---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
Corrected (page 11)
June 15, 2010
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-ninth Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Burges called the meeting to order at 2:55 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Campbell CH |
Mr. Gowan |
Mrs. Tovar |
|
Mr. Chabin |
Mr. Nichols |
Mr. Montenegro, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Driggs |
Mr. Quelland |
Mrs. Burges, Chairman |
None
Committee Action
SB1042 – DPA S/E (4-3-0-2) SB1366 – DP (5-3-0-1)
SB1100 – DPA S/E (8-0-0-1) ON REREFERRAL SB1389 – DP (7-0-0-2)
SB1165 – DPA S/E (5-3-0-1) SB1398 – DP (6-3-0-0)
SB1309 – DP (5-4-0-0) SCR1005 – DPA S/E (5-4-0-0)
SB1363 – DPA (5-3-0-1) SCR1007 – DP (7-2-0-0)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
SB1042 – school bonds; technical correction – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: cities; building permit fee
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1042 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the Burges 16-line strike-everything amendment to SB1042 dated 4/1/10 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
Christopher Stapley, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SB1042 (Attachment 1) enacts statutes regarding fees for building permits or plan fees assessed by a city or town (Attachment 2).
Chairman Burgess stated that
testimony will not be heard since the same provisions were contained in HB2285,
city building permit fee, which passed out of the House with a vote of
40 ayes and 18 nays.
Question was called on the motion that that the Burges 16-line strike-everything amendment to SB1042 dated 4/1/10 (Attachment 1) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1042 as amended do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1042 but did not speak:
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Courtney Gilstrap Levinus, Arizona Multihousing Association
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1042 but did not speak:
John Wayne Gonzales, Legislative Liaison, City of Phoenix
Jeffrey Kros, Legislative Director, League of Cities and Towns
Michael Celaya, Intergovernmental Relations Director, City of Surprise
William Emerson, Town of Dewey-Humboldt
David Johnson, Intergovernmental Affairs Analyst, Town of Buckeye
Tobin Rosen, Principal Assistant City Attorney, Town of Oro Valley
Charlie Cassens, ICA Manager, Lake Havasu City
Steve Huffman, Intergovernmental Affairs Administrator, Town of Marana
Brent Stoddard, Legislative Coordinator, City of Glendale
Lisa Estrada, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, City of Peoria
Pat Dennis, Intergovernmental Affairs, City of El Mirage
Scott Butler, City of Mesa
Michael Racy, lobbyist, Town of Marana
Michelle Gramley, Town of Gilbert
Paul Jepson, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Maricopa
Jennifer Pena, Deputy City Clerk, City of Litchfield Park
Question was called on the motion that SB1042 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-3-0-2 (Attachment 3).
SB1100 – county audits; public record exemption – DO PASS AMENDED S/E (ON REREFERRAL)
S/E: counties; audits; merit system; judges
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1100 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the Burges 12-page strike-everything amendment to SB1100 dated 4/1/10 (Attachment 4) be adopted.
Michelle Hindman, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SB1100 (Attachment 4) makes numerous changes to the county statutes and maintains the underlying provisions of SB1100, which passed out of the Committee on March 16, 2010 (Attachment 5).
Lee Miller, Lobbyist, Maricopa County, spoke in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1100. He conveyed that this legislation represents a joint effort on the part of the county and state to complete the details on this year’s budget bill.
Katy Proctor, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Judicial Council, stated that she opposes the strike-everything amendment to SB1100, specifically Section 3 which removes the current practice whereby the Board of Supervisors is required to trigger the process to establish a new judgeship when a county’s population reaches 30,000. She is willing to work with the counties to determine if there is a better process, but it is important to have a standard in place to trigger a new judgeship.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1100 but did not speak:
Jen Sweeney, Government Affairs Director, Arizona Association of Counties
Doug Cole, Lobbyist, Maricopa County
Todd Madeksza, Director of Legislative Affairs, The County Supervisors Association
Michael Racy, lobbyist, Pima County
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1100 but did not speak:
Pete Dunn, Arizona Judges Association
Janna Day, Lobbyist, State Bar of Arizona
Question was called on the motion that the Burges 12-page strike-everything amendment to SB1100 dated 4/1/10 (Attachment 4) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1100 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 6) (ON REREFERRAL).
