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 | April 4, 2013 | Committee Room | House Government

Full MP3 Audio File

The Government Committee come to order please. Members take your seats. Spectators please turn off cell phones or any other electronic devices. Take your seats. Now welcome to the Government Committee. Today, our pages are Lexi All, or All, from Johnson County, sponsored by Speaker Tillis. Where you at? Back there. And Kianna Cooper from Guilford County. Back there as well, welcome. And Kalee Ritasik. Hi Kalee, how are you? From Wake County, sponsored by Representative Dollar. And Adrian Steele from Wake County, sponsored by Representative Holley. Welcome and thank you ladies for your service here today. Our sergeant of arms are ??, Doug Harris and Garland Shepherd. Gentlemen, we thank you for service today. Our staff today, Erica Churchill, Guiles Perry, Shelly DiAttern, Kelly Quick and Shara Graham and Susan Phillips. Our first bill on the agenda today, ladies and gentlemen, is House Bill 314. Representative Martin to take the podium. [Pause] It’s House Bill 314. [Pause] You don’t have them? [Speaker Changes] Is that the bill? [Speaker Changes] Yes, go right ahead. It’s yours. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Members of the Committee, this is a fairly straightforward bill. The town of Ayden is asking to change their change their charters. They did have a resolution that was signed by the mayor and all of the council folks. They have been working on this for a number of years. They had some public hearings and they were able to have 100% support to change from a two years term for the mayors and commissioners, moving to a four year staggered term. And the way that we will implement this is starting with the next election, in 2013, certain seats will run for two years and certain seats will run for four years. And at the end of the two years, the remaining people who had run on two years would then move to a four year term. So in 2015, then everyone would be running for a four year term, but it would be staggered so that they wouldn’t have a full turnover at one time. That is the objective of the bill. There’s a companion filed in the Senate. It has received good support from the citizens. I made sure it went out… excuse me? It went out in the paper. If there were any public comments to come back, that we did receive that. I will give one correction. On the bill summary it says that they currently have staggered terms, and that may be what they found when they looked at the charter, but that is not what is happening in practice. In practice in the town, it’s everyone runs at the same time for a two year term. So we have just discovered this discrepancy this morning and have gone back to the town to see, are they actually not following the charter or is there something they’ve done? But I don’t think it is really relevant to the passage of this, because we’re talking about changing it and looking at how we go forward. So in practice today, they’re all on a two year term, they will come up for election in 2013 and this legislation will take effect then, moving forward. I’m happy to answer any questions, but I would urge your support of this vote and my community would be very appreciative. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Representative Martin. Members, are there any questions for the Representative? Representative Fisher. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came in just a little bit late, but I wanted to ask the bill’s sponsor a question. This is, of course, a local bill and I’m wondering if your delegation is all on board with this local bill. [Speaker Changes] Representative? [Speaker Changes] Yes, thank you that question and the delegation is all on board. Representative Brian Brown has signed on. There is a companion in the Senate with Senators Dawn Davis and Lewis Pate for the same bill. [Speaker Changes] Members do we have any other questions? Representative Langdon. You’re recognized for a motion sir. [Speaker Changes] I move for a favorable report on House Bill 314. [Speaker Changes] ?? [Speaker Changes] It referred to… [Speaker Changes] That’s fine. [Speaker Changes] It doesn’t go anywhere else, does it? [Speaker Changes] No, sir. [Speaker Changes] Okay. [Speaker Changes] We have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for House Bill 314. All in Favor say aye. [Speaker Changes] Aye [Multiple] [Speaker Changes] All opposed say no. The Ayes have it. Thank you, Representative Martin. [Speaker Changes] Thank you.

Our next Bill is Senate Bill 56 presented by Senator Jackson, or disguised as Representative Jimmy Dixon. You have the floor Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a Bill coming from the Senate with Senator Jackson. This simply makes an amendment to legislation that was passed in the last session. It is an agreeable annexation. Briefly what it is, in the town of Wallace, there's a subdivision a few miles outside of town that's been a perfect example of private/public cooperation. The private folks would like to annex property as it is developed. The town of Wallace has agreed to that and deleting this section too will accomplish that so as these properties come online, it will give the opportunity for voluntary annexation to take place between the town of Wallace and this subdivision. There is no opposition that I know of, to it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Members, do we have any questions for Representative Dixon? Seeing none. Representative ?? is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I'd like to make motion that we give a favorable report to Senate Bill 56. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Members, we have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for Senate Bill 56 with a referral to Finance. All in favor please signify by saying Aye. All opposed No. The Ayes have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you members of the Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Representative Dixon. Members, we're going to pull from the, near the end of the agenda and go to the PCS for House Bill 276. So, if you look toward the back of your packet, because your Bills should be in order. House Bill 276, being presented by Representative Stam. We have a motion on the floor from Representative Collins, through the PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I'm sorry? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Those will be distributed to you soon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative, you can probably proceed at this point. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I'm sorry. Chairman , I ask your support for House Bill 276. House Bill 276 will do several things. It will modernize and simplify language of the statute that was created in 1923. Now this, we have been living with this since 1923. It hadn't been revised at all and I can tell you after having served thirty years as a kind of Commissioner, we have these issues to come up all the time. We need a clear way in order to get them resolved. It will create more logical organization and add sub-headings. It will update the Statute to incorporate modern case law and practices. It will reduce the threshold for certain decisions from super majority to a simple majority. It makes appeal of government decisions easier for the ordinary citizen. I ask you and ask your support for this Bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I also ask for your support. Representative Graham had thirty years experience dealing with it. In my approximately twenty-five years as a town attorney or assistant to a town attorney, I had no experience. Our Board of Adjustment met no times, zero, I think once, in about twenty-five years. But in many places, they meet all the time and the procedures widely vary, the interpretations

