ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fiftieth Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 -- 9:00 a.m.
Chairman Farnsworth called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Ash |
Mr. Hale |
Mr. Vogt |
|
Mr. Chabin |
Mr. Harper |
Mr. Smith D, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mrs. Goodale |
Mrs. Tovar |
Mr. Farnsworth, Chairman |
|
None |
|
|
|
HB2377 - DPA S/E (7-0-0-2) |
HB2547 - HELD |
|
HB2382 - DPA (9-0-0-0) |
HB2556 - DP (8-0-0-1) |
|
HB2385 - DPA (8-0-0-1) |
HB2560 - DPA (6-3-0-0) |
|
HB2461 - DP (6-3-0-0) |
HB2569 - DP (7-1-0-1) |
|
HB2511 - |
HB2676 - DP (7-1-0-1) |
|
HB2545 - HELD |
HB2721 - DP (8-0-0-1) |
|
HB2546 - HELD |
HCR2005 - DP (6-3-0-0) |
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS:
HB2545 - civil actions; comparative negligence - HELD
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2545 will be held.
HB2546 - medical expenses; recovery; paid only - HELD
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2546 will be held
HB2547 - collateral source evidence; admissibility. - HELD
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2547 will be held
HB2385 - campaigns; independent expenditures; corporations - DO PASS AMENDED
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, noted that HB2385 clarifies that any entity that makes an independent expenditure, whose primary purpose is influencing an election, must file as a political committee (Attachment 1). The bill establishes the factors used to determine an entity’s primary purpose. The Farnsworth 11-page amendment dated 2/7/12 makes the following changes to the bill (Attachment 2).
· Expands the definition of independent expenditures to include expenditures that are made in the same election that the person making the expenditure is or has been authorized to raise monies on behalf of the candidate or candidate’s committees or the candidate’s authorized committee.
· Removes the requirement that subjects an entity to the same reporting requirements as a political committee if that entity receives contributions.
· Broadens the information contained in sworn statements filed by entities to the Secretary of State (SOS) in anticipation of making independent expenditures.
· Requires the SOS to conduct training for local jurisdiction filing officers regarding enforcement of the provisions.
· Clarifies that any entity that is a corporation, LLC or labor organization or any combination thereof must file as a political committee, if their primary purpose is influencing elections.
· Modifies the first test in which an entity’s action creates a rebuttable presumption that its primary purpose is to influence elections by decreasing the number of days in which an entity is formed before makings its first independent expenditure to 120 days.
· Clarifies that the ability for the Attorney General or county attorney to investigate a complaint in the manner in which open meeting laws are conducted does not apply to private businesses.
Chairman Farnsworth advised that this is a disclosure bill. It goes after those who do not want to file as political committees in light of the recent Supreme Court holding that corporations and associations can spend money in campaigns without disclosing who is giving the money. This will have no impact on existing corporations or associations, but will have an impact on corporations formed for the sole purpose of spending money to influence a campaign.
Jim Drake, Assistant Secretary of State, Secretary of State's Office, in support of HB2385, stated that this proposal is an attempt to provide greater exposure without chilling free speech; the amendment is a step in the right direction. He answered questions about the enactment date, raising the threshold on reporting from $25 to $50, restrictions on reporting and contributions from a corporation owned by a candidate’s family. He said this bill addresses those corporations that are formed for the purpose of influencing an election. He maintained that they should be registered.
Spencer Kamps, Deputy Director, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, neutral on HB2385, advised that there has been much discussion and many meetings held on this proposal. He believes the Farnsworth amendment makes good changes to the bill. He noted that there are still a few issues that, when resolved, will put the Association in a support position: investigative authority triggered when papers are filed and conflict of interest when a complaint is filed. The goal of this legislation is to regulate the “convenience corporation” formed solely to engage in a political election. In response to Mr. Harper’s question about conflict of interest, he said he hopes to have further discussions on this issue.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2385 but did not speak:
Amy Chan, State Election Director, Arizona Secretary of State’s Office
Seth Apfel, representing self
Art Harding, Legislative Affairs Director, Office of the Attorney General
Jen Sweeney, Government Affairs Director, Arizona Association of Counties
Lee Miller, Lobbyist, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2385 but did not speak:
Kory Langhofer, representing self
Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, Arizona Multihousing Association
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2385 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 11-page amendment dated 2/7/12 be adopted (Attachment 2). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2385 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 3).