SB1165 – DUI; license suspension – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: third-party liability; requested proposals; AHCCCS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1165 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the Burges three-page strike-everything amendment to SB1165 dated 3/31/10 (Attachment 7) be adopted.
Christopher Stapley, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SB1165 (Attachment 7) requires the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) administration to propose and issue a public request relating to third-party liability and coordination of benefits (Attachment 8).
Representative Carl Seel, sponsor, stated that he worked extensively on this concept and reviewed a handout explaining the proposal (Attachment 9). The strike-everything amendment states that AHCCCS will open a Request for Proposal (RFP) for front-end cost avoidance, which will make a significant positive impact on the state at little or no cost, except to issue the RFP.
Jennifer Carusetta, Chief Legislative Liaison, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), testified as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to SB1165. She said it is a policy decision whether or not to issue an RFP for cost avoidance, but AHCCCS already has such a system in place. The primary concern is that AHCCCS will be required to open another RFP, which requires administrative resources when the agency is currently operating with about 300 fewer people and facing additional reductions in the future. AHCCCS is currently dedicated to implementing the budget requirements and preparing for the mandates under the federal health care reform legislation. There will be an administrative cost associated with this proposal.
In response to a question, Ms. Carusetta noted that a few years ago AHCCCS requested an appropriation from the Legislature to pay the current vendor up-front, but that was not POSSIBLE with the budget situation, so AHCCCS included language in the contract stating that the vendor will be paid based on recoveries at about 15 percent. The vendor is also held accountable to a number of performance measures.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to SB1165 but did not speak:
Gregory Harris, Lobbyist, Health Management Systems
Jeremy Gorenstein, Program Director, Health Management Systems
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SB1165 but did not speak:
Raymond Kronenbitter, Registered Nurse, Arizona Nurses Association
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SB1165 but did not speak:
Pete Wertheim, Chief Legislative Liaison, Health Choice Arizona
Kathryn Busby, Arizona Association of Health Plans
Helena Whitney, Director, Government Relations & Legislative Affairs, University Physician's HealthPlans
Question was called on the motion that the Burges three-page strike-everything amendment to SB1165 dated 3/31/10 (Attachment 7) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1165 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-3-0-1 (Attachment 10).
SB1363 – eminent domain; governing body; vote(now: eminent domain; requirements; taking property) – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1363 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the Burges 16-line amendment to SB1363 dated 4/5/10 (Attachment 11) be adopted.
Michelle Hindman, Majority Research Analyst, explained that SB1363 prescribes new requirements that must be met before a property is taken by condemnation (Attachment 12). The amendment contains the following provisions (Attachment 11):
· Makes several changes to conform to federal law regarding relocation and reestablishment assistance.
· Removes the provision requiring the Governor’s approval of a condemnation before a property is acquired.
· Requires a reasonable written disclosure versus a full written disclosure.
· Exempts public service corporations and agricultural improvement districts.
Rachel Aja, representing ORANGE Coalition, spoke in support of SB1363. She related that in 2006, Arizonans passed Proposition 207 to remove the threat of government takings of private property for economic development, but eminent domain abuses continue as the result of weak laws. The main concerns are transparency and compensation. Transparency in this bill benefits private property owners and elected officials using the power of eminent domain by providing information in a public manner and allowing time for questions and concerns to be addressed. This bill sets a baseline for all governmental entities to follow in providing relocation costs to property owners and tenants affected by eminent domain takings.
