the way, including our teachers, also it helps our state agencies and probably municipal agencies as well recruit people when they don't have to wait 10 years to vest in their pension. Again I know of no organized opposition to this bill and would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Collins would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd be honored to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Collins, one of the reasons given when we went to the 10 year plan was we wanted to curb folk coming from other states and working 5 years and getting vested. Is that going to be a problem with this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know that I'm qualified to answer this question. Yeah, it is about vesting. Would you repeat that, what you said was the premise again? I'm not sure I caught that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The premise was that we were having folk coming from other states across state lines, working 5 years, being vested and qualifying for retirement. Would that be a problem with this scenario that you're presenting to us now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It might be. Again if you've worked, this doesn't change any formulas, if you've worked 5 years you're only going to get that 1.8 multiplier or whatever multiplied by five so I'm not sure. I guess, but it could, I guess, if before you'd get no pension whatsoever then, you'd get nothing. If you worked 5 years now under this 5 year vesting, you'd get 9% of whatever you were making. If you were a legislator you'd get maybe, what would that be, $100 a month or something like that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I ask another question, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anything in your provision that's going to hurt the state financially? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This came from the treasurer's department as a request from the treasurer's department so since they're in charge of the retirement plan they don't believe this will hurt the state retirement plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1195 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill 1195 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1195 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1195 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate by special message. Senate Bill 719, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 719, a bill to be entitled an act to provide that student organizations at constituent institutions and community colleges may determine the organization's core functions and resolve any disputes of the organization and to prohibit constituent institutions and community colleges from denying recognition to organizations for exercising these rights. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. Senate Bill 719

Is a companion bill of house bill 735 which passed last year through the house with every republican vote and some bipartisan support. this body just passed another bill that clarified to those people that need clarification that k12 students and their teachers do not leave their constitutional rights of freedom of speech or religious expression at the school house gates when they enter. and so the bill before you today makes the same type of clarification on behalf of the rights of college students. at least these issues were not controversial, but unfortunately they are. this bill will clearly affirm that student organizations on our college campuses maintain the right to determine their organizations core functions and resolve their own internal disputes, not the college or university administration. This bill would prohibit the administration from denying recognition to those organizations, simply for exercising their rights to determine their own core functions. There were a few questions and comments that were raised in the committee that I want to briefly address. We need to make it clear that just because a student decides to attend one of our public universities or colleges that does not somehow mean that the student forfeits his right to administration or of the university of the college. colleges do have an important role under the law when it comes to gaining recognition to student groups this bill does not change that but this bill also recognizes that there is an important difference between education and indoctrination or coercion. Citizens do have first amendment rights that protect their freedoms of speech and of religious expression. Those rights are extended to students in our state universities and colleges. Some have asked why this is necessary, and unfortunately it is necessary. Our society is engaged in an ongoing cultural battle. There's a roar? against god in the public square, and against Christian expression in particular. And unfortunately these efforts have extended to our campuses. There have been reported efforts where religious student organizations have been threatened with non-recognition, denied access to university facilities, or otherwise harassed because of their religious beliefs. There have been efforts to muzzle their speech, efforts to mandate whom they must accept as their leaders or members, and efforts to embrace their freedom of association. This bill, and the house companion bill that we have already passed, protects student organizations from such improper discrimination by universities and colleges on the basis of their religious beliefs. As far as any far fetched examples of what could possibly be allowed, obviously if someone state or religious beliefs are a threat to the safety of others or otherwise violate the law, those examples would not be protected by this bill. But it does stop those that would invoke the power of their office to impose their beliefs, to stifle others, or to otherwise advance an agenda of indoctrination or coercion. Members of the house, we have a very good vote on the house companion bill and I again ask for your support today. thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Glazier please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Glazier: to set forth an amendment and then speak to the amendment Mr speaker SPEAKER CHANGES The gentleman is recognized setting forth an amendment the clerk will await. SPEAKER CHANGES Representor Glazier moves to mend a bill on page one lines four and five by re-writing the lines to read: SPEAKER CHANGES Ladies and Gentleman or representative Glazier if you'll please indulge me, I'd anticipate some debate on this matter there is a group that I would like to recognize in the gallery. Upon motion of representatives Hamilton, Catlin and Davis from New Hanover County the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Betty Bonie, her children Beth Bonie Jenkins, and husband Dr Klausten Jenkins, Charles Bonie Jr and wife Lynn, Suzanne Bonie Coleman, Chris Bonie and special family friend Betsy Long Clark. The Bonie family is here to represent Charles Bonie Sr, who prior to his recent death, received the order of the long leaf pine from governor Pat McCrory in May 2014. Mr Bonie resided in Wilmington but lived as an architect across the state. He probably served his country in WW2, following the war he attended and graduated NC States College of Design and then joined his families architectural firm. Mr Bonie worked across the state.

design schools for more than 70 counties. Many of you here attended one of his schools. He was a strong supporter of historic preservation, was a leader in the establishment of Wilmington's historic district, and he held more than a dozen positions with the American Institute of Architects and served as president of AIA North Carolina. If the Boney family will please stand and let us welcome you and please accept our condolences. The gentlemen’s recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and members, and I sent this amendment by email this morning to Representative Jones. We haven’t had a chance because of all the other committees meeting today to actually talk about it, but I certainly didn’t want to surprise him at all on the floor with it. We had some of this debate the other day in the committee, so I’ll try to set up the background for it and for this amendment. The bills did pass, I think corresponding bills last year, there was much debate and discussion over the policy and pretty much on a partisan line vote, which I’m hoping we can avoid today. As a result of that, it was my understanding that the university’s board of governers was getting ready to adopt a policy which would have, I think, negated the necessity for this bill. I thought there was some agreement to do that but that’s probably best left for a debate on the bill itself. Nonetheless, it was clear that the universities and the board were engaged in discussions, and campuses were passing their own policies. My concern in the committee the other day was threefold: One that we’d not be contradicting or passing a statute which was contradicting board of governers policy that was getting ready to pass, as well as university policies at different campuses. Second, that we be consistent in saying at the front end to the extent allowed by state and federal law, that we also be consistent with the equal opportunity policies on campuses, and not put universities in a position where we were likely to set them up for litigation. But most importantly, it was in the second little “i” in each paragraph. I think it is correct to say that this bill actually does change the role of the university in granting recognition, but it’s designed to do that. And so while I know its sponsors don’t believe that to be true, I believe that ’s exactly what it does, but I don’t know that there’s anything unconstitutional about that. That’s a policy matter, it may not be a good policy, it may be a bad, but what is a problem is this second little subsection. The argument was made the other day by Senator Tuchek in committee that although we want leadership in organizations to be faithful to the mission of that organization, and that’s what subsection litte “i” does, that we want to have a diversity policy with regard to who can join clubs and organizations on campus because that’s part of being at a university, and also allowing those clubs and organizations to function and grow. Well, subsection two, though, does the opposite. Because what subsection two does is it says specifically that the organization may limit themselves with respect to how they govern their organization as to policies that they adopt in written form. An organization, therefore, and I’ve talked to university council and I’ve talked to a number of lawyers since yesterday, and as far as I can tell they’re all in pretty much agreement. That unless we modify that little subsection, what can happen is, as a classic example, assume that there’s a group on campus and we’ll call it, for our purposes, “The Student KKK Club”. And an African American or a Jew decides that they want to join that club. And they agree that despite their status, whether that’s their color or religion, they agree with the policies of that club, which may well be true in some cases. What Senator Tuchek said the bill would allow is that that person would then have the right to be a member of that organization, and I think that’s a good thing, I think that’s the correct response. But what the bill’s provision says is if the student organization’s membership criteria and their written policy says, “but because of the nature of our club we are not going to allow anyone Jewish or black to be a member of our group”, then that’s what controls. And I don’t think that’s what the sponsors intend, but that is in effect what the words say. And so my amendment isn’t trying to get at the broad policy issues, it’s not trying to change the role that the