HB2556 - criminal restitution order - DO PASS
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, related that HB2556 expands a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction relating to criminal restitution orders to include orders and enforcement (Attachment 4).
Art Harding, Legislative Affairs Director, Office of the Attorney General, in favor of HB2556, introduced Roland Steinle, Superior Court Judge.
Roland Steinle, Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, testified in support of HB2556. He explained that currently, a judge signs the order for unpaid fees and creates a civil judgment, which is never dischargeable. This legislation allows judges to sign the order when they make a determination of restitution in order for the victim to have an enforceable civil judgment within days of the time the defendant is sentenced. It allows a judge to sign the order at the front end of the process instead of waiting until the end of the case.
In response to Mr. Ash’s question about appeal, Judge Steinle said there may be cases of successful appeal. He believes the number of cases that are overturned is minute. Mr. Ash said he sees value in seeing the signed restitution order; however, he is concerned about appeals. Judge Steinle pointed out that the language is permissible. He said the person can ask the judge to wait before signing the order pending appeal.
Mr. Vogt, sponsor, stated that the goal is not to overburden the courts, but to protect victims and get them the restitution they deserve.
Mr. Harper brought up due process. Mr. Vogt said he does not see that as an issue. He said there are avenues to address that issue.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2556 but did not speak:
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Dan Levey, Director of Victim Services, Attorney General's Office, representing self
Lindsay Simmons, Systems Advocacy Coordinator, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Kimberly Knox, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2556 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2556 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 5).
HB2721 - office; child welfare investigations; DES - DO PASS
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2721 requires the Department of Economic Security (DES) to establish the Office of Child Welfare Investigations in coordination with the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) (Attachment 6).
Chairman Farnsworth advised that this legislation is a continuation of what was started by the Child Protective Services (CPS) Task Force in 2003 to reform the system which required the counties to create investigative protocols. He stated that the Maricopa County Attorney has been very vocal in advocating for this kind of investigation; the bill also has the support of the Governor and the Director of CPS.
Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, representing self, testified that this is a cornerstone recommendation from the Governor’s Task Force on Child Safety. This bill does not create new duties for law enforcement agencies, it does not create a CPS police force, and it does not create a presumption of removal of a child from the home. This creates an office, staffed by specifically-trained investigators, to address allegations of criminal abuse and neglect; it separates the responsibility for investigating allegations of criminal abuse and neglect from the responsibility of providing services where warranted. He answered questions on where the office will be housed, removal of a child from an abusive situation and the lack of an emergency provision.
Clarence H. Carter, Director, Department of Economic Security (DES), expressed support of HB2721, a vital enhancement to the Child Protective Services system. The system has two very different but complementary pieces: the social worker segment that understands the issues of child protection, child safety and family preservation, and the law enforcement segment that understands the issue of criminal conduct and holding the perpetrator accountable. He stressed that this is an important piece of legislation that needs to be codified in statute, not left to the vagaries of a particular administration. He answered questions about the number of cases that would involve this unit, removals from the home, staffing requirements, duties, investigative force for rural Arizona, cost, how complaints are handled, and chain of command.
Mrs. Tovar raised the following issues: broad language relating to parental consent, guidelines and the submittal of written reports. Mr. Carter advised that the language on parental consent and the guidelines is existing language. Submittal of written reports is being looked at.
In response to Vice-Chairman Smith’s questions, Mr. Carter said he envisions a unit of about 50 to 60 investigators who will have a presence in all of the counties. He explained the process set up by CPS to handle complaints.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2721 but did not speak:
Kimberly MacEachern, Staff Attorney, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Deb Gullett, Childhelp
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2721 but did not speak:
Erin Raden, Legislative Liaison, Department of Economic Security
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2721 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 7).