Ken Strobeck, Executive Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns, signed up in opposition to SB1363. He opined that Arizona’s constitutional and statutory protections regarding eminent domain are already very strong, stronger than most other states in fact. The law was strengthened even further when the voters passed Proposition 207. No one doubts that the process of eminent domain is difficult for property owners, which is why it is done very carefully and deliberately, and many safeguards are built into the process. He said he met with the sponsor, and after seeing the amendment, he is now officially neutral on the bill.
Senator Chuck Gray, sponsor, conveyed that the intent of SB1363 is to ensure that property owners, regardless of the particular condemning entity, are treated fairly across the board. The Arizona Department of Transportation’s model for eminent domain, which includes some federal guidelines in Title 49 of the U.S. Code, is used as the baseline in this legislation to ensure that anyone who takes private property for public use follows the same standard so the public has the expectation and reliability of being treated fairly across the board.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of SB1363 but did not speak:
Ray Torres, representing self
Yvonne Hunter, Pinnacle West Capital Corp/Arizona Public Service Company
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
John Wentling, representing self
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to SB1363 but did not speak:
John Moody, Attorney, Maricopa County
Eric Emmert, Arizona Planning Association
Michael Racy, lobbyist, Pima Association of Governments
Paul Jepson, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Maricopa
Todd Madeksza, Director of Legislative Affairs, The County Supervisors Association
Jennifer Pena, Deputy City Clerk, City of Litchfield Park
Michael Preston Green, lobbyist, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroads
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on SB1363 but did not speak:
Nicholas Dranias, Director, Center for Constitutional Government, Goldwater Institute
Ryan Harper, representing City of Sierra Vista
Question was called on the motion that the Burges 16-line amendment to SB1363 dated 4/5/10 (Attachment 11) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1363 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-3-0-1 (Attachment 13).
SB1366 – eminent domain; relocation assistance – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1366 do pass.
Christopher Stapley, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that SB1366 requires acquiring agencies to adopt relocation assistance rules and regulations that provide, at a minimum, the level of relocation assistance provided for in federal law (Attachment 14).
Senator Chuck Gray, sponsor, stated that SB1366 is a companion bill to SB1363 with the same idea that all property owners should be treated equally regardless of whatever entity takes property through eminent domain.
Ray Torres, representing self, spoke in favor of SB1366. He related a personal story about how his uncle who is in his 80s was treated by the City of Phoenix when he was displaced by light rail and ended up taking considerably less than the true market value of his home. He said it is important that transparency and accountability are in place so any individual of any age is not taken advantage of by unscrupulous city planners. Speaking as a businessman, he noted that three distinct costs in relocating a business are moving, business good will and reestablishment compensation.
Mr. Quelland remarked that sometimes property is taken over and then adjacent property value increases. Mr. Torres responded that stores in a shopping area typically count on drawing in each other’s customers, so it is very important to ensure that relocation occurs in an area with companies that are not in competition but augment the business. Surrounding businesses should be taken into consideration because if one is condemned the others could lose value and the customer base.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of SB1366 but did not speak:
Rachel Aja, representing ORANGE Coalition
John Wentling, representing self
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to SB1366 but did not speak:
Catherine Mayorga, Vice President, Public Affairs, Tempe Chamber of Commerce
Eric Emmert, Arizona Planning Association
Michael Preston Green, lobbyist, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroads
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on SB1366 but did not speak:
Todd Madeksza, Director of Legislative Affairs, The County Supervisors Association
Nicholas Dranias, Director, Center for Constitutional Government, Goldwater Institute
Alexandra Seals, representing self, in favor of SB1366, spoke about the relocation of her business in 2007 by the City of Phoenix resulting in the company no longer operating. She spoke of problems experienced by other small businesses, noting that only larger businesses experienced successful relocations. She expressed sadness that people who worked for her lost their homes and she is about to lose her home for which she worked so hard. She submitted that the people who do the facilitating profit from the relocations, not the business owners.
Mr. Nichols asked if business owners have the option to request a jury to step in and look at what is happening when cities take properties, or any other options, under the ballot measure that was passed. Senator Gray responded that is not an option. Proposition 207 specified that if government passes a land use regulation that causes someone’s property value to diminish, that person has to be recompensed for the difference in value prior to the land use regulation and the new value after the land use regulation. The intent was to stop regulatory takings of property value.