...Majority once for the university and its governances. But it is trying to get at that one issue. So if you look at what I have drafted with the help of others and after talking with council at a number of universities it says, to the extent allowed by state and federal law and consistent with the institutions EEO policies, a religious or political student organization may in conformity with their written doctrine. Their established written doctrine. Not doctrine they create on the spur of the moment. Not doctrine that's created by amendment to deal with one specific issue. It's got to be established written doctrine that expresses their faith or mission. And they can determine the persons who profess faith their mission to then be the ones who they chose for leadership. And they may then as a result as well limit membership and participation in the organization to students who upon inquiry affirm their faith in that organizations mission. So if someone wants to be, as Representative Sam said the other day, wants to be a Democrat invading the Republican club to take it over. Aside from the fact that the Republican club can pass an attendance policy to stop that from happening in order to get enough Republicans there to stop it. If they believe in the organization, if this person's not in effect really committed. What they're trying to do is infiltrate the organization to devolve it, to dissolve it. The organization will have the ability to deal with that. What they may not do under this amendment,that they apparently do have the right to do under the bill that I'm trying to stop. Is they can't say to me, in that KKK example, "Well, you may agree with us but you're Jewish and we don't want any Jews in the club," or, "You're Black and you can't be in the club." It distinguishes between status and belief. The organization has a right to make sure that the people who join it have a belief. I think that in fact is the law and I think that's what the sponsors intend. But, what they don't have a right to do, and what will put the university in an instant litigation in my view all across the state, is to declare someone because of the color of their skin, or their religion, or their gender, that they may not be a member of this group even if they actually profess faith and belief to the organization's missions. That's the problem I'm trying to solve. Forget all the others, we can debate those. And so with that in mind because I believe it does what it needs to do to make the distinguish and characteristic between belief and status what Senator Soucek said the bill was intended to do. I move adoption of my amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Sam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The (??) right now survey the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I oppose the amendment for about three reasons. First, if you'll look on line nine and ten which applies to UNC and it's the same issue at many colleges. The first little phrase there, "To the extent allowed by state and federal law," is just surplus because of course we're governed by federal law and the state law involved is this law itself. But the real kicker is the next line, "And consistent with the constituent institution equal opportunity policies." That's exactly the problem. We had all these PC institutions setting up speech codes and requirements for organizations. And others will speak to the supreme court decision that necessitated this. That sets the UNC Board of Governors, which for a moment happens to be Republican majority but who knows in the far future, sets their decisions up above the organization's own internal mission. And that is what is wrong. Now we go down to the bottom here about this scenario about some KKK group. I remember 30 years ago when we had the Equal Access Act passed by the Congress, signed by President Reagan, that gives equal access in secondary education for Bible clubs and things like that on an equal basis with any other extra-curricular activity during non-instructional time. At that time we had people talking about, "Oh, there's going to be witches covens meeting in all the high schools of America. We're going to have terrorist groups. We're going to have White supremacists groups claiming this equal access." It hasn't happened. The same, now Representative Glazier is claiming that we're going to have people trying to form KKK groups on UNC campuses. But, then...take away from the KKK group you could then have the Republicans trying to take over the Democrats who only have...

...five members there. And all they have to do to take over the group is give a written statement or a forum that they support their goals. Well guess what, I bet the goals of the Democratic party are so wonderful that even with a good conscious I could probably support those goals if I wink and nod about it. I urge you to defeat this amendment which guts the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks Mr. Speaker. As the primary sponsor of the identical House Companion Bill I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I think Representative Stam said it well but it changes the bill. It weakens the bill. It guts the bill. It's not what the sponsors intended and I ask for you to oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I'll be brief. So Representative Stam in response to his comments. If I was seeking to gut the bill I would have never had sent the amendment this morning to Representative Jones to read and prepare. I'd just simply sprung it on the House floor which would've been perfectly my right to do so. I didn't do that because that wasn't the intent. Secondly, I appreciate the fact that the Board of Governors can change. In fact the Board of Governors who wanted to pass a policy today was dominantly appointed by the majority members. His republican control and this amendment is consistent with the policy they were attempting to pass that you are now taking away from them today. Third, this is not an attempt to get at the core issues which is to make sure that university complies with not a political correctness test but it actually moves them form a limit public form to a more open public form which I think is the intent of sub-section A. And it doesn't touch that. But it very much does touch exactly what the case law touches on and I'm sort of tired of I guess saying the same thing but there is a big difference between your status and your belief. And while we can't solve everything here we can at least make sure that we are not creating a policy that is in violation of equal opportunity on campuses that causes more problems than it answers. And in the extent that there's a problem that he majority has with equal opportunity, we have a bigger problem than this bill on the floor. I thought we were all committed to that regardless of where it plays out. And to the extent that Representative Stam suggests that the problem with this amendment is in the term "equal opportunity" that's precisely the issue we're trying to get at. Which is we don't, we may keep people out of organizations if we choose to do so because we don't believe that they're faithful to the mission. We don't keep them out because they're Black. We don't keep them out because they're Hispanic. We don't keep them out because they're Baptist or Jew and it works all different ways and that's all that's attempting to do. To the extent that the majority fills otherwise, well that's a disappointment but that is what this amendment is attempting to do. I urge it's adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly debate a bill under the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I did want to take the opportunity to thank my friend and Representative Glazier for emailing me today. Unfortunately, I apologize, but I've been in committee meetings all day I didn't see it. But I appreciate the gesture. I wanted to acknowledge that but ladies and gentleman we did have this debate in edu...whatever committee we had then [LAUGHING]. My mind is tired and it failed miserably there and I do ask for you to oppose the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am in support of this bill but I'm also in support of this amendment because it did, we did talk about this in Education Committee and Represent...I mean Senator Soucek made it very clear that exactly what we were talking about was not the case but now is the case. There are lots of us on both sides of the aisle that would love to support this bill. I am clearly have been in support of all of these bills that come through because I think it's very important to clarify the rights of students in the public schools and what they are able to do and what they are not able to do. But, what we should not be doing in this body and it's very clear from the Board of Governors who had the policy that they're trying to implement today and through all the universities, is that we do not discriminate based of people because of who they are. Everybody has their rights including the African American that wants to join the KKK club. That is also a right and so it is just as much of a right for every single person to be able to exercise their religious beliefs on campuses. And I think that the bill...