HB2382 - criminal offenses; sentencing - DO PASS AMENDED
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant
Research Analyst, advised that HB2382 raises the monetary threshold in
which the superior court has original jurisdiction and amends the mitigated
sentencing ranges for category one repetitive offenders for Class 3 and 4
felonies
(Attachment 8). The Farnsworth 21-line amendment dated 2/3/12 adds a section
to the bill relating to second-degree murder sentencing (Attachment 9).
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in favor of HB2382, related that this is a criminal court clean-up bill.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2382 but did not speak:
Kimberly MacEachern, Staff Attorney, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2382 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2382 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 21-line amendment dated 2/3/12 be adopted (Attachment 9). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2382 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 10).
HB2461 - historical prior felony conviction; definition - DO PASS
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that HB2461 amends the definition of historical prior felony conviction by excluding any pretrial or presentence incarceration for any reason when calculating if the offense was committed within the following (Attachment 11):
- Certain Class 2 or 3 prior felony offenses committed within 10 years.
- Certain Class 4, 5 or 6 prior felony offenses committed within 5 years.
Kimberly MacEachern, Staff Attorney, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, stated support of HB2461. The bill clarifies the existing definition of historical prior felony conviction to cover pre-conviction incarceration. This bill affects the number of years prosecutors can look at to determine prior offenses.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2461 but did not speak:
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Trey Williams, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Counties
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2461 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2461 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 12).
HB2511 - forcible entry and detainer; service - DO
PASS FAILED
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, advised that HB2511 establishes that a tenant is deemed to have received the summons in a forcible entry or detainer complaint if the summons is posted on their door and sent by certified mail (Attachment 13).
Representative Steve Urie, sponsor, related that this legislation was brought to him by attorneys who represent tenant landlords. He read a statement from the Landlord Tenant Association on gaps in the law relating to service in eviction actions. This legislation puts conforming language in Title 12 that already exists in Title 33.
Ellen Katz, Litigation Director, William E. Morris Institute for Justice, spoke in opposition to HB2511. She said the problem is that by posting the summons on the premises and then mailing the summons by certified mail, someone may not get the notice before the court date. In addition, there is concern about delivery in rural areas where people do not go to the post office every day. She said she does not believe this is the type of service that needs to be expanded. She said she also opposes the new provision in the bill that allows these cases to be filed in justice court and maintained that they should be heard in superior court.
Vice-Chairman Smith commented that the three-day service is very short and the court does not have to be presented with evidence that the person was served or that certified mail was accepted. Ms. Katz noted that Vice-Chairman Smith has identified the problem.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked whether this allows for the property to go back to the landlord or whether a judgment needs to be entered against the tenant. Ms. Katz replied that the court can decide to give possession to the plaintiff.
Chairman Farnsworth pointed out that this legislation has nothing to do with the judgment; it has to do with the notice. He stated that the provision that allows for filing in justice court is an option.
In reply to Mr. Hale, Ms. Katz explained that under current statute, superior court service requires personal service. If the person cannot be served personally, the court can be asked for some alternative service.
Darrell Blomberg, Foreclosure Strategists, testified in opposition to HB2511. He cited Arizona Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Edward Schrader in which the Arizona Appellate Court said that personal service was absolutely necessary; the decision relating to waiver of personal service was based on impracticability of serving the former homeowner. He maintained that this legislation attempts to take away the measure of impracticability; it takes away the court’s ability to decide whether the person has been served. Additionally, the provision allowing filing in the justice court leaves decisions up to an elected official with limited training. He said he believes this bill will be harmful.
Kevin Holliday, representing the Arizona Landlord Tenant Association, expressed support of HB2511. He said this bill conforms Title 12 to other eviction procedures. He made the following points:
- These proceedings are allowed in the justice court system now; the statute does not prohibit them from being held in justice court.
- The postal mail service provision is appropriate. Personal service is still required; however, if it is not practical, then service can be done by postal mail.