Question was called on the motion that SB1366 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-3-0-1 (Attachment 15).
SB1389 – fire districts; city annexation – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1389 do pass.
Paul Benny, Assistant Research Analyst, Ways and Means Committee, explained that SB1389 allows residents of a fire district to elect whether to receive city fire protection services if all or part of the territory of the fire district is annexed by a city, and prescribes a method for the division of a fire district’s assets if only part of the fire district is annexed (Attachment 16).
Senator Ron Gould, sponsor, stated that there is no way to annex a portion of a fire district if the city annexes that portion of the unincorporated area, so the bill provides a method to do that and to divide up the assets of the fire district.
Question was called on the motion that SB1389 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-2 (Attachment 17).
SB1398 – federal regulations; local coordination – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1398 do pass.
Stephanie Johnson, Majority Research Intern, explained that SB1398 requires a city, town, county or special taxing district (local government) to demand that the federal or state government coordinate with the city, town, county or district before implementing, enforcing or extending federal regulations (Attachment 18).
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on SB1398 but did not speak:
Jeffrey Kros, Legislative Director, League of Cities and Towns
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to SB1398 but did not speak:
Michael Fiflis, representing self
Alisa McMahon, representing self
Gini McGirr, Legislative Chair, League of Women Voters of Arizona
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Question was called on the motion that SB1398 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 19).
SCR1005 – Ronald Reagan day – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: exemptions; punitive damages; schools; teachers
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SCR1005 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the Burges 17-line strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 dated 3/31/10 (Attachment 20) be adopted.
Zach Tretton, Majority
Research Analyst, explained that the strike-everything amendment to SCR1005
(Attachment 20) amends the Arizona Constitution, subject to voter approval, to
stipulate that public school teachers and schools are not subject to punitive
damages
(Attachment 21).
John Curtin, Attorney, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, opposed the strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 for the following reasons:
Mr. Curtin added that school districts are relied upon to protect children and need to be held accountable.
Senator Jack Harper, sponsor, stated that an incident occurred a few years ago in the Peoria Unified School District where a young lady was caught cheating on finals, given a zero and failed the course. Her parents contacted a trial lawyer who sent a threatening letter to the school district to make sure she passed the course, and the superintendent allowed the child to pass. The strike-everything amendment seeks to place in the Constitution immunity from liability for teachers from classroom discipline and limit liability for the school district for classroom discipline-related decisions, but not molestation, assault or things like that, which can be prosecuted.
Mr. Quelland asked if there has been a rampant amount of court settlements on this issue. Senator Harper stated that while he cannot relate incidents that violate public trust, he can say that classroom discipline is on the decline in public schools and incidents occur in which parents threaten a lawsuit in order to lessen the term for which their child is suspended for fighting, assaulting teachers and items of that sort.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 but did not speak:
Jon Hinz, Director, Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform
Janice Goldstein, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
Thomas Ryan, Attorney, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
Rebecca Nevedale, representing self
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 but did not speak:
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 but did not speak:
John Wentling, Vice President, representing self
Question was called on the motion that the Burges 17-line strike-everything amendment to SCR1005 dated 3/31/10 (Attachment 20) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SCR1005 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-4-0-0 (Attachment 22).
SCR1007 – legislature; term limits repeal.. – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SCR1007 do pass.
Stephanie Johnson, Majority Research Intern, explained that SCR1007 allows a member of the State Legislature to serve an unlimited number of consecutive terms (Attachment 23).
Deb Gullett, Government for Arizona’s Second Century, spoke in favor of SCR1007. She advised that Senator Carolyn Allen, sponsor, said it is time to get the conversation started about the need to repeal term limits, and she agrees. She requested support for the measure.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of SCR1007 but did not speak:
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League
Jason Bagley, Government Affairs Manager, Intel Corporation
Rob Dalager, Government for Arizona's Second Century
Allison Bell, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Courtney Gilstrap Levinus, Arizona Multihousing Association
Question was called on the motion that SCR1007 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-2-0-0 (Attachment 24).