In its broader term does that and I support that but there’s no way people on our side of the aisle and most people will be able to support a policy that says because of who you are, you can’t join something. So yes, we did pass it out of education committee, but we were misled about where it was. Now that we have clarified that, I think it’s incumbent upon this group to be able to make the best bill that we can have, make sure that if we don’t have much litigation and we don’t put our universities ?? with organizations and litigation that has to go far. So a very simple amendment. It does not change anything about the broader base of it, but it does allow us to have broad support and continue to moving on without litigation. I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Robert Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the reason we’re down here is a very good reason to oppose this amendment. The way I read the amendment, you have to basically swear to being of one like mind in order to join the organization. I don’t think any organization is going to survive very long if everybody in it has to follow one line and one path. And if you believe in diversity, I don’t think you want that either. I would ask that you vote down the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment to the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 719. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 44 having voted affirmative, 71 in the negative, the amendment fails. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry hall moves to amend the bill on page 1 lines 32 through 33 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, during education committee, I had the opportunity to speak with Representative Jones as we considered the bill and talk about the amendment concerns that I have that are reflected in the amendment before you. And what this amendment does is say that there will be some type of appeal procedure for a member of these groups and individual that has already met whatever the group criteria is to be a member and has achieved either through election or whatever process the group has, a leadership position, that they if they are removed or accused of somehow not being faithful to the cause, that they will have some type of appeal procedure within that organization. That is all the amendment does. It just makes sure we not only assure the rights of the organization to exist, but also that we assure the rights of the members of that organization to have an appeal should they be removed from a position under the rules. This again requires the organization, not the university. The university has no control over these organizations. This is for the organization to have a review or appeal process for the organization’s individual members. So I’d ask your support on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Hall. I appreciate the discussion that we had in the committee and as we briefly had a chance to talk about at the end, I would simply say that I would oppose the amendment. I would really like to see this bill completed. We passed it in the House. This bill was passed in the Senate. I’d like to see it completed and moved forward. I really don’t think that it’s necessary, quite frankly, that the legislature has to make this decision. I think the way that the way that the bill’s currently written is perfectly fine. And perhaps this is a measure that we can talk about on another day. But for this particular bill and this particular form that it is, I’d like for it to go forward and I would ask that you oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you Representative Jones. And I do note that there’s really no objection been expressed to individual members of the organization having a right to a review or appeal, and so if we’re going to be about individual’s rights as well as these organizations’ rights it would see we would want them to have an opportunity to go before their peers in their organization and get a fair shake if they’re willing to put themselves forward for leadership. So again I would ask you to support the amendment. There’s really no objection to it.

Representative Jones please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jones is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and once again I do appreciate my friends discussion on this. However I think this particular bill seeks to allow a student organization to determine it's own purpose. I don't fully understand all the repercussions. But I don't want to allow an individual to go in, perhaps with the wrong motivation to try and hurt that organization. And I think that this could have ramifications that we're not comfortable with. I'd like more time to look at it perhaps in another venue, another bill. I just ask that you allow this bill to go forward as it stands today and please oppose this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd be more tempted with the amendment if it required a process of appeal to the full organization rather to the leadership. But the organization itself can set where the appeal would go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate on the amendment? If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Larry Hall to the Senate committee substitute of Senate bill 719. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 43 having to vote in the affirmative. 72 in the negative. The amendment fails. We're back on the bill as not amended. Back on the bill. Further discussion. Further debate. Representative Adams please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. ladies and gentlemen of the House I was in the education committee when we debated the bill. I had some concerns then I have some now. I know that there is probably not anyone on this floor who has worked with students as long as I have on a university, college campus. And who has as much respect for students and their rights. But I also know that universities have responsibilities as well. And when I asked the bill sponsor in the committee if he had spoken to any of the universities he said he did not. He had spoken to a number of students. This bill is drafted for students. And I know how important it is to support them. Because I've had a bill for a number of years to give the students a vote on the Board of Governors. They could have a vote and be talking about this issue. I also reached out to a number of universities in my district and some not in my district and asked their legal folk about this bill and the impact that it would have. I think that my first concern about it is that while we are pro ported to protect student's rights. If a student can get membership into the organization and cannot serve as a leader in that organization. In my opinion that is discriminatory on it's face and that is the first problem that I have with it. In other words you can come in, we will let you come in, you will pay your dues and all those things. But you cannot be elected as a leader. So I don't support discrimination in any fashion. So to allow me as a student to come into an organization but not be able to participate as a leader. To be elected. I think that is the first thing we are doing wrong. But as I talked to the universities in my district they indicated that this bill is not needed. Because if there is a problem on the campus the Board of Governors or the Board of Trustees should deal with those matters. But what is interesting to me that the University Board of Governors that was appointed by this body had a policy that they were getting ready to vote on today, at least that was the understanding that I had, that came through the committee on University Governance. Which would have basically put a policy in place. And I wonder why that policy is not good enough.

…and I’d sort of like, Mr. Speaker, if I could direct a question to Representative Jones about that policy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones does gentlemen yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones I think you probably are aware of the proposal for the new policy that the Board of Governors was considering. Why is that policy not good enough? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your question Representative Adams. Let me just start by saying that I’ve been working on this issue, along with Senator Soucek, now for well over a year and I have a very different understanding from you as far as his consultation with administrators on universities. I happen to think from my conversations with him that he’s consulted quite a bit. Quite frankly, after we passed the house version of this bill last year, I was quite content to move it right through the Senate but he held it up for some period of time while he was moving with some of these conversations. I would just kind of reiterate what I think Representative Stam alluded to earlier, that we don’t have the same Board of Governors from year to year, decade to decade. We don’t have the same university presidents. I think we’re a nation of laws and not of men and frankly, I would rather us clarify that our students do have first amendment rights and what they are in the law rather than entrusting them to university administrators or boards of governors or boards of trustees or whomever. Student organizations, I believe, have a right to exist and I think that this bill does not keep any colleges or universities from being what [??] oversight or making decisions if such organizations should not exist on their campus for reasons of safety or whatever. I understand your comment earlier where you said you don’t support discrimination in any fashion and I think everybody in this chamber would say that we don’t support discrimination because of race, for instance, or ethnic background or because of the amount of money in your bank account or anything like that but I would suggest that in our society that political correctness has gone amuck. There is a such thing as discrimination in a sense that I think everybody in this chamber that is married made a discrimination when you chose your spouse among all the others out there. I’m well aware that there are groups like republican and democrat men’s groups or women’s groups and they have specific criteria of what it takes to join those groups. I don’t think that’s an improper discrimination. I don’t think the Girl Scouts are a discriminatory group because they don’t allow boys to join. I think we need to get away from the political correctness gone amuck and we need to recognize that these students have first amendment rights and it should not be left up to a fleeting administrator or university president or a board of directors or Board of Governors or a board of trustees whomever to make those determinations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your response. I was thinking more about the fact that those bodies, the Board of Governors, the board of trustees, they set pol…and actually our Board of Governors set policy so we wouldn’t be talking about… just as we set laws here and we change every two years sometimes. Hopefully we won’t have a complete wipeout. Sometimes that is possible too. As I was reading about this whole issue, I came across the Martinez case which speaks to all comers and in fact I direct a question to Representative Glazier, Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, you familiar with the Martinez case and the meaning of the all comers and the whole resolution that came from that case? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Representative Adams. I am aware. I think the case you refer to is the Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California - Hastings College of Law vs. Martinez. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What does it say about the vision of separation and state and how does it define all comers and usage of that as it relates to student organizations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Adams. The question in that case that came to the Supreme Court that…