In reply to Mr. Chabin, Mr. Holliday said that the statute does not set out the process of service. Under the rules of civil procedure, alternative service can be made. He explained that alternative service is when the court makes the determination that reasonable efforts have been made to serve the person but have failed.
Anita Leafty, representing self, spoke against HB2511. She said there are two separate statutes that handle evictions: special forcible detainer applies to landlord tenant issues, and forcible entry and detainer applies to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. It makes a big difference whether the case is adjudicated in superior court or in justice court. Judges in superior court know the statutes and a special set of rules apply to evictions. Judges in municipal courts have only ruled on landlord-tenant disputes. She said this bill removes the last chance a homeowner has to have his case heard in court because the homeowner may not have been served.
Mark Zinman, representing self, in favor of HB2511, said his law firm represents landlords throughout the state as well as investors who buy property. This bill attempts to ensure that the statutes are applied evenly across the board. He maintained that postal mail service continues to be good service in special detainers, whether it is in justice court or superior court. In an eviction action, he said it is irrelevant whether the case is filed in justice court or superior court because judges are bound by the same rules.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2511 but did not speak:
Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, Arizona Multihousing Association
Don Isaacson, LeadingAge Arizona
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2511 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2511 do pass. The motion failed by a roll call vote of 4-5-0-0 (Attachment 14).
HCR2005 - initiatives; referendum measures; periodic reauthorization - DO PASS
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, said that HCR2005 proposes to add a section to the Arizona Constitution that would require the voters to reauthorize after six years any initiative or referendum measure that creates a fund for public monies (Attachment 15). The bill applies retroactively to all ballot measures approved on or after November 3, 1998 that create funds for public monies, dedicate public monies to a specific purpose or otherwise affect state general fund revenues or expenditures.
Representative Chester Crandell, sponsor, stated that the Legislature has the responsibility to do a budget every year. The initiative and referendum process takes money out of the General Fund and out of taxes that are collected. This bill allows an independent audit to ensure that things are being done as they should be done. In reply to Mr. Chabin, Representative Crandell answered that this proposes an automatic actual audit.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HCR2005 but did not speak:
Dave Kopp, representing self
Eric Emmert, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HCR2005 but did not speak:
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Melissa Ramsey, representing self
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
Seth Apfel, representing self
Dr. Bonnie Saunders, President, League of Women Voters of Arizona
Karen Michael, Animal Defense League of Arizona
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HCR2005 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 16).
HB2377 - garnishment; failure to comply - DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: incapacitated persons; definition; voting
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the proposed Farnsworth two-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/7/12 (Attachment 17) to HB2377 amends the definition of incapacitated person to provide a mechanism whereby a person with limited guardianship may retain the right to vote under the following conditions: the person files a petition, has a hearing and the judge determines by clear and convincing evidence that the person retains sufficient understanding of the right to vote (Attachment 18).
In response to Mr. Vogt, Ms. Jorquez advised that currently one has to meet statutory qualifications to vote; one disqualification is if a person has been adjudicated as an incapacitated person. Chairman Farnsworth stated that this legislation recognizes that those who have the mental capacity to understand, but may be otherwise incapacitated, can vote. Ms. Jorquez pointed out that this will only apply to those with limited capacity.
Peri Jude Radecic, Director of Public Advocacy, Arizona Center for Disability Law, testified in favor of HB2377. This legislation permits the court to look at an individual and determine by clear and convincing evidence whether that person, under a limited guardianship, retains the capacity to vote. She explained that in a limited guardianship, the person may need help, for a limited time or limited purpose.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2377 but did not speak:
Edward Myers, representing self
Timothy Schmaltz, representing self
Amina Donna Kruck, Vic President/Director of Advocacy, Arizona Bridge to Independent Living
David Carey, Arizona Bridge to Independent Living
Mark Jacoby, representing self
Susan Cannata, Attorney, The Arc of Arizona
Amy Chan, State Election Director, Secretary of State’s Office
Jim Drake, Assistant Secretary of State, Secretary of State's Office
Ellen Katz, Litigation Director, William E. Morris Institute for Justice
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2377 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2377 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth two-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/7/12 to HB2377 be adopted (Attachment 17). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2377 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-2 (Attachment 19).