Senator Carolyn Allen, sponsor, expressed appreciation for the Members’ support.
SB1309 – parents; rights – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that SB1309 do pass.
Zach Tretton, Majority Research Analyst, explained that SB1309 outlines parental rights regarding education, health care, video and voice recordings and the upbringing of a child (Attachment 25).
Senator Chuck Gray, sponsor, stated that over the years parental authority has been attacked by government. The United Nations passed a treaty signed by Madeline Albright in 1995, which the Senate has not yet ratified, but contains certain items that take away parents’ rights. This bill is an effort to put into statute the rights of parents so the courts have to abide by Arizona laws before referring to something outside the state and clearly delineate that parents have the right to upbring, educate and make medical decisions on behalf of their child.
He said the issue was raised that telemedicine does not allow a parent to make a phone call in regard to changing a prescription for a child, but he pointed out that telemedicine as defined in Title 36 includes the transfer of medical data through interactive audit (telephone), video or data communications that occur in the physical presence of the patient. Another issue raised relates to parental consent for treatment of a sexually transmitted disease (STD). If a medical professional is administering medication to his child and he does not know about it, he will not have an opportunity to convey whether the child has any other medical complications, allergies, etc., which could possibly put the child at risk.
Discussion followed about the potential situation in which a child with an STD may not tell the parent for fear of the consequences, and therefore, no medical assistance is sought, which places the child at risk.
Terry Decker, Arizona Fathers Rights, in support of SB1309, noted that a medical professional could kill someone’s child if the parent is not able to provide information about the child’s entire medical history. He indicated that he just noticed language in the bill stating that the parent shall have the right without interference from the state to access and review all medical records of the minor child unless otherwise prohibited by law or the parent is the subject of an investigation of a crime committed against the minor child and a law enforcement official requests that the information not be released. He said he would like to see language consistent with A.R.S. Section 25-403.06 that says all parents are entitled to all records unless otherwise provided by court order or law because there could be a situation where a parent with charges against him/her will use the language in SB1309 to disallow a subpoena to obtain records for the child’s defense.
Dr. Michael McQueen, Neonatologist/Pediatrician, March of Dimes, opposed to SB1309, provided a fact sheet prepared by Dr. Bob England about the unintended consequences of the bill due to removal of a minor’s ability to consent to an STD exam and treatment (Attachment 26). He submitted that the bill will place barriers to access to care by children, increase costs in the health care system significantly, add to government intrusion into health care and hurt patients. In response to questions, he opined that he is not sure how mandating families to talk to each other will work, but families that do talk to each other will not need this protection anyway. He said it is fairly standard technique to ask the parent to leave the room when the child’s medical history is discussed so the child feels free to talk about something they may not want to discuss with the parent present, but he also explains to the child how important it is to let the parent know. The majority of the time he is successful in getting the child to talk to the parent. Discussion followed.
Michael Smith, Associate, Arizona School Administrators, opposed SB1309. He said his specific concern relates to the mandate placed on school districts to provide procedures by which parents may learn about parental rights and responsibilities under the laws of the state, including a summary and a brief description of specific criteria, many of which place school districts at risk of liability. Also, this is a mandate that is not funded and charter schools are not included. Finally, there is an opt-in provision for certain educational programs on page 3, paragraphs 4 and 5, but paragraph 3 contains an opt-out provision, making it untenable for a school district to provide the programs.
Deborah Sheasby, Legal
Counsel, Center for Arizona Policy, spoke against IN FAVOR OF SB1309.
She testified that the basic premise of the bill is that parents have a fundamental
right to direct the upbringing of their children, which has been recognized by
the U.S. Supreme Court and certain areas of law, but unfortunately, those rights
have been eroded by the courts and government officials. There is a movement
in other states and nationwide to reassert recognition of parental rights in
law.