Was decided was whether or not the university's all comer's policy was allowed there to be distinctions in leadership but did not allow there to be determinations made on the basis of status with respect to membership in groups and specifically the question became whether the university passed first amendment muster or was in some way discriminatory by making or providing that student groups had to accept membership from all comers and not based on their status. And the question in that case came to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the university's policy, which required open membership in the organizations, was constitutional, did not violate the students' first amendment rights, was consistent with California's equal education opportunity policies and made it clear that one of the things the university policy was trying to get at was to prohibit and prevent student organizations from becoming subterfuge if you will for different partisan political beliefs, for different issues with regard to organizations that the university thought that student money ought not be spent all around everywhere if there were real limitations being placed on who could be members of those organizations and that the university as a university had a right to want to ensure that all students had access to student organizations and membership in those organizations and if an organization chose because of the status of someone to just decline membership in those organizations that that didn't fulfil the mission of the University of California's system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you. Just to make one final comment, I think that we are treading dangerous water. We have a Board of Governors, I wish it were more diverse, really I do, but it's not, but it does have, and we've given the Board of Governors the authority to set policy like this, but greater than that, each university already has, and I've talked with a number of them, they have it, and I think we are treading in an area where we are looking at violation between separation between state and church where these organizations now, the universities, if this bill is passed, and maybe that's really the intent, that the university would have to support financially these organizations and some of the discriminatory practices, and when you don't allow someone who is a member of the organization to serve in the capacity of leadership then that's discrimination and I think we really need to be concerned about that. I think that this bill is really problematic. It will be problematic for the universities. Every one, every university that I've spoken to says that. They say that it's not needed, and I don't know why if we would elect members of the Board of Governors that we would try to circumvent a policy that we asked them to put in place in the first place. And I would certainly encourage you to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, I would like to be recorded as voting aye on the amendment, the Larry Hall amendment. I was in the chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting aye on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and would urge members to support it. Just last week we spoke about student's rights and we heard it on the floor today, that students do have first amendment rights that they do not shed at the schoolhouse gate. That applies at the K-12 level, it applies also at the college/university level. This is a policy decision that we want to make. It supports the constitution that we want to support student's rights to freely associate, to freely associate around religious beliefs, other mission based beliefs, and so this is what this bill is about, and I do want to speak a moment to the Martinez case as well. There were a few points that were made about the holding in that case but what's very important is the Martinez case is the very reason why we need this bill. The Supreme Court in Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez said that Hastings College of Law

…that the policy was okay. That is was constitutional. It did not say that schools were required to have such policies. And, so we as a governing body are making today, if this bill passes, and again I urge your support of it, we are making the decision that it is not okay for universities to engage in this kind of conduct. We do want our student organizations to be free to associate around such beliefs, such religious beliefs, such mission based beliefs. And, have the authority to make those kind of decisions. I would urge your support of this bill. This is about the first amendment. It’s about free associations. It’s about religious belief and expression and freedom of speech. Members, I would urge you to support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jones please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. We did have a good vote on the companion house bill. And, you’ve heard the debate today. I don’t think the debate has changed, and probably not a lot of votes are doing to change. I just urge you to do the right thing. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to stand up here and argue a lot of the legal. I think you’ve pretty much heard a lot of the legal arguments. But, I will say this. I am the parent of one college aged student and soon to be two. I have a great deal of friends who are the parents of students who are either in college or have recently finished college. And, if you talked to those people and you pay attention to what is going on in some of our state colleges and universities, you know it’s time for us to take a stand. This is one stand that we need to take today and I urge you to do the right thing. For you to vote yes. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not the question before the house is the Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 719 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 78 having voted in the affirmative, and 37 in the negative, the motion to pass Senate bill 719 on its second reading has passed. And, without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the adoption of the Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 719 on its third reading. Those in favor will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and the Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 719 has passed on its third reading. It will be enrolled and sent to the governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Couple of re-referrals prior to a recessed motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for the re-referals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. House bill 1156 short title (??) liquor tasting city of Ashville be removed from the ABC sub-committee of commerce and refer to the full committee of commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 1220. Hope for Hailey. Bill is presently in HHS committee with a serial referral to judiciary B and then it has to go to finance thereafter. I move that the serial referral to judiciary B be stricken. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection? So ordered. Further notices and announcements? Rep. Starnes? Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The republicans will caucus immediately upon the recess in Room 228. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion if there’s no additional notices or announcements. I see a second hand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. (??) please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A moment of personal privilege? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to rise today to sadly announce that a former member of this body passed away yesterday. Wiley Edwin Gavin died June the 17th, 2014. He was born in 1921 in Sanford the son of…

Edwin Lee Gavin and wife Mary Caudill[?]. Gavin, he graduated Sanford High School in 1938, from Wake Forest College in 1942 where he was President of Pi Kappa Alpha. He graduated Wake Forest Law School in 1948. He served in the U.S. Army from 1942-46 and again 1950-52 and retired as a Major in the Judge Africa General's Corps. He has two sons, Gio Gavin of Charlotte and Judge Lee Gavin of Asheboro. He practiced law in Asheboro from 1948-2000. He was a member of the City of Asheboro Planning Board, Chairman of the Randolph County Library Board, and the Randolph County Attorney from 1985-1995. He served in this body in the 1953, the 1955, and the 1957 sessions. Mr. Gavin was a good friend of mine. He will be sorely missed by the citizens of Randolph County. I ask you to reach out to his family with your condolences. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to make sure to make sure and remind everyone tomorrow we will have another government meeting, state and local government, at 45 minutes after session. I'm only telling you now because we're going to send the agendas out to everyone. There will be quite a few items on that agenda. So do look at it and read over it and prepare. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to announce the birth at 5:59 this morning of my sixth grandchild, my granddaughter Lorelei weighed in at nine pounds and three ounces. [APPLAUSE] Representative Reives, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I was just hoping that, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, that you would join me today in celebrating the birth of a great seatmate that I have been blessed to have, Mr. Joe Sam Queen[?]. [APPLAUSE] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Democrats will caucus five minutes after session at 14:25, five minutes after session today at 14:25. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the House ?? recess to 4:45 PM, subject to ratification of bills and messages from the Senate Committee reports, conference reports. We refer all bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. That will be five minutes after recess. Five minutes after recess for the House Democratic Caucus at 14:25. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the House will now stand in recess subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, and introduction of bills and resolutions and modifications to the calendar until 4:45 PM today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To inquiry of the Chair, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I know we're recessing subject to re-referral but just so we know, since we're all going into caucus, is there going to be in our, as we exit out, a re-referral of any bills for the calendar for when we come back after recess? If so, we would request that re-referral- [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There will be, Representative Glazier, more than likely a number of bills added to the calendar but that will happen after we come back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well, since we're all going into caucus and so it would be helpful, I think, to the process and perhaps speed us along if there could be information given to both caucuses about what bills are coming back on so that we can try to find our positions, do our work, and not have to take up more time on the floor in delayed amendments.