?? widely vary. And so, it's necessary to modernize this, so we would have consistent rulings. I've asked the chair and our excellent staff, if we could have permission for Tom Terrell?? to explain it. Because he has led a task force for many, many months involving dozens of people. He's sort of the expert in the field from the real estate section of the bar. If that's okay, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be fine. Trivial. Approach the podium and identify yourself. You have to put your little, there you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Tom Terrell?? attorney in Cranesboro?? I think that representative Stam and Graham have been spot on in their descriptions of what this field does. We believe it comes to you today essentially without controversy. Because we have allowed citizens all over the state of North Carolina to help us draft this bill, every single one of you sitting here today has someone in your county. Whether it's a zoning official, a city or a county attorney, a attorney representing developers or somebody in your, in industry. We've had a lot of industry input into this field. It went through about 20 different versions. We've listened to what people say and we incorporated these into a bill that works. A very brief background, if you don't know what a Board of Adjustment is. It is a local government board that affects thousands of citizens in the state every single year. These are citizens who take matters to them that affect their business, their property and their family. The statute was written in 1923. It was poorly written even then. And it was time for us to take that statute and give it a good modern re-draft. So, that we can keep up with the way things have changed in the state. Our population has increased dramatically, The world is a lot more complex. A ?? brush description would say this, this bill is a lot more citizen friendly. If a citizen wanted to challenge a decision by a zoning official, the process now has been spelled out so that can more easily be done. There are businesses who are trying to make millions of dollars of investments in your various communities, who have to get special or conditional use permits that are required now by a super majority of four-fifths. As professor Owens at the School of Government has spelled out for us, that was only by an accident of history that we've been operating under this artificially high threshold. We recommended that we do this by a simple majority. It's much closer to the way we do things in this country. We are making, we've taken a giant step toward uniformity of this statute with all land use statutes. We are taking for the board's purposes, for their benefit. We're explaining better how to do what are called “quazogical??” proceedings. And finally, many of you have heard about variances. We have clarified and actually lowered a threshold that was never, ever in the statute. It was added by a very activist court a few decades ago. And makes it harder for citizens to get a very common sense exclusion from a zoning ordinance that should not affect them. I'm glad to answer any questions, but certainly we do ask your support. There are people, I can tell you right now. There are people in each of your counties who have signed off of this. It's that, our support is that broad based. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Members, do we have any questions for the bill sponsors or the, yes? Representative Fisher? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering what other organizations that lend support to cities or counties have you heard from, in terms of their support or opposition to this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill is supported by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and the legal municipalities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Zagis?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Comment on the bill. I've had some contact from members of the real estate board, who are in full support of this bill. Think it's a good bill and something long overdue to handle the antiquated system that's in effect now. At an appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Representative Floyd.

The gentlemen have already commented on my ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, thank you. Members, are there any other questions? Representative Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. The bill I'm looking at says a city. Does this include counties as well? Can we make it include counties, because- [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does include counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good, because I've seen that at home with the ZBA not meeting once every seven or eight years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, are further questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could just point Representative Ford to page six, where it says the provisions of the part about cities are applicable to counties. Page six, line eighteen. Good question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion that we have an unfavorable report as to the original bill and a favorable report on the proposed committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have a motion by Representative Davis on the floor. All in favor please say aye. Opposed, please signify by saying no. The ayes have it, sir, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going back on schedule to house bill 346 which also has PCS that Representative Elmore has made a motion we accept, and this will be presented by someone eventually. Representative Faircloth, there you are. You have the microphone, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, I appreciate your attention this morning to this bill and request, and this arose out of a situation where a local government council member had a judgement in favor of the city and against him, and he refused to pay the judgement and moved assets, apparently, so that there was no way for the city to collect on the situation. At the same time, still sitting as a city council person and drawing a salary for being in that position. A lot of citizens don't think that's a proper situation. I don't think it is, and I don't think you would think it is. What this bill does, what the PCS does, is simply allows the city to have a way, or a county to have a way to collect that judgement, legal judgement, in existence. The city has tried to collect, has not been able to, the interest is running into thousands of dollars and it's a situation that needs to be corrected. I appreciate your support and I'd be glad to answer your questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make a motion we give a favorable report to the post-committee substitute for house bill 346, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Referred ??. Alright, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor, say aye. Any against? Thank you, the bill has passed. Next we have a house bill 347. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the commitee, this is a relatively simple bill. It is requested by the city of Greensboro and it is supported by the entire Guilford Delegation. House bill 347 simply allows the governing board of the Firefighter's Relief Fund of the city to also serve as the governing board of the firefighter's supplemental retirement system. So it would basically be the overseeing of that will be done now, we're proposing that it be done by the Firefighter's Relief Fund in the city of Greensboro. As far as we know, there is no opposition to this bill. It also provides a change from the word "firemen" to "firefighters". We think that's appropriate as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion for favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions? It's the appropriate time, Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report to the proposed committee substitute to- this is house bill number- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, the same bill. 347. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 347. Unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's going to have a ?? referral to state personnel in the finance.

