Source: http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bulletin_Board/2005/4X/h_journal/hdj2005-09-11-05.htm
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 17:01:44
Document Index: 579343456

Matched Legal Cases: ['§12', '§18', '§18', '§19', '§19', '§19', '§29']

The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of Saturday, September 10, 2005, being the first order of business, when the further reading thereof was dispensed with and the same approved.
The following dialog relative to legislative and constitutional prerogatives of the House transpired, which was ordered printed in the Journal:
Speaker Kiss. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to touch on several subjects that obviously deal with the processing of House Bill 401. Obviously, I think each of us values our credibility every time we take the floor, so I want to begin by at least making clear a couple of points.
As to how we intend to proceed in its entirety, I do not know. I am going to give you a lot more information here so it is just not that, but I do not know. Because I don't know what the Court is going to do, I don't know what the Senate's desires are yet, I hope to know that by the end of tonight, I don't know what the Governor's desires are yet, I hope to know that by the end of the night. The Majority Party is going to caucus as soon as this session is over this evening, we may be in caucus for an extended period of time. But, in a broader sense as to where we are going, I don't know.
When I was made aware late Friday about the filing of the pleadings, I had an opportunity to review them and then spent a decent amount of time here Saturday reviewing the pleadings and looking at the law. I decided at that time that I thought that, at least for the time being, the best course of action for the House was to avoid losing days, thereby my main consideration was to keep from spending additional taxpayer money. Also, I decided that right now, while I have an opinion and I talked to other lawyers who have opinions, rather than try to determine ultimately what the Court might do or determine what this Legislature may or may not be able to do now or later, the best thing to do procedurally with the bill for as long as we could is nothing. That is the reason we read it a first time and recommitted it to the Finance Committee, and now reported it out a second time and recommitted it. Obviously, we are running out of time and need to make a decision. The decision initially was to step through those processes and move the bill along, but not do anything to the bill that might later exacerbate or provide additional legal arguments or fodder depending upon what the Court may or may not do, which obviously all of us at this point are speculating on.
Having said that, probably two or three weeks ago, as many of you, I saw where this might be going and the only advantage of having an old Speaker is the institutional knowledge that you develop and maybe the advantage of having an even older Parliamentarian is the institutional knowledge that he has. So I decided at that time to avail ourselves of that knowledge and asked him to begin some research, not necessarily with marching orders to come to certain conclusions, but to begin research to see what this entity, this House that we are all so proud to be part of, what its institutional history tells us. The reason that I did that, and at that time I didn't think about or anticipate a lawsuit, but what I thought was important, as I do on most of these questions, what we should do is honor the institution, the House of Delegates, the Legislature, and look to its precedents to guide us as to how we handle these things in the future. As I stand up there in the Chair I might be called on from time to time to make rulings, but just as in Court if I am doing my job I think I have some obligation as to how we do that. We do that by looking at our rules, if they are silent or ambiguous we look at Jefferson's Manual, we look at our prior practice and procedure. That is how we look at this for guidance and believe it or not, as with most things, very few things are new under the sun. The documentation which reflects this pattern and practice is there for all of us to look at and review. Anyone else could have been doing this same research or review for the last several weeks, and I don't mean to take a shot at the Press. I love you all dearly, but the Press could have, it's there. I mean it is there, the practice and procedure as to how we have handled this issue in the past is there. That goes again for every member. Every member, any citizen could have reviewed that. Where is it? It is in our Journal. Why do you think we keep the Journal for every day? Why do you think it reflects prior decisions and rulings of the Chair?
When we did that what we found was that these prior practices are a part of the pleadings and answer that the Legislature filed with the Supreme Court yesterday, they are there and they are available to each and everyone of you. If you don't want to get them that way, I can get copies for you here. The reason I didn't do it sooner was I was hoping to use every minute to do as full a review as the Clerk could do, so we wouldn't miss anything. We are talking about our Journals for how many years going back?
What we found was a number of instances where I believe this House was faced with a question. The question being what does this House do, and I am talking now about this House's precedents. We did not research the Senate's precedent or precedents from other states, what does this House do when faced with the question, is the Governor's Call structured in a formal manner which, the argument can be developed, limits us or prohibits us from taking up bills or amendments or resolutions. Now, I want to say this: The Clerk, as usual, did an outstanding job in my opinion. He found what was there and I believe he found everything that was there, but nobody's perfect, but what I am saying is that I am not hiding anything. The Clerk gave me what he found and now I am giving you what we found and I have given the Supreme Court what we found in our pleadings and response. Now that I am making my point, because you have a right to know, again these are the kind of procedural things that chief officers of the House, and I am not complaining, it is just part of our job, but we had to make some decisions about what kind of pleadings we were going to file with the Court. We have done that, basically in lay terms what our pleadings with the Courts say to the Court, respectfully, you can't bring us, the Legislature, in front of you because we are in session and perhaps other arguments at some point, but our main argument right now is that we are in session and cannot be brought before the Court for adjudication of these issues. Perhaps at a later date. Now there is a bunch of other legal constitutional issues that, as I understand it, are being raised in the Executive Branch's pleadings, but at this point all the Legislature is saying is that you can't make us do this. We are immune. Literally, if you follow the argument through, theoretically we could be in front of the Court all the time and how would we do our business? How are we going to know how to deal with a particular item? I don't want to and I am not going to debate the constitutional issues which will probably be debated tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., but for right now the Legislative pleadings in lay terms basically say, respectfully, you do not have the right to bring us before you. The main reason being asserted at this point, and there may be other reasons, but the main reason being asserted is that we are in session.
