Keeping a statewide count
Issue: There is a growing sense that the number of crimes committed in schools is on the rise, but the state lacks a tracking mechanism. HB204, sponsored by Rep. Paul H. Shepherd, D-West Jordan, would require the State Office of Education to compile statistics regarding delinquent activity in schools, including alcohol and drug abuse, weapons possession and assaults. The state superintendent of education would be required to include such data in annual reports.
Pros and cons: Some committee members said the bill was unnecessary since the state office already has the ability to accumulate such statistics. However, supporters, including teacher groups, said the office needs encouragement to maintain records. School districts have no protocols for handling complaints, they said.
Action: The House Judiciary Committee reported the bill out favorably for additional discussion on the House floor.
Home-alone ban
Senate kills negligence bill
Issue: SB63 would have made a parent or guardian guilty of child neglect if they left children under age 8 home or in a vehicle without supervision long enough to endanger the child's health or welfare.
History: Sen. Delpha Baird, R-Salt Lake, said child-protection workers investigate reports of child neglect but without adequate statutory authority.
Action: The Senate killed the bill by a 18-11 vote Tuesday.
Pros and cons: Baird said the bill did not include a penalty but would have sent a signal to parents that they needed to be responsible for their children. Opponents said variations in the age at which children are able to care for themselves, and for what amount of time, or to tend other children made the bill troublesome to them. Senators were also stalled by projected implementation costs of $476,000.
No running away
Escape to be a crime
Issue: Criminals who escape from prison and jails or walk away from halfway houses now are caught and returned, but there is no specific crime of escape. Some lawmakers want that changed.
History: Currently, 190 criminals have escaped from prisons, jails or halfway houses and are still on the loose. In the past, such escapees, if caught, were sent back to prison and the Board of Pardons took into account their escape when setting parole dates. More likely than not, an escapee served more of his original sentence than those who didn't cause such trouble.
Action: The House Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday in favor of a bill that would make it a felony to escape from a prison or halfway house and a misdemeanor to violate parole or probation.
Pros and Cons: If all escapees were caught, returned to prison and served their time for the new crime of escape, it would cost the state up to $400,000 more - the added prison time the escapee serves. While that expense is a concern, several panel members said criminals must understand that they can't escape without consequences. John Hill, head of Salt Lake Legal Defenders, said the escape bill is misguided. In theory a person could be in prison for a Class A misdemeanor, escape and be sentenced to a felony for the escape, he said. "You could serve more time for the escape than for your original offense - does that make sense?" he asked. "We have to close this loophole - no real penalty for escaping," said sponsor Rep. Lee Ellertson, R-Orem.
Search and seizure
Helping cops, hurting crooks
Issue: Utah's Constitution has a separate search and seizure section, which many believe has been interpreted by the Utah Supreme Court differently than federal courts interpret the U.S. Constitution's search and seizure clause. Such a two-prong approach makes it difficult - some law enforcement officials say impossible - for police officers to know when it is proper to search people, cars and residences for criminal evidence.
History: Several years ago the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling that some legal scholars and prosecutors believe differs from the standard on search and seizure set by federal appeal courts. The difference means convicted criminals can appeal in two venues, the state and federal courts, and could mean that criminals may get a better break via the Utah Constitution.
Not so, says Kathryn Kendell, attorney for the Utah Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, who objects to an amendment that would change the Utah Constitution to reflect U.S. court law.
Action: Over the emotional objection of several members, the House Judiciary Committee approved the constitutional change on Tuesday. The bill must still pass the House by a two-thirds majority. If it does, voters will get a shot at approving the change in November's general election.
Pros and cons: Utah police officers are caught in a bind. Which rules do they follow on search and seizure, asks Attorney General Jan Graham, who supports changing the Utah Constitution to reflect U.S. court law on search and seizure. "This is important for criminal justice," she said. When a police officer makes a mistake in search and seizure, the whole criminal case shouldn't be thrown out, Graham says. Instead, the offending police officer should be punished and the case continue.