I can’t tell you exactly which bills. I can tell you there were a series of a number of local bills that were reported out today and we’re going to review those in just a bit. So I can’t answer your question right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, if you’ll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, you have a [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, there’s a possibility that environmental amends and regulatory reform may be added to the calendar. Or may not. That’s part of what we’re taking up in caucus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time the House will now stand in recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone and Warren are recognized to send forth committee reports of the committee on government. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stone and Warren, government committee. House Bill 1054, Spindale sewer fee collection. Favorable to the committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute re-refer to the committee on finance. Original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1056, Lake ?? official map de-annexation. Favorable and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is re-referred to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1149, state CIO mobile communication devices, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, pursuant 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1151, favorable red light changes, reported without prejudice and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1168, Yancy right of way safety, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1207, High Point charter council higher city attorney, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1245, Pleasant Garden voluntary annexation, favorable and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1247, Asheville regional airport, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1159, City of Greenville private sale, favorable to the committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar 36B. Original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McElfraft and West, the committee on environment. House Bill 1057, favorable to the committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1105 Local erosion programs take over original plans. Favorable to the committee substitute unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar for the committee substitute. Original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1106 Erosion control designer certification. Favorable to the committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1139, State natural and history preserve deletions. Favorable to the committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 163, Protect land owners’ water rights. Favorable to the House Committee Substitute, unfavorable to the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute Bill, calendar. Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, please take your seats. [PAUSE] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we are going to add some bills on the calendar, a bill that will not be added to the calendar as to regulatory reform bill, the environmental amends bill will be added. Hopefully without objection. And a couple of other bills that we’d like to go ahead and add and dispose of this afternoon. [PAUSE] For the time being, we’re going to go ahead and more with Adams already on the calendar. House Bill 558, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 558, a bill to be entitled An act to allow sales tax refunds for soil and water conservation districts and regional jails. The North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, please take your seat or clear the aisle. Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, to move that we concur and to

Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has stated the motion to concur. The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair or Mr. Speaker, as far as concurring with the Senate Committee Substitute for 558, we passed the House portion of this unanimously, the Senate passed what the last line that's been added unanimously. In a nutshell, it's a good act bill it benefits 66 of our house districts and it cleans up a little sloppy tax code. I ask you to vote to support concurring with what we received over from the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur with Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 558. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House has concurred in the Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 558. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor by special message. House Bill 698. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 558, an act to authorize criminal history checks for current volunteers or paid fire department personnel and emergency medical services personnel and to establish the urban search and rescue program and the urban search and rescue team advisory committee. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Saine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill and move that we concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's motion has been recognized to concur. The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill went over to the Senate, has come back improved, we added Senator Meredith's bill on the urban search and rescue for firefighters. We had a good vote on it here. Like I say, the changes are good, and I urge you to vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur with Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 698. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House has concurred in the Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 698. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor by special message. House Bill 777. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 777, an act to amend the law that imposes residential restrictions on sex offenders to provide that a sex offender is prohibited from residing within one thousand feet of a site where a Boys and Girls Club of America is located. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it'll be my motion that we do concur with the Senate, the Senate changes and if I could explain them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen this is a bill that we heard last session and there was a little debate on sex offenders and everything, but I just want to tell you what has changed. When we sent it over to the Senate, it had an effective date of December 1, 2013. Of course we didn't make that deadline so there needed to be an amendment done to December 1, 2014, however once it got into committee, a few senators, Senator Randleman in specific, had a problem with delaying it. She was concerned that if we made it effective December 1, then that gave people 5 or 6 months to move to where they wanted to move and then they would be grandfathered in and so she asked me would it be OK to change it to make it effective upon passage and I told her that was fine with me, and I do move to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur with Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 777. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. The House has concurred in the Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 777. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor by special message. The House be at ease. Just take a moment for the Rules Chair to have a list of bills that we are moving to add to the calendar. The House will be at ease for just a moment.

And while we're at ease I guess we get to let the pages get off work it is the 5:00 hour, you're a luckier group of people than us. You're dismissed for the day. The House will come to order. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I'm moving to add a number of bills to today's calendar. In fact, a supplemental calendar is going to be issued and I will go through those bill numbers and bill titles if members would like and. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please do so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, first off is House Bill 1033, which is Representative Goodman, Special Assessment/Dam Repair/Richmond County, House Bill 1211, Representative Goodman, Mount Gilead Charter Revision and Consolidation, House Bill 1245, Representatives Martin and Farmer-Butterfield, Wilson County Occupancy Tax Increase, House Bill 1044, Representative Lewis, Averasboro Township Tourism Development Authority Changes, House Bill 1114, Representative Dobson, Elk Park/Deed Transferring Property, House Bill 1159, Representatives Brown and Martin, City of Greenville/Private Sale, House Bill 1168, Representative Presnell, Yancey Right-of-Way Safety, House Bill 1207, Representatives Faircloth, Brandon, Blust and Hurley, High Point Charter/Council Hire City Attorney, House Bill 1218, Representatives Horn, Arp and Brody, City of Monroe/Supervision of Attorney, House Bill 1247, Representatives McGrady, Fisher, Moffitt and Ramsey, Asheville Regional Airport, House Bill 1088, Representatives Davis and Burr, Highway Patrol Routine Maintenance, House Bill 1089, Representatives Davis and Burr, Administrative Office of the Courts Civil Case Management System, House Bill 1090, Representatives Davis and Burr, Administrative Office of the Courts Information Technology Policy, House Bill 1091, Davis and Burr, Study Supervision of Magistrates, House Bill 1094, Davis and Burr, Mediated Settlements/District Court, House Bill 1105, Torbett and Brody, Local Erosion Programs/Takeover Existing Plans, House Bill 1106, Torbett and Brody, Erosion Control Designer Certification, House Bill 1149, Representatives Saine, Bell, Cleveland and Tolson, State Chief Information Officer/Mobile Communications Devices, Senate Bill 38, Senator Jackson, amend. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the member just objecting to the one bill? Is that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may be heard on the, on the final. So I assume, Mr. Speaker wants to order those others added and then if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, without objection, but the one raised. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would move that Senate Bill 38 be added to today's calendar and ask to be heard briefly on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members, this is the Amend Environmental Laws 2014. This is not my bill but it is a bill that was heard in the House Environment committee today. It was reported out and I believe the bill is properly before the House. I would move that it be added to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has made the motion. Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. There is not a copy of this bill available for us to read right now. It was presented to the Environment Committee at 12 noon today. It is being brought into position so that we could debate it and vote on it today, yet all the members of the Environment Committee have not had a copy of that bill to read through. It is a 25 page bill. Why