So, getting back to the Journal, what did we find? It may not surprise any of you that we found it hasn't been handled the same way all the time, but it appears there is a preponderant pattern as to how it was handled. In two instances when the point was raised, when the Chair ruled, as I would in other procedural inquiries of the Chair, that the bill or resolution, or by the same logic the amendment, was out of order and cannot be ruled on. At one time it appears that it was in order. I don't think in either of those instances it was appealed. But the preponderant of the decisions are as follows:
1958, House Bill 10, page 108 of the House Journal:
"Mr. Richardson raised the point of order that the bill did not come within the purview of the proclamation of the Governor stating business to be considered by this session of the Legislature and for this reason cannot properly be considered.
The Speaker stated the point of order raised the question as to the constitutional right of the Legislature to consider the proposed legislation at this session and, for this reason, he was submitting the point of order to the House for its decision."
The Speaker, in that instance, and the two or three others that I will review very quickly here, did not make a ruling. The Speaker said the question is, is our constitutional prerogative as a separate, distinct branch of government with the right to govern ourselves, by ourselves, with no one else interfering with that whether it be the executive or the court, is a decision for us to make. And, I would suggest to you that if we ever lose that power or deviate from it, we are no longer a coequal branch of government. We can call ourselves whatever we want, but we are not. It is a decision for this House and the House across the way to make and yes, to some extent with the debate that has swirled in the papers the last couple of days and the pleading, we are not talking about a procedural vote, but the House decided by a majority vote whether or not they believed our constitutional prerogatives were being trampled upon by the Executive. To put it more succinctly, and again I say this, obviously each of us knows we are immune from anything we say on this floor, but I am a practicing attorney and I have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court and I say this respectfully: We do not need the Supreme Court of this state to protect our constitutional prerogatives. We can do that ourselves. The way we do it is through that procedure.
In 1958 again, House Bill 32, page 133 of the House Journal:
"Mr. England raised the point of order that the bill was out of order and could not be considered at this session of the Legislature for the reason that it did not come within the preview of the proclamation of the Governor stating business to be considered at this session.
The Speaker stated that he was advised by the Parliamentarian that there was ample authority and precedent for referring such questions of order to the House for its decision thereon.
It was then submitted to the House."
House Bill 41, 1958, page 261 of the House Journal, on second reading:
"Mr. Tompos raised a point of order that the bill was out of order and could not be considered at this session of the Legislature for the reason that it did not come within the preview of the proclamation of the Governor stating business to be considered at this session.
The Speaker stated that in keeping with the practice during this session relative to such points of order he was submitting such point of order to the House for its decision."
Now, again because I want everybody to understand this, particularly in lay terms if I can do that, although I don't think lawyers can ever explain things in lay terms, we have warped minds and think differently, each of these that we found talk about instances of proclamation or a bill which was clearly, the Chair made that determination and the documentation is there you can go back and pull that documentation if you want to look at it, clearly outside the parameters of the Call. The way that I am looking at this is that I see no difference in that and the consideration of an amendment, and I find no precedent which treats amendments differently. If the amendment which the result of its adoption would be to create a bill which is clearly outside of the Call. Again, as I go through this, I am not suggesting to you that the Governor can say don't go there, don't touch that, it is clearly outside the Call. I am saying that now as a matter of factual analysis. The important thing is that we have a process - we have had it for years - that deals with this issue and I have explained how that process has worked and I have found some instances where the Chair ruled and that ruling was not appealed. The Chair basically decided and did not even have the House make the decision.