HB2569 - cities and towns; approval voting - DO PASS
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, stated that HB2569 allows a city or town to establish and use a system of approval voting in that city or town’s primary or first election that provide for the following (Attachment 20):
- The voter is permitted to vote for as many candidates for a single office as the voter chooses.
- The two candidates who receive the highest and second highest number of votes shall advance to the general or runoff election, regardless of whether any one candidate has received a majority of the votes cast for that office.
- The ballot and all other voting materials shall clearly indicate that the voter may vote for as many candidates in that election as the voter chooses, and that the candidates who receive the two highest numbers of votes shall advance to the general or runoff election.
Representative Justin Olson, sponsor, explained that this legislation attempts to eliminate the “spoiler effect” by allowing a person to vote for more than one candidate to advance into the final run-off. He pointed out that the bill is permissive.
Andrew Jennings, representing self, expressed support of HB2569. He related that approval voting has been in existence since the 1970s. It allows voters to vote for as many candidates as they approve, with the idea of eliminating some of the current electoral problems. He said that Arizona cities want the freedom to participate in discussion of this issue and have the option to try approval voting, currently prevented by state statute. In answer to questions, he advised that under the system of approval voting, more than one candidate can be voted for and each vote will be given equal weight, it is compatible with existing software and equipment, and write-in candidates will be considered and will also be given equal weight.
Kory Langhofer, representing self, in favor of HB2569, agreed with Mr. Jennings’ testimony. He stated that if this legislation is adopted, it will give cities and towns the option of exploring this system to see if it works. He said he hopes that if a jurisdiction adopts approval voting, it might help change the tone of campaigns by shifting debate to more positive policy positions.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2569 but did not speak:
Drexden Davis, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2569 but did not speak:
Rene Guillen, Legislative Associate, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2569 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-1-1 (Attachment 21).
HB2676 - government entities; attorney fees - DO PASS
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, stated that HB2676 requires the court to award reasonable attorney fees to the successful party in any action filed against the state by a governmental entity, agency, or political subdivision (Attachment 22).
Representative John Kavanagh, sponsor, explained that this bill extends the “loser pay” principle to lawsuits where the state is being sued by another government entity or association primarily made up of government entities. He opined that this legislation will reduce frivolous lawsuits and might deter potentially actionable actions on the part of government agencies. He said he believes this is good policy. In answer to questions, he said this will not apply to an individual citizen who files an action against a government entity. He said he does not have data on litigation costs to the state for the last few years.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2676 but did not speak:
Shirley Gunther, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager, City of Avondale, Arizona
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2676 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-1-0-1 (Attachment 23).
HB2560 - adult protective services; attorney fees - DO PASS AMENDED
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2560 removes the ability for the court to order the payment of attorney fees that do not exceed the total amount of compensatory damages and any additional attorney fees in connection with the vulnerable abuse claims of action (Attachment 24).
Mr. Vogt, sponsor, advised that the bill removes the attorney fees provision from lawsuits dealing with nursing homes, and related that the bill needs to be amended to strike “and reasonable attorney fees,” on page 2, line 27. Of the 217 insurers allowed to underwrite in the State of Arizona, only two insurers will write insurance policies for nursing homes, so attorney fees are not necessarily needed to attract appropriate representation.