..want to rush this when we can wait until tomorrow. When, all the members can have a chance overnight to read the bill. Why would we not want to do that? This is a major environmental policy bill. It is a bill that has bi-partisan support. There are a number of people on our side of the aisle who support the bill. There is no reason to push it. Why would you want to vote on a bill that you’re not seeing until right now? And, that members is why we should vote against the motion to hear the bill right now. We should hold off until tomorrow, which we can easily do. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Samuelson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will be bringing people’s attention to your dashboard. It’s on the dashboard now. Many of the parts of this bill are bills that have either already passed through here or already came through ERC and some other committees so they have been out for awhile and filed for awhile. They were available for us to read. As Rep. Luebke said, it was bi-partisan support. I’m willing to go through all the parts of it and to make sure we all understand it. We can put it off until another day, but I don’t think it will change the outcome and would recommend that we go ahead and do it now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman I would ask you to vote against the motion. I don’t think we should consider this bill today. I’m going to briefly tell you why. I had the same remarks I was going to make on the regulatory reform. It was attempted to be added on. It’s twenty something pages long and I would like to read it. I would like to understand it. I’m going to give you a real world example. If you’ll look at the regulatory reform bill of last year, house bill 74, there’s an error in it. It pretends at the bottom to say, except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes law. However, there was a clause that was mistakenly left in the bill about four sentences higher that actually makes most of the regulatory reform bill effective July 1st, 2015. That’s something that I discovered when I finally got to the end of the bill while everybody was doing stuff last year when we asked not to add it all. It was on page 58 or 59. I went and checked with staff and they told me yes I was right and that was a mistake and it would mess up the intent of the bill. But, we just rushed it through. I’m not… I don’t know how I’m going to vote on the bill. I haven’t read it yet. But, I would ask for the night to consider it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse my procedural ignorance here. I know there are such things as three day bills, and I’ve not yet been able to learn exactly what they are, what qualifies as that. Is this a bill that we could have second and third reading both on tomorrow and vote on? Or is this one that has to stretch over three days? That might determine how I vote on this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill could be. We could take both readings without objection tomorrow. Otherwise, there will be a Friday session. If there is objection, we take up second reading tomorrow. Or, if we take it up on second reading tomorrow. If there is objection, it is the intent of the chair to have a Friday session. Rep. Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I think you came up with a good idea in your discussion with Rep. Collins in that is that we that we do it on second and third tomorrow. I have the same concerns that Rep. Jackson has, that not only have we not had a chance to read the bill. I was in finance and some other meetings regarding bills that we didn’t get a chance to review. I have a lot of constituents who want to read bills and tell me from their expertise or personal experience how it effects them. So, I’d know how to respond to it or make amendments to it. Mr. Speaker I would certainly on behalf of the democratic caucus agree to second and third on tomorrow. We would certainly want our constituents to have an opportunity to read the bill and let us know what they would want to know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hall as I understand that if we carry this over until tomorrow there will not be objection to third reading and we can dispose of it tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s our intention. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then, the Chair would ask Rep. Moore to be recognized to withdraw his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Based on the agreement to second and third tomorrow, we withdraw the motion to add this particular bill to today’s counter.

[0:00:00.0] Ladies and Gentlemen and I do believe on the dashboard, all of the bills that have been added without objection are now available on the dashboard. So, we will move to the supplemental calendar. House Bill 1033 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1033 in act to authorize Richmond County to impose a special assessment for pair of a dam, the General Assembly of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker this is just a bill which authorizes a county commission in Richmond County to create a special act district to repair a dam, all the property owners that are contingent to the area or in favor there is no opposition pass through government and finance ___[00:54] for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[01:02] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the Bill Sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman does the gentleman do? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, the title references an assessment and you have mentioned a special tax district and assessment is not a tax, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I talk to bill drafting about that is I think those words can be use to interchangeably in this case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[01:40] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stem would you yell for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stem this is gentleman yell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stem is an assessment a tax? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The label is not determinative a tax is for the general support of the government, an assessment is something that improves the property. So, to confess I really wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to the debate but the property sounds to me like an assessment rather than a tax but you do have to pay it whether you liked it or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman if the gentleman will yell for a moment as some chairs understanding that this is a ___[02:33] Bill so that reading it end today was first reading we cannot take it up until tomorrow anyway. So, we have got 24 hours to put it in the clock but Representative ___[02:42] knew the answer of your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to move forward to the public bills on the second page of the supplemental calendar to give members an opportunity to look at all of the local bills that are eligible for second and third reading voice vote and determine whether or not the chamber is amenable to vote and those as a go. So, if you will please look at all the middle of the first page of the supplemental calendar local bills under second and third readings with one additional one on the top of the second page, I will come back and see if there is objection to voting any of those as a group. And without objection we will move forward to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[03:28] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are just getting a copy of it, supplemental calendar. So, could you give me about a minute or two? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, I’m gonna give you more than that what I was wanting to do as I move to the public calendar so we will discuss the local bill to see the individual as a group at the end of the public calendar. House Bill 1088, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1088 in act to direct the state highway control, to study the feasibility and cost effectiveness of contracting with local businesses to perform maintenance on the state highway patrol vehicles and requiring the vehicles to be taken to a regional maintenance facility as recommended by Legislative Research Commissions Committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice, the General Assembly of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen the house, this will require the Department of Public Safety to stay the feasibility and cost effectiveness of contract with local businesses to perform maintenance or state house patrol vehicle and requiring the vehicles to be taken to a regional maintenance facility. The department show important results to the state to the joint legislation committee on justice and public safety by March 1, 2015. A lot of times the highway patrol stations are far away from their maintenance facilities so they have to travel… [0:04:58.6] [End of file…]

Long distance which is time consuming and also expensive, it takes the troopers away from their duties. What this would allow local highway patrol stations to do would be to contract with local people to fix the vehicles, thereby saving time and money, make it more efficient. And I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, the Chair’s turned off your lights a couple times, I think that tablet keeps on rolling over on the light. I just want to make sure you weren’t asking to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No problem. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1088 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] All members please record. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 voting in the affirmative and none in the negative, House Bill 1088 has passed its second reading and without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1088 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1088 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, from this point until the end of session, all messages will be sent to the Senate by special message. House Bill 1089, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1089, an act to direct the administrative office of the court to develop a case management system for civil cases in superior court as recommended by the legislative research commissions committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice. The General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill would direct AOC to study and develop a case management system for civil cases in superior court, designed to make more efficient use of superior court time and resources, including a more flexible designation of mixed sessions. The studies show ?? system allowing exception cases to be assigned to a superior court judge to oversee the case. AOC shall report to the joint legislative oversight committee on justice and public safety by March 1, 2015. The mixed sessions, as a lot of you all may know, are when a superior court judge has a criminal session for a week. It may break down after a couple of days. And the judges go home. Same thing with civil court. What this would enable a criminal court judge to do during a criminal court session if the criminal court ends, then that judge would have the authority to contact civil lawyers and ask if there are any pre-trial motions or any other pre-trial matters that might need to be heard, to keep things moving along. On the other side of the coin, if there was a civil session and it broke down early, this would allow the judge to contact the district attorney and lawyers and say if you all have got any pleas you want me to take or any other pre-trial motions you want me to hear, then I’ll entertain those, once again making more efficient time and expense that we pay the judges to do their work. So I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1089 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, House Bill 1089 has passed its second reading and without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1089 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1089 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen again, just as a reminder, if you will please review the second and third reading bills at the midsection of the first page of the supplemental calendar and the first bill, House Bill 1247 on the second page, if we group those, those will be voice votes. House Bill 1090, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1090, an act to direct the administrative courts to develop a written, comprehensive policy for the management of information technology resources, as recommended by the legislative research committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the massive quantity of technological equipment that the AOC has, what this bill would do, it would require the AOC to develop a written comprehensive policy for the management of information technology resources.