So, where are we? Again, I don't want anyone to misunderstand my statements here because I don't know where this institution is going in the next several days or day and I don't know what the Executive Branch is going to do and I don't know what the Supreme Court is going to do. But, I want each of you to know and I will tell you now, that it is my intention, if such a point of order is raised, to rule in the manner that I see to be the preponderant practice of this House, which is that the House will decide whether a bill, a resolution or an amendment, is outside of the Call of the Proclamation of the Governor. That is how we will make the decision as to each proposed question, assuming that we get to the point of being faced with making that decision. I know of no other way to do it and I suggest, again I apologize, I was not taking a shot at the Press before, I respect you and I need and want your help, because I have a bunch of debate now in the Court as to what the Executive can do or can't do and how they can frame their Call and how they can't frame their Call and if they can tie our hands and if they can twist us up in knots and whether they can do this and do that. What I am suggesting to you is from our standpoint and if you allow it to be relevant, now I can't avoid speaking as a lawyer, from a constitutional perspective then don't pretend that we are a separate and distinct branch of government. I am sure those of you with even more expertise are thinking what happens if the Court can't do it and you do it this way? I don't know. Maybe at some point you have a constitutional crisis, but it is my intention as Speaker, if I am faced with this question, I want you to know where this is going and what I intend to do. I intend to present the procedural question to the House and then we proceed further. The precedent is there, anyone can look at it. If there is other precedent, I will be glad to respond to it. Again, I think the Clerk did an outstanding job and I am giving you the precedent that he was able to determine for me.
Delegate Trump. First of all, it is always a pleasure to have you on the floor and making remarks, very illuminating. Let me say from the outset, Mr. Speaker, I think you are right. I think the question of whether or not the Governor's Call encroaches upon legislative prerogative is a question that has to be answered in the first instance by the Legislature. I will second the praise you have heaped on the researching skills of our Parliamentarian and Clerk and observe that 1958 must have been a very tough year around here. I found one from 1932 which I gather was equally tough. I think it is a completely reasonable approach to let the House decide that question in the first instance.
Let me lead up to a question which is this, we have a bill on second reading which is the normal stage when the members have a right to amend and, as you know, there may be some amendments offered to that bill of great interest to a number of members who don't want to lose the opportunity to amend that bill and have it passed in a form that many think would be a great benefit to the citizens of West Virginia. Is there any assurance that you could give us tonight that an opportunity passed tonight would not be lost forever in the days remaining of this extraordinary session?
Speaker Kiss. Again, getting back to my opening comments, the respect that you voice I share immensely, I respect you and your credibility tremendously and I am not going to jeopardize mine, so, no I cannot give you that assurance and I'll tell you why. I really ought to have some better sense as to where the Court is going. Having said that, and this is my opinion and I've talked about it to some of the leadership, we can't stay here and talk about this for several days waiting for some further decision from the Court. My fear is this, if we proceed right now, I've already voiced to you my concern that I'm not sure exactly what this stay means and what its implications might be, but it is a temporary stay, I don't know whether the Court is going to make it permanent or not. As I read it, I think what the Court is attempting to do is to say to the Legislature and certainly to myself and the Senate President as Chief Executive Officers of these bodies, that you are to ignore part of the Call. My concern is this, and you can tell from what I have just gone through, I don't think they can do that. I am tremendously uncomfortable with proceeding under that assumption and if we are going to have to do that I would prefer that it be done once a decision is made that that is a permanent stay. Because my fear is to act now and make these decisions in rulings now, at some point we can't keep waiting, but to make those decisions and rulings now to some extent is under the gun of intervention by the Court.
Delegate Trump. A concern I have now and it has been voiced by others and I would ask you to comment on it or basically just acknowledge it, we have no way of knowing as we are here tonight or controlling, or should we have any way of controlling, how long the Supreme Court will take to resolve or render an opinion or decision on any question it takes under its consideration.
Speaker Kiss. I understand that.
Delegate Trump. To the extent that we are in accord on this fundamental threshold question, it should be the House of Delegates who decides for itself in the first instance, at least, whether or not it can act in a certain area based on a proclamation from the executive without interference by the executive or the judiciary. Would that not suggest that there is no time like the present, Mr. Speaker, and we ought to forge ahead now and resolve that question to the extent we can for ourselves?
Speaker Kiss. At some point I would agree with you and I am not there yet but let me suggest this logic for that, and not to insinuate that I am not willing to do this and decided what I think is the right thing and are afraid to do it. But I see, in lay terms, an outside analysis were we to proceed, or in editorial terms or in political terms, someone asserting that I or this House, if we proceed now given this stay that is in place, may be in contempt of the Court. That may be where we wind up but I would prefer at least to wait some short, additional period of time to see if that is where this is going. I think as a lawyer, and maybe you do disagree to this, but I think someone could at least, maybe not so much as a matter of law, but even as a matter of law, pose the argument that if we were to proceed this way tonight, given the status that is before the Court that we are ignoring and showing disrespect for and contempt of the stay which is in place.