As subject to the stated referrals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, we have a motion on the floor, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair. Thank you members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next bill, House bill 200. Representative Brawley. Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. There is a PCS on this bill. I would ask that it be before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins makes the motion, the PCS is before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. This is a public bill, but it is, acts like a local bill. It is supported not only by both Democratic and Republican members of the Mecklenburg delegation, but by both sides of the Mecklenburg county commission, and was announced at a news conference, which was hosted by the chair of the county commission and attended by almost the entire body. Essentially what happened was in 2011, a reevaluation was performed that did not do a particularly good job and on investigation was found to have been in violation of North Carolina law in several respects. In fact, a cynical man might say the only thing they did right was send the bills out, and response to complaints, a study was launched by an independent consultant who found that there were several neighborhoods with major errors of as much as 40% deviation in what the property should have been valued. It was also discovered that field checking of data had not happened in 17 years. It's the result of about five months of work. It's been vetted by school and government department of revenue. I'd say it has support of the Mecklenburg county commission. What we're essentially doing is trying to get Mecklenburg county where they'd be if they lost a class action lawsuit and have to do it anyway, saving expense to the taxpayers. We'd be happy to ask any detailed questions that you may have. It does apply definitely to Mecklenburg, it is optional for other counties but not requiring them to do it. It's drafted in such a way that it does not violate constitutional provisions about setting up separate classes of taxpayers, and will be referred to finance after we're through here today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, gentlemen of the committee, we've heard the bill. Any questions? Representative Ford. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry, you say this does not apply to the other counties? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there are as many as 75 counties to whom it could apply if they take some additional actions to meet all of the prerequisite, the terms that are required, one of which is an independent survey of your last reevaluation that shows there's significant deviations between actually what it should be and the way it was performed. So far Mecklenburg's the only county that has such independent evidence of a major breakdown in reevaluation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair. At the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions from the committee? Mr. Moore, it's the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move that we receive a favorable report on the PCS, unfavorable on the original with a referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's gonna go to regulatory reform, then finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To regulatory reform, then finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Thank you. Next on the agenda is House bill 370. Well, one second, we've got to correct this summary we're passing out. All right, Representative Graham, you have the floor. Sorry for the technical difficulty.

Thank you very much. Seeking your support this morning for House Bill 370 and what House Bill 370 would do is shorten the review period when you're trying to purchase or negotiate a state property. It will shorten the time that you would make the request, that there will be an investigation, and you will close out the process within about thirty days. That's primarily what the Bill does. It is, what happens is often times you'll working with state properties and you go through the process of doing your advertising, your bidding, but you never can get closure on it and this will force us to make those closes within a reasonable time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Okay, you've heard the Bill. Any questions? Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a question. What's the timeframe now? How long does it take? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Sixty days. I'm sorry, right now there is no time limit. It is open ended. Yes ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Do you know if the delays been due to maybe a lack of personnel? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I don't know but I think it's probably establishing a set of priorities. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Any other questions? Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Any other questions from the Committee? Representative Collins, motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I move that we give a favorable report to House Bill 370, referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: All in favor say Aye. Any opposed? The Bill's passed. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: House Bill 354. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. This Bill will allow the county Commissioners from Buncombe County and Madison County both to appoint a county Commissioner to server on the AB Tech Community College Board. AB Tech serves two counties, Buncombe and Madison counties. It is in response to a turn of events that happened to be unfortunate but as it, this is an attempt to correct that. Madison County Commissioner's in support of this, Buncombe County, AB Tech. I appreciate Representative Presnell, Representative Moffitt, and consulted with Representative Fisher and I don't think there's any opposition to this Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Is this clearly? A quick question. I see that you have other elected officials that can't serve. Why, specifically, are they not able to serve and you have just the two county commissions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The way the current statute is written, there's several different opportunities for appointments to the Board and under the previous, under the current version of the Law, it says that the county Commissioners can only ???? only appoint, maybe, a member of the Board of Commissioners of a given county. So, since this is a multi-county Community College where you have Madison and Buncombe both, what happened in this case, the Madison County Commissioners appointed a Commissioner under their authority to the AB Tech Board that then foreclosed the Buncombe County Commissioners from having the ability to appoint a Commissioner. And, so, it was not the intent by the Madison County Commissioners to foreclose Buncombe County from doing so. Would also note this is a perspective Bill so this, if Buncombe County wants to appoint a County Commissioner to this Board, Buncombe will have to revote to do so and it is not the intent of this legislation to tell them who to select. It's up to the majority of the current Board of Commissioners who they want to be on that Board. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Any other questions from the Committee? Representative Langdon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Any other questions from the Committee? Representative Langdon, you have the floor for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I move for a favorable report on House Bill 354. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: We've heard the motion. All in favor say Aye. Any opposition? Bill's passed. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: House Bill 242