Don't mess with citizens' constitutionally protected rights, Kendell said. Utah's Constitutional Revision Commission should study this matter, she added. But, said sponsor Sen. Winn Richards, D-Ogden, the commission has had three years to discuss the change but has continually declined to do so. "We need this change to help law enforcement; we can't wait three years (until the amendment goes before voters if it isn't passed this session)," Richards said.
Sick can go home
Sales tax break will help
Issue: Should sick people have to pay state and local sales tax on medical equipment used in their homes.
History: Many Utahns choose to go home, rather than stay in a hospital or nursing home, but have to pay sales tax on various equipment from oxygen to special beds and wheelchairs. If the person stays in the hospital or nursing home, that institution doesn't pay such sales tax.
Action: The House passed a bill Tuesday that would exempt such home medical equipment from sales tax. Next year, said sponsor Gerry Adair, R-Roy, the break would cost the state $92,000 a year. However, House Budget Chairman John Valentine, R-Orem, said over time the exemption could cost as much as $800,000. Ironically, legislators are being asked by Gov. Mike Leavitt to cut more than $5 million in existing sales-tax exemptions this year to pay for new school buildings.
Pros and cons: A number of House members rose to declare conflicts of interest - they are taking care of or helping pay for home medical equipment for their parents or other loved ones. Adair said his father lived 11 years at home on oxygen. "For every dollar (spent on the exemption) we'll save more than $5 in Medicare if people go home from the hospital," said Adair. In one year, as much as $1 million can be saved in Medicare costs, he added.
Lunch and breaks
A decent time for workers
Issue: Should full-time workers get two paid breaks in an eight-hour shift and one, unpaid, 30-minute lunch break.
History: Rep. Shirley Jensen, R-Sandy, thinks full-time workers should get those paid breaks and unpaid lunch. But, says Jensen, she's being opposed by big business who want nothing in law requiring how they operate their businesses.
Action: The bill requiring the breaks and lunch has been heard, but not passed, in a House committee. More debate is expected.
Pros and Cons: Jensen says she is not against business, as her opponents say. "I had a woman come to me, she worked in a convenience store, who was four months pregnant and on a 10-hour shift. She only wanted to sit down two times. She was told she had to give up her job - she couldn't sit down. She lost that baby, and this is wrong." By putting such requirements in law, say business lobbyists, there could be real problems with shift workers or others who, as part of the nature of their work, may work longer than eight hours and not get a break or lunch period.
Take your time
All bills get public hearing
Issue: During every Legislature, dozens of bills become law without ever having a public hearing - they're introduced late in the session, heard by the secret Rules Committees in the House and Senate and are voted on on the floor of each chamber. The final floor vote takes place in public, but the public can't speak on the bill. Now some lawmakers want that stopped. They say each bill must have at least one public hearing or it can't become law.
History: In 1991, of 343 bills that became law, 140 passed the final three days of the session. Of those passed in the final rush to finish the session, 48 never had a public hearing in either the House or Senate. Much the same happened in 1992 and 1993.
Action: On Tuesday the House passed HB43, which would require that all bills have at least one public hearing. The hearing could be in the House or Senate standing committee or a budget committee. It could even have a hearing in the Executive Appropriations Committee - where the big budget bills are put together in the final days of each session. But somewhere at some time there must be one hearing. The mandatory-hearing bill passed the House 66-4.
Pros and cons: "Many of us share the frustration" of seeing bills fly through the House the final hours of each session, said sponsor Rep. Kim Burningham, R-Bountiful. Burningham, who has been in the House more than a decade, said the problem is getting worse, not better. Each year more bills are introduced and more work crowded into the final days of action. For example, a year ago a bill to extend a sales-tax break for Geneva Steel never had a public hearing but still passed. That brought a number of complaints by some lawmakers, who thought major tax policy should have a more open process.