Delegate Trump. But that almost presumes, does it not, that there is some authority for a stay? I don't mind saying on the floor of this House, pending litigation notwithstanding, I question the authority of the Judiciary to impose any stay on the operation of the Legislative Branch of government. To render unconstitutional by judgment acts of the Legislature, absolutely. As the final arm of the Constitution, but to stop part of the process...... But having said that, as I read the petition to show cause issue and I read it today, its operation, as I read it was designed to be on the executive or at least a portion of the Governor's Proclamation as opposed to upon the Legislature or the legislative leadership itself.
Speaker Kiss. Again, I am not being argumentative. I think that is a fair reading but I also think that another fair reading is the fact that the Senate President and I are joined as parties and that the Court may take the position that the temporary stay is effective to us as it is to the Executive. I don't know the answer to that and I don't know whether or not I'll have any more guidance or understanding or when I'll have any more guidance or understanding.
Delegate Trump. One of the things that members have expressed concern to me about is the possibility that if the bill is referred back to a committee it may not reach the floor again, that is a great concern at the moment. I understand procedure and I think that is a fair concern for those who have voiced it who believe very strongly that forward movement on the merits of the issue is real important to the State.
Speaker Kiss. That may obviously happen, I am not going to deny that and obviously and I take no offense if the gentleman wants to back up and post an objection, but I have given my reasons earlier why I decided forty-eight hours ago to approach it this way because I am also trying to, as long as possible, put the bill in a lockbox and not touch it, not do anything to it until I have further clear guidance on what may be happening. I agree with your comments earlier and we both agree that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to enjoin us........
Delegate Trump. You got much closer than I ever did. I would remind you too that.........
Speaker Kiss. But, the simple fact as we stand here is that is what they have done. There may be some debate as to who it is that stay acts to, but I know from a standpoint of looking at the pleadings, as I know you do as an attorney, the parties which are the respondents is the executive, myself and the Senate president.
Delegate Trump. Let me ask you this and I am free forming here, just thinking out loud which is always dangerous, but is there anything offensive to you in the possibility of instead of referring it to a committee, just having it remain on the Calender over a pending legislative day and having it come up tomorrow on second reading, regular order of business and with whatever is there pending? In other words with a unanimous consent request, we have done it before, having it lie over a day retaining its place on the calender.
Speaker Kiss. The only thing I would say there and maybe there are things I am not thinking of right now on my feet is that it is somewhat inconsistent, although I am not saying we have never done it this way before, with the bill having been referred to the Committee, and the ability to make the threshold decision as to whether you are going to allow the Committee to work the bill first, or whether we just don't have any time or options anymore. That decision, as least as from where I sit, talking with my leadership has not been made yet. We have talked about a number of different possibilities, one would be to report it with the amendments pending. There is not an intention here, assuming we get to the point of going through the amendments and trying to end run them so to speak, having said that I have laid out very clearly, I think, that this procedural hurdle, first as to perhaps certain amendments we may be faced with, but if there is any hope of the Committee working the bill the only way that is only going to happen is if we send it back to the Committee.
Delegate Trump. That could be done a day hence if it is the intention of the leadership to have it worked in Committee. I assume it is not the intention of the leadership to have it worked extensively in Committee between now and sometime tomorrow when, perhaps, we will have some decision or ruling from the Court. What would be lost by leaving it in its current place on the Calender until tomorrow's session.
Speaker Kiss. I am not sure I understood your last point there but the assumption may be in error. I mean, I am looking at either some decisions need to be made in the next several hours which certainly can be made by tomorrow morning and one of those decisions may very well be for me to give my best guidance and instruction to the Finance Chair to begin working the bill and if it is not up there he can't do that and we can come back in tomorrow and do it, but you know as well as I do that there are a number of other things in play and the decision we made is that it is better to do this by sending it back upstairs. It is up there, it has been read a second time, it can come back down on third reading, that is the practice and procedure that we would prefer to follow right now, and that is the decision we made. I don't take offense if you think it should be done differently but that is the course we have decided to pursue.
Delegate Trump. Thank you for answering my questions.
H. B. 401, Reducing the six percent sales tax on food and food ingredients intended for human consumption to five percent beginning January 1, 2006,
And reports the same back without recommendation as to its passage but with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on Finance.
Delegate Staton asked unanimous consent that the bill be taken up for immediate consideration, read a second time and advanced to third reading, and that the bill then be recommitted to the Committee on Finance.
Delegate Staton then moved that the bill be taken up for immediate consideration, read a second time and advanced to third reading and that the rule be suspended to permit amendment thereof on third reading, and that the bill then be recommitted to the Committee on Finance.
Delegate Staton asked and obtained unanimous consent that the foregoing motion be withdrawn.
Delegate Staton then moved that the bill be taken up for immediate consideration, read a second time and then recommitted to the Committee on Finance.