You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 242 is basically a technical correction on a technical correction. Back in 2009, they meant to fit this retroactively back to 2008 and just missed six words that would have helped it. The reason it came to my attention was Bath Fire Department, which is a very small fire department near the coast, had a problem with getting their sales tax returned to them. They contacted my office after a few weeks of working with the North Carolina Department of Revenue, we were able to find a loophole that allowed them to get the sales tax back. But the main issue is that the language, the way it reads right now, is that you have to be a 501C organization, either a 3 or a 4, in order to get your sales tax back. But that is not a requirement of the IRS that some of these smaller fire departments needed. As far as the fiscal impact, there's about seven thousand dollars held up in some requests right now, from '08 to now. If there's ones out there it was impossible for staff to realize whether or not there were some others that might be affected. So I ask for your support and welcome any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions from the committee? Representative Goodman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions? It's the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report. ?? need to be referred or has already been referred to finance, so move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposition? Thank you, your bill's passed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next up we have House Bill 349. The chair would like to advise we have speakers and opposition in the audience. Representative Floyd, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. ?? of the committee, this is a local deal from your city of ?? to allow it to establish a police board there. The city has requested that after lengthy community meetings and other meetings and consultants recommendations, that the city established this board inconsistent with the cities of Charlotte, Winston, Salem, Durham, and Greensboro. The process would to provide greater transparency and accountability there. The scope of the investigation would be limited in nature and the city would set forth that as you see in section 2. This also ?? Representative Glazier would also like to add some points of view as relates to this request. Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask to stand to explain the summary.

The Government Committee come to order please. Members take your seats. Spectators please turn off cell phones or any other electronic devices. Take your seats. Now welcome to the Government Committee. Today, our pages are Lexi All, or All, from Johnson County, sponsored by Speaker Tillis. Where you at? Back there. And Kianna Cooper from Guilford County. Back there as well, welcome. And Kalee Ritasik. Hi Kalee, how are you? From Wake County, sponsored by Representative Dollar. And Adrian Steele from Wake County, sponsored by Representative Holley. Welcome and thank you ladies for your service here today. Our sergeant of arms are ??, Doug Harris and Garland Shepherd. Gentlemen, we thank you for service today. Our staff today, Erica Churchill, Guiles Perry, Shelly DiAttern, Kelly Quick and Shara Graham and Susan Phillips. Our first bill on the agenda today, ladies and gentlemen, is House Bill 314. Representative Martin to take the podium. [Pause] It’s House Bill 314. [Pause] You don’t have them? [Speaker Changes] Is that the bill? [Speaker Changes] Yes, go right ahead. It’s yours. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Members of the Committee, this is a fairly straightforward bill. The town of Ayden is asking to change their change their charters. They did have a resolution that was signed by the mayor and all of the council folks. They have been working on this for a number of years. They had some public hearings and they were able to have 100% support to change from a two years term for the mayors and commissioners, moving to a four year staggered term. And the way that we will implement this is starting with the next election, in 2013, certain seats will run for two years and certain seats will run for four years. And at the end of the two years, the remaining people who had run on two years would then move to a four year term. So in 2015, then everyone would be running for a four year term, but it would be staggered so that they wouldn’t have a full turnover at one time. That is the objective of the bill. There’s a companion filed in the Senate. It has received good support from the citizens. I made sure it went out… excuse me? It went out in the paper. If there were any public comments to come back, that we did receive that. I will give one correction. On the bill summary it says that they currently have staggered terms, and that may be what they found when they looked at the charter, but that is not what is happening in practice. In practice in the town, it’s everyone runs at the same time for a two year term. So we have just discovered this discrepancy this morning and have gone back to the town to see, are they actually not following the charter or is there something they’ve done? But I don’t think it is really relevant to the ??, because we’re talking about changing it and looking at how we go forward. So in practice today, they’re all on a two year term, they will come up for election in 2013 and this legislation will take effect then, moving forward. I’m happy to answer any questions, but I would urge your support of this vote and my community would be very appreciative. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Representative Martin. Members, are there any questions for the Representative? Representative Fisher. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came in just a little bit late, but I wanted to ask the bill’s sponsor a question. This is, of course, a local bill and I’m wondering if your delegation is all on board with this local bill. [Speaker Changes] Representative? [Speaker Changes] Yes, thank you that question and the delegation is all on board. Representative Brian Brown has signed on. There is a companion in the Senate with Senators Dawn Davis and Lewis Pate for the same bill. [Speaker Changes] Members do we have any other questions? Representative Langdon. You’re recognized for a motion sir. [Speaker Changes] I move for a favorable report on House Bill 314. [Speaker Changes] ?? [Speaker Changes] It referred to… [Speaker Changes] That’s fine. [Speaker Changes] It doesn’t go anywhere else, does it? [Speaker Changes] No, sir. [Speaker Changes] Okay. [Speaker Changes] We have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for House Bill 314. All in Favor say aye. [Speaker Changes] Aye [Multiple Voices] [Speaker Changes] All opposed say no. The Ayes have it. Thank you, Representative Martin. [Speaker Changes] Thank you.