That include specific guidelines for the distribution and maintenance of information technology hardware. And they would report to the joint legislative oversight committee on justice and public safety and information technology by March 1, 2015. When this was heard in subcommittee A, there was a representative of AOC there and he said he understood what this bill’s all about and they would work with it, get a report as requested. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1090 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill 1090 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1090 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1090 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 1091, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1091, an act to direct the administrative office of the courts to study the appointment and supervision of magistrates as recommended by the legislative research committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice. North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This particular bill would require the AOC to study the appointment and supervision of magistrates. The studies shall consider whether the supervision of magistrates should be the responsibility of some person other than the chief district court judge, and shall address whether any other changes should be made to the process for appointing and supervising magistrates. AOC shall report to the joint legislative oversight committee on justice and public safety by March 1, 2015. I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1091 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill 1091 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1091 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1031 has passed its third reading, will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 1094, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1094, an act to provide for mediated settlement conferences and district court civil actions and to make a technical correction to the rules of civil procedure, is recommended by the legislative research commissions committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the present time, the statutes allow for a mediated settlement conference to be ordered in civil district court in cases involving family court. And that’s the only area that is required. The jurisdiction for district court was increased from 10,000 to $25,000. Prior to that increase, which was $10,000 limit, that extra 15,000 was in superior court and subject to mandatory mediation. Those cases are now in district court. So what this bill will do will be to enable mediation to be done on all civil cases in district court, not only family law cases but other cases as well. The rationale being the more cases that you can get settled and keep out of the court, the more cost efficient and judicial efficiency you will have within our system. So I would ask that you all please support this, because overall I think this would be a good thing for the legal system, help us to keep as many cases as possible out of court so the court can use its time more wisely for issues that need to be there. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1094 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1094 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1094 on its

Speaker: On third reading all in favor say aye,all oppose no the aye have it the house committee substitute the house bill 1094 passes it's third reading will be send to the senate house bill 1095 the ??, Speaker Changes: House bill 1095 the act required to sedimentation control commission transferring it's responsibility for administering and enforcing existing erosion in sedimentation control plan.The local government approving plans the sedimentation control program as recommended by the ? committee of land development,North Carolina general assembly and act, Speaker Changes: Representative broody please state your purpose , Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill please, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Members this is Freddy basic ?? committee it says that if the corny if to take over the erosion and sedimentary control program from ?? that they have to take hole program over and not decode they gonna select pieces of it ,that's it Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, , Speaker Changes: I recommend this bill to you Anderson county,took over it's soil erosion and control piece and guide actually right in the problem that Representative Brody trying to address with this bill meaning bring it all at the bill about the same time i recommend the bill to you Speaker Changes: Further discussion further debate,if nit the question before the house passage the house committee substitute house bill 1105 in it' second readings all in favor vote aye,all oppose vote no,the clerk will open the vote ,all members please record ?? 114 have voted in the affirmative and none in the negative the house committee substitute the house bill 1105 passes it's second reading without objection the house bill will be red the third time, Speaker Changes: The general assembly north Carolina and act, Speaker Changes: Further discussion further debate,if not the question before the house passage the house committee substitute the house bill 1105 on this third reading all in favor say aye,all oppose say no,aye is have it the house committee substitute the house bill 1105 passes it's third reading and will be send to the senate,house bill 1106 ??, Speaker Changes: The house bill 1106 the cat required to design routing law and similar erosion control have structural foundation required and solemnly state approved to erosion and sedimentation control plans and certify the device i gonna approved ??and will be installed according to the quality erosion and sedimentation control plan general assembly north Carolina and act, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr speaker ladies and gentlemen i have a ?? to explain in that and lower reading that of the house committee touch on the bill representative broad states he and i were fortunate to chair a committee during that interim and the outcome of the committee arrived conclusions and other conclusions is fixed in those legislation pending and that is basically to improve the lines of communication between all properties when it comes to affect people's property ,you could read the bill I'm aware of no objections to it ??, Speaker Changes: Further discussion further debate,if not the question before the house committee substitute to house bill 1107 on it's second reading,all in favor vote aye ,all oppose vote no the clerk will open the vote no,the clerk will on the machine to record the vote ,113 have voted in the affirmative and none in the negative ,the house committee substitute the house bill 1107 passes it's second reading without objection will be the third time, Speaker Changes: The general assembly north Carolina and an act, Speaker Changes: Future discussion and further debate,if not the question before the house passage the house committee substitute the house is the passage of the 1106 on it's third reading all in favor say aye all oppose no,the aye is have it the house committee substitute the house bill passes the third reading will be sent out he senate house bill 1149 the ??, Speaker Changes: House bill 1149 actor relating to the authority and state ? officer the monitor of state agency is use a mobile electronic device recommend by he ?? on information technology the general assembly north Carolina and act, Speaker Changes: Representative saint please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill , Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr speaker quick summation house bill 1149 because if i participate C I O the general coordinating authority for all mobile communication maters relating relating to internal managements and operations of state agencies,i urge a yes vote in this bill thank you,