Senator Gray remarked that the bill allows a parent to be fully informed. Regarding mandates on the schools, he stated that the language is current law and school districts are already doing that; the bill just ensures that certain items are included in the plan.
Alana Podwika, Pharmacist, Mountain Park Health Center; Arizona Association of Community Health Centers, opposed SB1309. She expressed concern about the negative impact this legislation will have on electronic prescribing efforts and community health centers. It will also restrict patient access to care. Speaking as a parent, she remarked that if a 17-year-old female, for example, does not receive STD treatment or tell her parents, she could be left infertile for the remainder of her life.
Names of persons who signed up in support of SB1309 but did not speak:
John Wentling, representing self
Robin Quinn, representing self
Andrea Duerkop, representing self
Gayle Brees, representing self
George Sollenberger, representing self
Claudia Blaz, representing self
Lori McBurnett, representing self
Christina Sollenberger, representing self
Christian Dieterle, representing self
Anthony Baillargeon, representing self
Names of persons who signed up in opposition to SB1309 but did not speak:
Bob England, Director, Maricopa County Department of Public Health
Jennifer Bonnett, The Arizona Public Health Association
Jeff Gray, Legislative Liaison, March of Dimes Arizona Chapter; Arizona Pharmacy Alliance Gretchen Jacobs, Attorney, The Arizona School Risk Retention Trust
Betty Garcia-Pendley, President, Arizona Parent Teacher Association
Denise Link, nurse practitioner, representing self
Arturo Gonzalez, Arizona Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics
Gary Auxier, representing self
Rochelle Wells, Governing Board Member TD#3; Arizona Parent Teacher Association
Mindy Rasmussen, Executive Director, Arizona Pharmacy Alliance
Pete Wertheim, Chief Legislative Liaison, Health Choice Arizona
Karen Manza, Executive Director, Arizona Family Planning Council
Emily Jenkins, President/Chief Executive Officer, Arizona Council of Human Service Providers Raymond Kronenbitter, Registered Nurse, Arizona Nurses Association
Maureen Quirk, representing self
Sandra Gerner, representing self
Ken Fletcher, Student Pharmacist, representing self
Emily Herrell, Administrative Assistant, representing self
Amanda Weaver, Executive Director, Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association
Tim Vaske, Director of Government Affairs, American Heart Association
Gabrielle Zartman, representing self
Mark Jones, representing self
Kathleen Thompson, representing self
Heather Bruce, representing self
Kam Majer, representing self
David Grant, representing self
Malinda Briggs, representing self
Bettina Bickel, representing self
Erika Jahneke, representing self
Madeleine Wachter, representing self
Myles Stone, representing self
David Landrith, Vice President of Policy & Political Affairs, Arizona Medical Association Barbara Burkholder, representing self
Pat Vanmaanen, representing self
Nina Dalton, representing self
Joseph Abate, Arizona Osteopathic Medical. Association; Arizona Psychiatric Society
Jennifer Loredo, Arizona Education Association
Laura Hahn, Executive Vice President, Arizona Academy of Family Physicians
Richard Bitner, Legislative Counsel, Arizona College of Emergency Physicians
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Barbara Fanning, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
Jim Dicello, CPA, Paradise Valley Unified School District
Jamie Geng, representing self
Tara Plese, Arizona Association of Community Health Centers
Jim Hughett, representing self
Cecilia Saenz, representing self
Stephanie Rodriguez, representing self
Taryn Jordan, representing self
Sarah Solano, representing self
Charity Olson, Student Pharmacist, Class of 2010, representing self
Pam Logan, representing self
Suzanne McCormick, representing self
Jack Beveridge, Chief Executive Officer, Arizona Public Health Association
Julianne Sutton, representing self
Rebecca Nevedale, representing self
Elise Lawson, representing self
Question was called on the motion that SB1309 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-4-0-0 (Attachment 27).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
April 19, 2010
(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 GOVERNMENT
11
April 6, 2010
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------