...in that adventure in being able to get officers those abilities back through the court system and this is just a continuation of this, this is just another way to cut it that apple so to speak. This bill is so limited that there are no standards of review: Who is going to be on this committee? How are those committee members going to be selected, okay? What is their term limits on this committee? I mean they’re just so many unanswered questions because this bill is so brief. And the biggest point that you’ll have is that an officer, let’s give an example here: we see it on TV shows and everything, an officer on the take and bribery or whatever, an officer is complained upon for that particularly the offence. He can be exonerated for that offense but what goes into that internal affairs investigation is a complete review of his credit report, his personal life, whether he’s got things that are going on personally, the officer may be going through a painful divorce, he may be having some financial issues or having some problems but he’s not guilty of taking a bribe. Well here you have a 15 page document that is going to have a lot of personal information, the officer is exonerated but this committee is going to have access to these documents and who on this committee? We don’t have anything that tells us this in this bill. In the city of Winston-Salem where they had this review committee and personnel files were released to a committee, this eventually went to the Court of Appeals that ruled in the officer’s favor. So in Winston-Salem it was found to be a very much legal problem when this happened with the citizens review board in that jurisdiction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Burr we do have a three-minute so just wind up if you could, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We aren't opposed to transparency but transparency without accountability is a major problem for us and the officers that we represent not only in Fayetteville, but throughout this state. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you I’m than a take the liberty to let the bill sponsors respond please [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Chair and I do respect and we have been negotiating with Mr.Burr and PBA for a long time on this and they have been negotiating in good faith on it but I do want to respond because I think there's several things that I just fundamentally disagree with on the presentation. The first is, the city did what the delegation requested and passed an ordinance which sets out in detail the Police/Citizen review board, it sets out the term limits; it sets out how the Chair and Vice Chair are elected; all the things, the rules, the procedure, the meetings, the minutes all the things are the City’s responsibility, it’s not ours to do that, we don’t have that jurisdiction. Our sole decision to make as a body is whether to agree to allow the limited release of the confidential information. Now we encouraged as a delegation those discussions and I think they’re productive and I think members who have professional experience are going to be appointed by the city. None of us as we know from legislation that were dealing with can predict and say that every city Council will put the best people they can on, but we have to hope and, I think, operate in good-faith. Secondly, with the Winston-Salem case which I just disagree fundamentally with Mr. Burr on and that is there was an overreach by Winston-Salem at one point, there was a lawsuit but it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. It was a completely isolated circumstance where there really was a reason for PBA to sue, they did and they won, but it is so out of bounds of anything were talking about that it was very case specific, and has no impact at all. And we have reviewed the Winston-Salem case. And the last thing that I would say is , all of those private pieces of information that Mr. Burr’s talking about, which he is right should not be disclosed, are not allowed to be disclosed here. It’s precisely why the language is drafted that, the only thing that’s disclose-able is the disposition of this particular incident and the facts that supporting that disposition. Not a piece of private information about that officer or anything else in their file is allowed to be disclosed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Also the city as it looked at the number of consent searches, one segment of our community received 200 consent searches, another segment of our community received 2000. It was at that point that the city decided that we need to do something in order to bring harmony within our community. And they looked at that, and this was the best way to do that and the statute provided limited information that is going to be determined by the city manager, the police chief and also the city attorney.

So the information that's provided to this committee is going to be limited. Even after the committee reviews the information and makes a recommendation, the ultimate decision rests with the city manager. The committee only makes a recommendation, it does not have any statutory authority to do anything. That is left with the authority of the city manager, which he now has to operate and run this city and govern about 1,400 city employees. So, we ask for your support of this resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. At this time, we'll go back. we've got 2 more people scheduled to speak, John Midget and Tom Terrel. If you would, remember, we have 3 minutes each. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm John Midget, I'm the Executive Director of the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association. And in point to what Representative Glazier was saying, we have appreciated a long history of working with the entire legislation here, and the delegation last year in trying to resolve this. But I must say, first and foremost, while the delegation had agreed that we should be part of some discussions, I'm here to tell you that the city has offered no option to do that. In fact, when the bill was withdrawn by the feds and mayor last year, it was on the understanding that he was not going to even listen to our concerns, he didn't want to be in a position to even listen, not have to be required to do anything with them, but to even listen to them. The personal history here as been such that we've had to file legal action in court to stop the city from an obstruction of justice, which the Attorney General of North Carolin warned the city. The general council of the Sheriff's Association declared that he felt it was a felony obstruction of justice. To speak specifically to the bill analysis, while other cities have this, they have employees on the board. GS-168, speaks to who can be held accountable under the provisions of law under those subsections on the release of that information, that is public officials and public employees, not citizens, per se. And what got Winston-Salem in trouble was they had a board of citizens, they did release information against the city's wishes, the city ends up defending them in a court against us, and unfortunately the Court of Appeals said you couldn't do that in that release. And this is what we feared. This is so limited, that is there a trust factor here? Not with the delegation here, certainly not with the legislation supporting this, but with the City of Fayetteville, that has definitely been the case. So, doing this only specifically to police officers, not other public employees, also whatever committee has been designed, if they release that, even if they have strong penalties in that, Winston-Salem tried to shut them down and could not do that, and then was in the precarious position of defending them against us when we were trying to protect those files. One other thing I would like to say, as far as facts to be presented. In facts are details. In those details will be information that led the officers to the conclusion that this was not sustained. One final point, nothing in here is about complaints that are sustained. In other words, if we had a full blown process where officers were entitled to due process, officers expect to be held to a higher standard, but if they are not provided due process to defend themselves against false complaints, which they are not in this state, other that state law enforcement officers, then they are subject to the mistakes that can be made because this is so broadly laid out, that once it's done, you can't pull it back. Those officers can being destroyed, and we have now, people who are being attacked in their homes. We do have officers who are assassinated in this state, about 6% annually, so I urge you to not support it for those reasons, and hope to be able to come with something we can work together again, and get results. Thanks very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Next we have up Tom Terrell. Okay, Tom's not here. At this time we'll open up for questions from the committee. Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman. One of my questions was answered in Representative Glazier's comments, but I want to go back to something that Representative Floyd said, I have a question. You said that one part of town received 200 consented searches, the other part of town received 2,000. Can you magnify that, and give me the composition of each? [SPEAKER CHANGES]You know I don't like to use race in my discussion, but doing this particular process time that's reported