The yeas and nays having been ordered, they were taken (Roll No. 814), and there were--yeas 64, nays 34, absent and not voting 2, with the nays and absent and not voting being as follows:
Nays: Anderson, Armstead, Ashley, Azinger, Blair, Border, Canterbury, Carmichael, Duke, Ellem, Evans, Frich, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Hunt, Lane, Leggett, Louisos, Overington, Porter, Roberts, Romine, Rowan, Schadler, Schoen, Sobonya, Stevens, Sumner, Tansill, Trump, Wakim, Walters and G. White.
So, a majority of the members present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the motion was adopted.
The bill still being before the House, Delegate Staton then asked and obtained unanimous consent that the rule be suspended to permit the offering and consideration of amendments to the bill on third reading, when it reaches that stage on the Floor of the House.
H. B. 401 was then taken up for immediate consideration, read a second time and advanced to third reading, with the right to amend on that reading, and the Speaker recommitted the same to the Committee on Finance.
H. B. 417, Making a supplementary appropriation to the West Virginia Conservation Agency, to the Department of Health and Human Resources, Division of Human Services, etc.,
Com. Sub. for H. B. 417 - "A Bill making a supplementary appropriation of public moneys out of the treasury from the balance of moneys remaining as an unappropriated surplus balance in the state fund, general revenue, to the Joint Expenses, fund 0175, fiscal year 2006, organization 2300, to the Supreme Court, fund 0180, fiscal year 2006, organization 2400, to the West Virginia Conservation Agency, fund 0132, fiscal year 2006, organization 1400, to the Department of Commerce - West Virginia Development Office, fund 0256, fiscal year 2006, organization 0307, to the Department of Education - State Department of Education, fund 0313, fiscal year 2006, organization 0402, to the Department of Health and Human Resources - Office of the Secretary, fund 0400, fiscal year 2006, organization 0501, to the Department of Health and Human Resources - Division of Human Services, fund 0403, fiscal year 2006, organization 0511, to the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety - Division of Veterans' Affairs, fund 0456, fiscal year 2006, organization 0613, and to the West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education - Control Account, fund 0596, fiscal year 2006, organization 0420, by supplementing and amending the appropriation for the fiscal year ending the thirtieth day of June, two thousand six,"
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, the bill (Com. Sub. for H. B. 417) was taken up for immediate consideration, read a first time and then ordered to second reading.
At 9:06 p.m., on motion of Delegate Staton, the House of Delegates recessed until 10:00 p.m., and reconvened at that time.
S. B. 4014, Making a supplemental appropriation to the lottery commission - excess lottery revenue fund surplus,
H. B. 407, Providing that department secretaries may transfer employees between departments in certain instances,
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent the bills (S. B. 4014 and H. B. 407) were each taken up for immediate consideration, read a second time and advanced to third reading, and the rule was suspended to permit the offering and consideration of amendments thereto on third reading.
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, the bill (H. B. 420) was taken up for immediate consideration, read a first time and then ordered to second reading.
By Delegates Michael, Doyle, Stalnaker, Browning, H. White, Boggs, Proudfoot, Frederick, Border, Ashley and Wakim:
H. B. 422 - "A Bill making a supplementary appropriation of public moneys out of the treasury from the balance of moneys remaining as an unappropriated balance in the state fund, general revenue, to the department of administration - consolidated public retirement board, fund 0195, fiscal year 2006, organization 0205."
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, the bill (H. B. 422) was taken up for immediate consideration, read a first time and then ordered to second reading.
S. B. 4006 - "A Bill to amend and reenact §12-4-14 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to accountability of persons receiving state funds or grants; requiring reports or sworn statements by volunteer fire departments; giving Secretary of the Department of Administration rule-making authority; and providing criminal penalties for filing a fraudulent sworn statement of expenditures, a fraudulent sworn statement or a fraudulent report."
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, reference of the bill (S. B. 4006) to a committee was dispensed with, and it was taken up for immediate consideration, read a first time and ordered to second reading.
S. B. 4008 - "A Bill to amend and reenact §18A-4-2 and §18A-4-8a of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, all relating to salaries for teachers and school service personnel; adopting state minimum salary schedules for teachers; providing for incremental salary increases for teachers; and providing minimum pay grade scales for school service personnel."
At the respective requests of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, reference of the bill (S. B. 4008) to a committee was dispensed with, and it was taken up for immediate consideration, read a first time and ordered to second reading.
H. B. 403, Providing for a technical correction relating to benefits of spouses and children of stat troopers who die in the line of duty.
S. B. 405, Changing West Virginia's Unemployment Compensation law to conform it to federally mandated legislation.
S. C. R. 401 - "Requesting the Division of Highways name the portion of W. Va. Route 16 between Glen Jean and Oak Hill, Fayette County, the 'Hank Williams, Sr., Memorial Road'."