David Cohen, Arizona Health Care Association, testified in support of HB2560. He said that current statute is making lawyers rich at the expense of vulnerable and incapacitated adults. This bill will help many people, the vulnerable and incapacitated adults in Arizona as well as their caregivers because money now being spent to defend frivolous litigation can be used for patient care, resulting in better patient care throughout the state.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2560 but did not speak:
Genny Rose, Executive Director, LeadingAge Arizona
Kathleen Pagels, Executive Director, Arizona Health Care Association
Melanie Seamans, representing self
Matthew Luger, representing self
Jon Williams, Chair, LeadingAge Arizona
Cheryl Knupp, Aging Services of Arizona
Allan Tramel, Administrator, Good Samaritan Society
Linda Doescher, Office Manager, Arizona Health Care Association
George Jacobson, Executive Director, Apache Junction Health Center
Kari Curry, representing self
Richard Anderson, Health Facility Administrator, Ponderosa Pines Care and Rehabilitation
Cornell Morgan, Assisted Living Manager, Christian Care
Vanessa Torres, Medical Records Coordinator, LeadingAge Arizona
Linda Daquilante, Executive Assistant, LeadingAge Arizona
Blake Gillman, Springdale West
Stephanie Everson, Executive Director. Human Resources, LeadingAge Arizona
John Spellman, Facilities Director, LeadingAge Arizona
Michelle Just, Senior Vice President of Health Services, LeadingAge Arizona
Dennis Grindel, Executive Director of Residential Services, LeadingAge Arizona
Sylva Leduc, Executive Coach, LeadingAge Arizona
Karen Barno, President, Arizona Assisted Living Federation of America
Sean Mockbee, representing self
Terry Granger, Administrator, Choice Rehab Care
Susan Hornbostel, Senior Vice President & CFO, Glencroft
Heather Krzmarzick, Administrator, Good Samaritan Society Prescott Village
Cindy Leach, Vice President Operations, Catalina Village Assisted Living
Richard Park, La Rosa Health Care Center at Santa Catalina Villa
Paula Mitchell, Copper Mountain Inn
Larry Litman, representing self
Kathleen Langford, representing self
Catherine Oliver, Administrator, Sunset Hills Care and Rehabilitation Care Center
Karen Oliver, representing self
Heather Friebus, Administrator, Devon Gables Health Care Center
Sylvia Balistreri, representing self
Nigel Santiago, Highland Manor Health and Rehabilitation
Tara Plese, Arizona Association of Community Health Centers
Tom Ballard, Business Development Manager, Choice Rehabilitation Care
Norman Moore, Attorney, LeadingAge Arizona
Michael Dalton, President, Bandera Healthcare
Brian Newberry, Executive Director, Desert Terrace Healthcare Center
Patrick Hobbs, Healthcare Administrator, Desert Terrace Healthcare Center
Doug Haney, Administrator, Bella Vita Health and Rehab Center
Michael Haener, Arizona Health Care Association
Jim Guschl, representing self
Jeff Barrett, Administrator, Maravilla Care Center
Frank Langford, representing self
Eric Faas, Executive Director, Desert Terrace Healthcare, Bandera Healthcare
Richard Aznar-Beane, Administrator, North Mountain Medical & Rehabilitation Center
Elias Robbins, Administrator, North Mountain Medical & Rehabilitation Center
Michael Thomas, representing self
Matt Ham, Regional Vice President, Life Care Centers of America
Michael Johnson, representing self
Noelle Long, Director of Nursing Services, Catalina Care Center
Jeron Walker, representing self
Tim Claybaugh, representing self
Sara Vetch, representing self
Sheila Summey, RN, DNS, Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation
Kathleen Connolly, Executive Director, Life Care Centers of America
J. Michael Low, Attorney, Allstate and American Family Insurance
Daniel Waddell, Bandera Healthcare
Milissa Watkins, Executive Director, Life Care Centers of America
Tony Alzamora, Bandera Healthcare
Mark Muir, Executive Director, East Mesa Healthcare
Damien Hill, Plant Resource, Bandera Healthcare
John Checkett, representing self
Ron Preston, representing self
Tom Mann, Arizona Health Care Association
Paul Loomans, representing self
Deedee Ramon, representing self
Dean Kidder, representing self
Janna Day, Lobbyist, Arizona Assisted Living Federation of America
Sarah Cohen, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2560 but did not speak:
Janice Goldstein, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2560 do pass.
Mr. Vogt moved that HB2560 be amended as follows:
Page 2, line 27, strike “and reasonable attorney fees,”
The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2560 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 25).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
______________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
February 22, 2012
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
10
February 9, 2012
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------