That had to be reported to the SBI. There was two hundred plus white searches and two thousand minority searches. Now when you look at searches, whether or not they was consent searches or not, it's the way that the officer not being raised a question to the citizen as it relates to the consent searches. And now since we got it at this point, it was a republican council person that asked that we stop doing the consent searches for a period of time, assuming that we could bring some healing into this process. And last year, a piece of legislation of our delegation, I was the one that asked the delegation that I would not support the bill in its present tense. So, the city again came back with negotiation and asked us to send this bill forward. And this is what I'm doing now. On behalf of the citizen, because the city of Fayetville has some healing need to be done, and one way to do that is to have this piece in place. Is to provide the city with an opportunity to do that. And the key thing in here is a limited information. Limited, but that's be determined. And the ultimate decision resteth with the city manager. Not with the review board itself. So that's the way the authority allowed. And the city see that this is the best to bring back more healing in the community and that is why they asked for ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe there are four review boards already that they have already established on this. And I think that's enough. I'm not going to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. First of all, I have a question for the bill sponsors and then I have a comment. My question is how different is this bill from those of cities, including my city? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for the question. Representative Adams. And just to highlight and respond a bit as well, and then combine to Representative Presnell's point. Of course each of those boards that exists are only for the jurisdiction of those cities. They don't have any jurisdiction in Fayetville, so they can't handle any Fayetville cases. So we have no capacity. Those boards are strictly limited to city limits of those cities. We actually spend, and when I say we, not only the delegation but the city council, spend a lot of time from issues. All of those boards are more expansive in their investigative capacity than the Fayetville board. Our view at the Delegation and we I think articulated that to the city. That we wanted this confined. So the citizen's review only of the incident that was at issue. And only to the disposition of that incident. Some of the city boards that you're talking about have a broader investigative capacity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment. Yes. This is a comment. It's unfortunate that you have these kinds of struggles in the cities. I served on the Greensborough City Council for nine years. I know the gentleman at PBA. I know that association very well. Worked with them, have a lot of respect for them. But I've got to tell you that this is a local bill and they are actually raising concerns about their city. And that's how you do it. You bring local bills to do that. So just because they are four cities who support this effort and have by these review boards, does not mean that other cities who feel that they need them should have them. I will just say to the committee that what, we've had some serious issues in Greensborough similar to what you're talking about. And as a matter of fact, the, from what I know of the review board that we have in Greensborough, it's basically working pretty well for our citizens. And it was an opportunity for our city council to bring at least some closure to some of the problems and issues that the citizens were raising. And I have a lot of respect for the police department. But I do think there is something appropriate about that this process, and I'm going to support the bill for that. I think we're doing a reasonably good job. Greensborough. I'm not that familiar with what's going on in the other cities but I think that if Fayetville believe they need then I think they should have an opportunity to have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier. You will respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And thank you Representative Adams. I do want to reiterate to everyone. This has been a multi-year process in our city. And our city council is divided 5-5 politically. 5 republicans, 5 democrats. It voted 9

Two for this, with one in each party. I believe being the ??. But four in each party being in favor. Our delegation is a divided delegation in the house and the senate, but all of us, republican and democrat, are on board. There's very little public official disagreement. And sometimes we've seen that in issues and locally. That's not true here. I think all of us, and I wish we weren't here, but we think that in the end for our city, given what it's been through the last two years, that the good good far outweighs the bad here. And I hope you'll defer to the judgment of the collective will of the delegation and the collective will of our city elected officials. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have one question and a comment. ?? Question for Representative Glazier. Representative Glazier, you have described the limited nature of the information that can be shared but not being a lawyer, it does say information relevant to the charge. What if I'm being charged as an officer with a bribery? Does not then allow some of the fears that one of the gentleman, wouldn't my financial information then be relevant information to that charge? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would first suspect that if there was a bribery charge that that charge would already have moved beyond this capacity before it would ever get here. And would have moved into the criminal courts since it is a distinct crime. Most of what's reviewed on these commissions are issues of force or stop issues. They generally are not the criminal nature issues. On something like bribery, I suspect it would very quickly bypass any of this process, be reffered by the chief to the SBI more than likely for investigation. And we would not be looking at that kind of issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I agree. This is not a political issue. This is not a democratic or republic issue. To me it's an issue of local people not asking us to do their job, basically. To me, if the chief of police and the city manager can't control the employees of their departments, perhaps they need to be replace. It looks like to me we've got a, and I don't know who these people are, but it looks like to me we're being asked to do something which the city of Fayetville should be able to handle internally by their own supervisory process. And if I were a law enforcement officer, I don't know why in the world I would ever agree to go to one these four cities or five if we made Fayetville the fifth one, where I've got another, where in addition to all the other, well my lights showing green, but anyway. But where in addition to all the normal supervisory levels you have, you have this additional level of supervisory jurisdiction you've got to worry about. It looks like to me Fayetville is asking us to do their job. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Pibbon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, sir. Motion at the appropriate time, I motion for the time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. For a question then a comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Could we get a, or can I get a copy at some point, not necessarily now, but of what Fayetville has passed, what their law is setting up this. And the question is this. When a citizen, I assume this is the way it's going to work, and you can explain ?? if it's not. What this is is a venue for a citizen to file a complaint against a police officer that he has done something wrong. He's used excessive force, that he's unduly searched them when they shouldn't have been searched, or something like that. And isn't that the job for the courts to decide? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I'm going to have to answer in several ways. And I think first answer is yes, it creates that opportunity for a citizen to do that. Remember that what's happened for a citizen review board to come into play, is there's been some complaint filed already. As a citizen has a right to do in all our towns and cities and counties. It's been reviewed by the city manager and the police chief. They've made a decision. And there is two choices at that point, a city could have no capacity essentially to review that, other than the politics of elections and how you deal with that. Or the citizen can go to court. There is an attempt on the part of our city as I believe there was and is in Winston Salem Greensborough Durham and some of the others, to try to keep and resolve disputes locally to give some confidence to different segments of the public so they won't file in court so we won't