H. C. R. 401, Naming the bridge on Cleveland Avenue in Buckhannon, West Virginia, the "William S. O' Brien Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 402, Naming the bridge located 0.01 miles south of County Route 26 and located on Route 85 in the community of Van, West Virginia, the "Thom Cline Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 403, Requesting the Division of Highways to name the bridge in Curtin, West Virginia, the "Larry 'Joe' Markle Bridge",
H. C. R. 404, Naming the new Watson Bridge over the West Fork River on U. S. Route 250 in Fairmont, Marion County, West Virginia, the "Watson Senior Citizens Bridge in Honor of Jim Costello",
H. C. R. 405, Naming the section of West Virginia Route 16 from the intersection of West Virginia Route 16 and West Virginia Route 5, North to the Ritchie County line the "Sheriff Park D. Richards Memorial Highway",
H. C. R. 406, Requesting the Division of Highways to name the bridge at McCauley in Hardy County, West Virginia, the "John and Freda Rudy Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 407, Requesting the West Virginia Division of Highways to name the bridge located at U. S. Route 2 and Nine Mile Road in Cabell County, West Virginia, the "David Rickey Carson Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 408, Honoring the late Leonard R. Valentine by declaring the bridge numbered 54 - 1.60 on State Route 54 in Mullens, West Virginia the "Leonard Valentine 'Coach Val' Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 409, Requesting the West Virginia Division of Highways to name the bridge on I-64 at the intersection of Rt. 219 in Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, West Virginia the "Gary Wayne Martini Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 410, Requesting the Division of Highways name the bridge located on Jakes Run Road off Frame Road in Elkview, West Virginia, the "Private James C. Summers Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 411, Requesting the Division of Highways name Bridge 4827 the "Sergeant George F. Eubanks Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 412, Requesting the Division of Highways to name the bridge on County Rt. 13, Arnett, Raleigh County, West Virginia at the end of Posey Saxon Road, the "Sergeant Billy Ray Holmes Memorial Bridge",
H. C. R. 413, Requesting the West Virginia Division of Highways to name State Route 25 from Glen Jean to Thurmond in Fayette County the "Jon Dragan Road",
H. C. R. 414, Requesting the Division of Highways to name the bridge spanning the Gauley River on Route 39 near Summersville, Nicholas County, the "Brock's Bridge".
Com. Sub. for H. B. 402, Requiring the disclosure of electioneering communications and prohibiting political organizations from accepting contributions in excess of one thousand dollars per election; on second reading, coming up in regular order, was read a second time.
Delegates Sobonya, Carmichael, Ashley, Lane, Wakim, Moore, Overington, Howard, Sumner, Frich, Porter, Duke, Rowan, Blair, Border, Canterbury, Armstead, Evans, Hamilton, Romine, Leggett, Azinger, Hall, Ellem, Roberts, Schoen, Tansill, Stevens, Schadler, Walters, Anderson and Trump moved to amend the bill on page fifty-one, section twelve, after line one hundred thirty-four, by adding a new subsection to read as follows:
"(n) No candidate who is also an elected or appointed official may use public funds, including funds of the office held by the candidate, to distribute, disseminate, publish or display their name or likeness upon or in any publication, broadcast, cable or satellite communication, communication in any newspaper, magazine or periodical publication, communication sent by mass mailing, communication by telephone bank or communication by leaflet, pamphlet or flyer, or any other publication or media communication intended for general dissemination to the public, within sixty days before a primary or general election in which the elected or appointed official is a candidate. This subsection does not prohibit an elected or appointed official from using their name or likeness on:
(1) any official record or report, directory, letterhead, document, map or certificate issued in the course of their duties as an elected or appointed official; or
(2) promotional materials used for national tourism and economic development promotion; or
(3) leaflets, pamphlets, or booklets containing information regarding services provided by the office of the elected or appointed official distributed prior to sixty days before the primary or general election or distributed to a member of the public upon his or her request",
And, to renumber the remaining subsections accordingly.
The yeas and nays having been ordered, they were taken (Roll No. 815), and there were--yeas 32, nays 65, absent and not voting 3, with the yeas and absent and not voting being as follows:
Yeas: Anderson, Armstead, Ashley, Azinger, Blair, Border, Canterbury, Carmichael, Duke, Ellem, Evans, Fragale, Frich, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Lane, Leggett, Overington, Porter, Roberts, Romine, Rowan, Schadler, Schoen, Sobonya, Stevens, Sumner, Tansill, Trump, Wakim and Walters.
Com. Sub. for H. B. 408, Relating to the accountability of persons receiving state funds or grants; on second reading, coming up in regular order, was read a second time and ordered to engrossment and third reading.
Com. Sub. for H. B. 409, Relating to salaries for teachers and school service personnel; on second reading, coming up in regular order, was read a second time.