Discussion further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of the House 1149 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allot the machine and will record the vote. One hundred and thirteen have voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. House Bill 1149 is passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House bill 1149 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1149 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, we are now going to move back to the top of page one to dispose of two other local bills that are only on second reading. Roll call. House Bill 1211. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1211, an actor of advising consolidated the charter of the town of Mount Gilead. The General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill just updates the charter from the town of Mount Gilead. They requested it. There’s no oppositions. Passed through two committees unanimously. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House committee substitute to House Bill 1211 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allot the machine record the vote. One hundred and fourteen have voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. The House committee substitute to House Bill 1211 has passed its second reading and without objection. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair stands corrected. This roll call vote will remain on the calendar. House Bill 1244 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1244, an act to authorizing increasing the Wilson county occupants in tax. The General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Susan Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker and members of the House. Representative Farmer-Butterfields and I join together to ask you to support our community Wilson. The General Assembly enacted standard guidelines that our occupancy taxes have to conform to, and I went through a lot of work to make sure that this proposal met those standards which are supported by travel and tourism industry. It comes at a request of our community a full bipartisan unanimous support of the County Commissioners and Tourism Board, and I ask for your support. If you have questions, there’s material on your desk and, also, available to you in your e-mail. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer-Butterfield, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. These additional moneys would help implement our three-prong tourism strategies. First is to increase recreational uses and improvements. Second is to increase marketing to attract more businesses for the hotels, and third would be for incentive funding and technical assistance to non-profits who, of course, promote travel and tourism. Thank you for your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1244 on its second roll call reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allot the machine record the vote. Ninety-one have a vote in the affirmative. Twenty-two in the negative. House Bill 1244 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Ladies and gentlemen, we are now down to the remaining bills on the calendar for second and third reading. Local bills voice vote only unless otherwise requested. Is their objection to grouping these bills for a vote? Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Mister Speaker. I’d like to be recorded as yes on House Bill 1149. I was in the Chamber and couldn't get back to my seat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye. Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister, I’d like to be and make sure that I’d been recorded on 1089 and 1090 as voting yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, I think the gentleman was, but we will confirm that on House Bill 1089 and 1090, the gentleman wishes to be recorded as having voted aye. So ordered. House Bill 1044, House Bill 1114, House Bill 1159, House Bill 1168, House Bill 1207, House Bill 1218, and House Bill 1247, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1044, an act to make changes to the Aver’s ??

Tourism development authority house bill 1114 an act to require the register of deeds of Avery county to refuse recordation of a deed for property subject to delinquent municipal property taxes for the town of elk park house bill 1159 an act authorizing the city of greenville to convey by private negotiation and so certain real property owned by the city that does not meet the minimum lot size prescribed by the cities zoning ordinates. house bill 1168 and act to prohibit the discharge of a fire arm or bow and arrow from the right of way in Nancy county. house bill 1207 an act to amend the charter of the city of ? to allow the city council to hire the city attorney and to make certain technical corrections. house bill 1218 an act amending the charter of the city of Monroe to remove the provision authorizing the city manager to have direct supervisory authority over the city attorney. house bill 1247 an act to allow limited appointment of elected public officials to the greater Ashville regional airport authority the general assembly of north carolina ? SPEAKER CHANGES representator McGrady please state your purpose McGrady: to speak on a bill SPEAKER CHANGES the gentleman is recognized to debate one of several bills SPEAKER CHANGES McGrady: this is with respect to house bill 1247 and I just want to draw my colleagues attention to the fact that this is again an Ashville related matter and that representatives Fisher, Moffitt, Ramsey and McGrady are all on the bill so this is not a partisan vote. we ask for your support of that. SPEAKER CHANGES Never get tired of hearing that, representative McGrady. the question before the house is the passage of house bill 1044, house bill 1114, house bill 1159, house bill 1168, house bill 1207, house bill 1218 , and house bill 1247 on its second reading. All in favor say Aye, all opposed, No. The Ayes have it, house bill 1044, house bill 1114, house bill 1159, house bill 1168, house bill 1207, house bill 1218 , and house bill 1247 have passed through second reading without objection SPEAKER CHANGES Mr Speaker? Representer Hall, state your purpose: SPEAKER CHANGES Hall: its not an objection, but could you read those bills again? SPEAKER CHANGES I'm about to, it will be read a third time. SPEAKER CHANGES general assembly of north carolina acts SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 1044, house bill 1114, house bill 1159, house bill 1168, house bill 1207, house bill 1218 , and house bill 1247 on its third reading. All in favor say Aye, all opposed, no. The Ayes have it, 1044, house bill 1114, house bill 1159, house bill 1168, house bill 1207, house bill 1218 , and house bill 1247 have passed their third reading and will be sent to the senate. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr speaker? SPEAKER CHANGES representor Moore please state your purpose SPEAKER CHANGES Moore: re referral of a bill SPEAKER CHANGES the gentleman may state his motion SPEAKER CHANGES Moore: mr speaker senate bill 493 the 2000 regulatory format ? remove from calendar and re referred to the committee on house regulatory reform. SPEAKER CHANGES without objection, so ordered. Ladies and gentleman this completes the calendar, and we've got a couple messages and then we'll go to notices and announcements special message from the senate the ? will read. SPEAKER CHANGES special message from the senate bill 793 committee substitute third edition a bill to be entitled an act to provide that a teacher employed by a charter school may serve as a non voting member of the board of directors for the charter school to amend the date by which the state board of education shall make decisions on charter school applications to provide priority enrollment for the children of members of the board of directors of charter schools beyond their initial year to make charter schools subject to requirements of open meetings and public record laws, to allow charter schools to ask for additional information regarding the transfer of the pro pupil share of the local current expense fund to shorten the time period for payment of delinquent funds, to clarify the bidding process for the assumption of charter schools and to direct the state board of education to develop a fast track approval process. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr speaker? Education representor Floyd please state your purpose Floyd: mr speaker could the reader turn up the volume to help the senior citizen ? SPEAKER CHANGES Speak louder representive Collins is recognized in the fourth committee report the clerk will ? SPEAKER CHANGES representative Jeff Collins state personale committee, house bill 1209 favorable to the committee substitute as amended unfavorable to the original bill and re referred to appropriation.

The Committee Substitute will be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations original bill Unfavorable Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 1036 No Revolving Door Employment favorable to the Committee Substitute, unfavorable to the original bill and re-referred to Judiciary Subcommittee A. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House bill will be re-referred to Judiciary Subcommittee A, original bill Unfavorable Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Notices and announcements Representative Warren please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and gentlemen I just want to repeat an announcement that Representative Stam made earlier regarding Government Committee meeting tomorrow in room 1228, 45 minutes after session. Many of the members are also on the Education Committee so I just want to remind you that we will be starting about a half hour after the Education Committee. You have to make your choices, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members for planning purposes in case there are members that are planning on other meetings we will have session at 11:00 AM tomorrow. Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Gentlemen is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Democrats we have an offsite meeting immediately after session for those of you that are not at committee meetings. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Jones please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members you may have seen your emails earlier but the House Health and Human Services Committee will meet today 15 minutes after session and I don't attend to cancel that 60 seconds from now. So we will meet today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Howard please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Finance will meet in the morning at 8:30 AM in room 544. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stone please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'd like to be recorded voting no on 1244. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen recorded voting no on 1244. Further notices and announcements. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House Committee on Homeland Security and Military and Veteran Affairs is canceled for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further notices and announcements. Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGE] First off for a very quick announcement the House Committee on Rules, Count and Operations will meet tomorrow morning at 9:30 AM in our normal room 1228 there should be a notice coming out electronically also. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker I move that the house adjourn subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referal bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions and moderate modifications to the calendar . To re-convene on Thursday June the 19th at 11:00 AM. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore moves seconded by Representative Brisson that the House do now adjourn, subject to ratification to bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referal bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, modification to the calendar to re-convene on Thursday June 19th at 11:00 AM. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. The aye's have it the House stands adjourned.