me seeing lawsuits everywhere. This is an attempt to, given out led to a citizen that suggests that perhaps the city didn't properly review everything or didn't know everything. And I am having been a civil rights lawyer I think the courts are a grand way to handle some things, but this goes back fundamentally to our town. We can't do what Representative Collins wants us to do without the consent of the confidentiality provision. Our town wants to be able to give citizens an outlet and a voice shy of them havin to sue. We have gone through what some of your towns may never go through. It has been a very difficult two years for our police. And I'm on a slightly different side of the issue than Representative Floyd. I did not think that the decision to suspend consent searches was right. And there would have been ways I think to avoid that had people been talking to each other. But we have a situation in our town where we need to have confidence of our citizens which are very evenly split demographically. Our town leaders and now our delegation believes that this citizen review board, properly functioning, will provide that outlet. I want to avoid lawsuits. I want to avoid our officers being put on the front page. And there is no other way members for us to do that given the context right now in our city. And so we're asking you for the confidentiality limitation provision so the people in our town can have some review and confidence and we don't end up in court on cases that I fear we will end up in court on if there's no outlet to for people to think that they got a fair shake in a review. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry hold on. I apologize. We had a followup over here. I'm sorry. Representative McNeill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Let me ask this question and I also have a comment after this question. What you're setting up is a scenario where a citizen files a complaint with the police department and it's investigated internally. Maybe the chief or whoever is involved in that review process you know does takes whatever action they take and then it goes to a citizen's review board. What's your procedure that if the citizen review board disagrees with the findings of the internal investigation. Do you, I mean, are they bound by your decision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir this is strictly a recommendation process back to the city council and the chief and the city manager for them to reconsider a decision if there's some new information of suggestions by the review board. The review board as Representative Floyd said has no final authority or capacity and I don't think it does in any of the cities. But it has the capacity to recommend different dispositions or thoughts or actions that might be taken. I want to again suggest, someone said this earlier, we now have a new city manager actually. He's from Durham and so he knows the system and is fine with it. So we have our old city manager recommending this. We have our new city manager recommending this. We had the police chief who's from Charlotte and he's been through this and recommends this and our police chief did. So, you know, I can't tell you, I mean, everybody involved in this shy of the PDA and there's good reasons why they had concerns. I think we've addressed them as much as we can. But I think the elected officials, the city council, the chiefs of police are onboard that this is a good mechanism for our community to try and we can always stop it at anytime if it turns not to be a good mechanism. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK next up Representative Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions and a comment. First the answering structure in personnel does the police chief answer directly to the city manager or directly to the city council? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Manager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Also there was a comment made and I wanted to confirm it. Does the public officials, the city elected officials, have the rights to look at the personnel records of the police officers in these situations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not to my understanding they. That's personnel. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a personnel matter they can not look in those personnel files. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's limited, you know, as the statute stated Representative Glazier can go into more detail. You know they can not do that my understanding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would probably respectfully disagree just a little bit. I think that there are limited circumstances in which state statutes allow the governing body to look at the personnel records of people they are employing. So I think that city council