Delegates Duke, Trump, Blair, Overington and Roberts moved to amend the bill on page eleven, section two, line two hundred fifty-seven, by after the period by adding a new subsection, designated subsection "(e)", to read as follows:
"(e) Beginning on the first day of the second quarter of the teachers employment term in the school year two thousand five-two thousand six through the thirtieth day of June, two thousand eight, each teacher who resides in a county in which the average monthly mortgage payment upon residential property is equal to or greater than seven hundred thirty-five dollars as determined by the bureau of census of the United States department of commerce in the taking of the two thousand census of population shall receive an annual housing allowance supplement to determined according to the following:
The payments shall be made in equal monthly installments and shall be considered a part of the state minimum salaries for teachers: Provided, That any housing allowance supplement that a teacher is entitled to receive as a result of the enactment of this section shall not be paid until the first pay date after the first day of November, two thousand five."
The yeas and nays having been ordered, they were taken (Roll No. 816), and there were--yeas 18, nays 79, absent and not voting 3, with the yeas and absent and not voting being as follows:
Com. Sub. for H. B. 411, Relating to amending certain provisions of the code involving horse and dog racing and distribution of certain proceeds; on second reading, coming up in regular order, was read a second time.
On motion of Delegates Doyle and DeLong, the bill was amended on page four, after the enacting clause, by striking out the remainder of the bill and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "That §19-23-9, §19-23-13b and §19-23-13c of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended and reenacted; and that §29-22A-10b of said code be amended and reenacted, all to read as follows:
(1) The commission deducted by any licensee from the pari-mutuel pools on thoroughbred horse racing, except from thoroughbred horse racing pari-mutuel pools involving what is known as multiple betting in which the winning pari-mutuel ticket or tickets are determined by a combination of two or more winning horses, shall not exceed seventeen and one-fourth percent of the total of the pari-mutuel pools for the day. Out of the commission, as is mentioned in this subdivision, the licensee: (i) Shall pay the pari-mutuel pools tax provided for in subsection (b), section ten of this article; (ii) shall make a deposit into a special fund to be established by the licensee and to be used for the payment of regular purses offered for thoroughbred racing by the licensee, which deposits out of pari-mutuel pools for each day during the months of January, February, March, October, November and December shall be seven and three hundred seventy-five one-thousandths percent of the pari-mutuel pools and which, out of pari-mutuel pools for each day during all other months, shall be six and eight hundred seventy-five one-thousandths percent of the pari-mutuel pools, which shall take effect beginning fiscal year one thousand nine hundred ninety; (iv) (iii) shall pay one tenth of one percent of the pari-mutuel pools into the general fund of the county commission of the county in which the racetrack is located, except if within a municipality, then to the Municipal General Fund. The remainder of the commission shall be retained by the licensee; (iii) and (iv) Any licensee which has participated in the West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund for a period of more than four consecutive calendar years prior to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred ninety-two shall after allowance for the exclusion given by subsection (b), section ten of this article, make a deposit into a special fund to be established by the racing commission and to be used for the payment of breeders, awards and capital improvements breeders awards, restrictive races and stakes purses as authorized by section thirteen-b of this article, which deposits out of pari-mutuel pools shall, from the effective date of this section, and for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-five, be four-tenths percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-six, be seven-tenths percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-seven, be one percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-eight, be one and one-half percent; and for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-nine, and each year thereafter, be two percent of the pools.
The commission deducted by any licensee from the pari-mutuel pools on thoroughbred horse racing involving what is known as multiple betting in which the winning pari-mutuel ticket or tickets are determined by a combination of two winning horses shall not exceed nineteen percent and by a combination of three or more winning horses shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the total of such pari-mutuel pools for the day. Out of the commission, as is mentioned in this paragraph, the licensee: (i) Shall pay the pari-mutuel pools tax provided for in subsection (b), section ten of this article; (ii) shall make a deposit into a special fund to be established by the licensee and to be used for the payment of regular purses offered for thoroughbred racing by the licensee, which deposits out of pari-mutuel pools for each day during the months of January, February, March, October, November and December, for pools involving a combination of two winning horses shall be eight and twenty-five one-hundredths percent and out of pari-mutuel pools for each day during all other months shall be seven and seventy-five one-hundredths percent of the pari-mutuel pools; and involving a combination of three or more winning horses for the months of January, February, March, October, November and December the deposits out of the fund shall be eleven and twenty-five one-hundredths percent of the pari-mutuel pools; and which, out of pari-mutuel pools for each day during all other months, shall be ten and seventy-five one-hundredths percent of the pari-mutuel pools; and (iv) (iii) shall pay one tenth of one percent of the pari-mutuel pools into the general fund of the county commission of the county in which the racetrack is located, except if within a municipality, then to the Municipal General Fund. The remainder of the commission shall be retained by the licensee; (iii) and (iv) any licensee which has participated in the West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund for a period of more than four consecutive calendar years prior to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred ninety-two shall after allowance for the exclusion given by subsection (b), section ten of this article, make a deposit into a special fund to be established by the racing commission and to be used for the payment of breeders' awards and capital improvements as authorized by section thirteen-b of this article, which deposits out of breeder awards, for restrictive races and stakes purses which deposits out of pari-mutuel pools shall, from the effective date of this section, and for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-five, be four-tenths percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-six, be seven-tenths percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-seven, be one percent; for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-eight, be one and one-half percent; and for fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-nine, and each year thereafter, be two percent of the pools.