To do that, for a limited extent there are times in which they are not allowed to. I mean, fishing expeditions, personal matters and that kind of thing. But, on an official business my thought, and I can confirm it they can have some capacity to do that. This of course, is for the citizen review board and we don't want them to have any capacity to do that, except the limited information that they're reviewing, with regard to the disposition and the incident that occurred. [SPEAKER CHANGE] My concern with this is, I'm a town official, or was a town official from a small town. Our police chief answered directly to the town board and we changed that format. In this type situation, I'm scared that this will undermine the whole authority of the city council. If this is a major issue with the city council, they should be able to review, to a certain extent, these personnel files. If its that big of a problem than they should fire the police chief, or fire the city manager, if they have that big of a problem. Now, you are creating an additional board that has access to personnel records, that has no accountability to the voters. That's a concern of mine, so I don't think that I will be supporting the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well, unfortunately and fortunately we have a council manager form of government, where in that the council sets the rules and the manager carry out the wishes of the council. There as he has statchertary responsibility to look at the employees for the city of [?], not the council. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The chair. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a few brief comments on the bill. I am in favor of this type of internal review. The main reason is one of the purposes the author said to avoid complicity. I have a lot of friends who are in law enforcement as well as family members. I've also practiced a lot of law and probably had thousands of cases that come before the judge. A lot of these matters that we're talking about come out in a much more public way. They come out in accusations from defendants, they come out, they're drawn out through attorneys who are arguing policeman made mistakes or did things improperly. This type of internal review, I think, could be a favor to law enforcement. Friends that I have, as well as family members they can be vetted and discussed in a less public way. So, I really see this as a release valve. Something that could help law enforcement officers. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Representative McNeil. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well, I respectfully disagree with Senator Hall. This is not an internal review, its an external review. Police officer's are governed by a lot of laws that they have to deal with each and every day. What they do is reviewed time, and time, and time again. Its reviewed by the courts, its reviewed by their supervisors, its reviewed by their police chief, it's reviewed by the city manager, the council. They have certification processes they have to go through. I just think this is adding one more level or one more thing on our police officers that they don't deserve. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Representative Pittman withdraw your amendment, motion? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, Mr. Chair. What we are asking for is a favorable report, this bill will also go to the judiciary, if there's any additional venting. Which is a much better, you know, you can look at it and make sure the corrections are there. We're just asking for approval so that it can be defered to judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Have any other comments from the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman. May I make a suggestion? Since there's a continuing discussion, like there was last time, I think it might be useful, one other option that might be available to the committee is to make a motion to refer to judiciary without prejudice, not as a favorable report. Which allows us to get to the judiciary committee and actually get more concerns on the confidentiality provision taken care of there. So, it is an option that the members might have and I might suggest. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I second Representative Glacier's wording. [SPEAKER CHANGE] So, you make a motion . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Make a motion without prejudice to judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGE] We have a motion on the floor. All in favor say, aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed, nay. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Nay. [SPEAKER CHANGE] In the opinionated chair, the aye's have it.

[Speaker changes.] Thank you. Next up, House Bill 110. There's a PCS before the Committee. Representative Collins makes a motion to put the PCS before us. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. House Bill 110 is a bill which prohibits the state and it's political subdivisions from requiring or prohibiting PLA's, which are Project Labor Agreements, in government construction contracts or conditioning the award of grants for taxes on the existence or the absence of Project Labor Agreements. The bill does allow contractors who choose to unilaterally enter into agreements with unions on a project. They are not prohibited from doing so. What this bill basically does is, like I said, it prohibits PLA's or Project Labor Agreements and the purpose is to insure that we have an economy and efficiency on taxpayer-funded construction projects in North Carolina. PLA's have been found to increase construction costs. Some studies have shown that they increase construction cost up to 25%. We're only trying to establish a level playing field for all bidders who want to bid on construction projects or public construction projects in North Carolina. I urge your support. And I think we have an amendment, Mister Chairman. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chairman, if I could, before the amendment, this legislation is supported by both the Association of Builders and Contractors as well as the Association of General Contractors...ABC and AGC. Mister Chairman, I don't know the latitude of the Chair but there are representatives of both organizations in the audience and if you want to let them make comments, they are here. [Speaker changes.] We'll do the amendment first. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to send forth an amendment. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt, could you explain your amendment? [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mister Chair. Members of the Committee, this is a fairly simple amendment. It's more technical in nature. On line 20, we're taking the three words out..." entering into or" will be removed by the amendment. I'd ask for your support. [Speaker changes.] Do we have a motion? No, this is just a technical amendment. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt, please repeat. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. It's line 20 on page one, under Section 1, Part B...B1...line 20, the first three words "entering into or" will be removed. [Speaker changes.] Any questions on the amendment? [Speaker changes.] All those in favor of the amendment, say Aye. (AYES.) All those opposed. Amendment passes. Back on the bill. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chairman, one other thing, this bill's been filed for two months. We have not heard any opposition from any labor groups or any other group since it's been filed. [Speaker changes.] Representative ???????? [Speaker changes.] A motion at the appropriate time. [Speaker changes.] Any questions from the committee? Comments? Representative ???? Back for a motion. [Speaker changes.] I'd like to move that House Bill 110 receive favorable report and refer to finance. [Speaker changes.] As amended. [Speaker changes.] As amended. [Speaker changes.] Rolled into a PCS. [Speaker changes.] You got it. [Speaker changes.] You heard the motion before us. All those in favor say Aye. (Ayes.) Any opposed. Bill passes. [Speaker changes.] Next we have up is House Bill 153. Representative Cleveland, you have the floor. [Speaker changes.] Committee House Bill 153 is going to set up an oversight committee...a joint oversight committee for general government. It'll authorize the committee to make recommendations to the General Assembly on ways to improve effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the government services ????? cover departments and agencies will provide and these are the general government agencies. It ????????? that the commission be composed of twelve members, six from the Senate and six from the House...

and requires whatever covered department or agency is required by law to report to the general assmebly on matters affecting the services the department or agency provides. We'll also provide a copy of the report to the joint legislative oversight committee and local government. Presently, if there are any problemss in the general govenrment agencies, there's really no way to take a look at them and see if we can correct them until we get back into session. And this oversight committee would be something that could meet between sessions and help resolve some potential problems. In the past several years, some have cropped up and it was nigh on impossible to try to resolve them. Matter of fact, some continued on and things happened that shouldn't have happened. And with the oversight committee, it'll help prevent that type of thing. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Cleveland. Any questions from the committee? Rep. Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions from the committee? Rep. Bell? Rep. Floyd, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report with referral to a regulatory reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those in favor say "aye" [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed? The bill passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you committee, thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The chair thanks you for the indulgence, this committee is adjourned.