(a) The Racing Commission shall deposit moneys required to be withheld by an association or licensee in subsection (b), section nine of this article in a banking institution of its choice in a special account to be known as 'West Virginia Racing Commission Special Account -- West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund:' Provided, That after the West Virginia Lottery Commission has divided moneys between the West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund and the West Virginia Greyhound Breeding Development Fund pursuant to the provisions of sections ten and ten-b, article twenty-two-a, chapter twenty-nine of this code, the Racing Commission shall, beginning the first day of October, two thousand five, deposit the remaining moneys required to be withheld from an association or licensee designated to the Thoroughbred Development Fund under the provisions of subsection (b), section nine of this article, subdivision (3), subsection (e), section twelve-b of this article, subsection (b), section twelve-c of this article, paragraph (B), subdivision (3), subsection (b), section thirteen-c of this article and sections ten and ten-b, article twenty-two-a, chapter twenty-nine of this code into accounts for each thoroughbred racetrack licensee with a banking institution of its choice with a separate account for each association or licensee. Each separate account shall be a special account to be known as 'West Virginia Racing Commission Special Account - West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund' and shall name the licensee for which the special account has been established: Provided, however, That the Racing Commission shall deposit all moneys paid into the Thoroughbred Development Fund by a thoroughbred racetrack licensee that did not participate in the Thoroughbred Development Fund for at least four consecutive calendar years prior to the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred ninety-two from the eighth day of July, two thousand five until the effective date of the amendment to this section passed during the Fourth Extraordinary Session of the 77th Legislature shall be paid into the purse fund of that thoroughbred racetrack licensee: Provided, further, That the moneys paid into the Thoroughbred Development Fund by a thoroughbred racetrack licensee that did not participate in the Thoroughbred Development Fund for at least four consecutive calendar years prior to the thirty- first day of December, on thousand nine hundred ninety-two, shall be transferred into that licensee's purse fund until the first day of April, two thousand six. Notice of the amount, date and place of the deposit deposits shall be given by the Racing Commission, in writing, to the State Treasurer. The purpose of the fund funds is to promote better breeding and racing of thoroughbred horses in the state through awards and purses for accredited breeders/raisers, sire owners and thoroughbred race horse owners: A further objective of the fund is to aid in the rejuvenation and development of the present horse tracks now operating in West Virginia for capital improvements, operations or increased purses Provided, That five percent of the deposits required to be withheld by an association or licensee in subsection (b), section nine of this article shall be placed in a special revenue account hereby created in the State Treasury called the 'Administration and Promotion Account'.
_____(h) (g) As used in this section, 'West Virginia bred-foal' means a horse that was born in the State of West Virginia.
_____(k) The Commission shall during calendar year two thousand nine, conduct a study of the adequacy of funding provided for the Thoroughbred Development Fund at any thoroughbred racetrack which has not participated in the West Virginia Thoroughbred Development Fund for a period of more than four consecutive calendar years prior to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred ninety-two, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance on or before the first day of December, two thousand nine.
(b) The commission may establish orderly and effective procedures for the collection and distribution of funds under this section in accordance with the provisions of this section and section ten of this article."
Com. Sub. for H. B. 413, Providing an increase in the annual base salary of all sworn state police personnel,
Com. Sub. for H. B. 414, Supplementing and amending chapter sixteen, Acts of the Legislature, regular session, two thousand five, as amended known as the budget bill, providing for salary increases for public employees,
Com. Sub. for H. B. 415, Supplementing, amending, reducing and increasing items of the existing appropriation from the Department of Agriculture, agriculture fees fund,
H. B. 416, Making a supplementary appropriation to the Department of Agriculture -West Virginia Agricultural Land Protection Authority,
H. B. 419, Supplementing, amending reducing and increasing items of the existing appropriations from the state fund, to the Department of Health and Human Services - Division of Human Services, and higher education, higher education policy commission.
S. B. 4010, Relating to proposed merger of Teachers' Defined Contribution Retirement System with State Teachers Retirement System; on second reading, coming up in regular order, was read a second time, advanced to third reading, and the rule was suspended to permit the offering and consideration of amendments thereto on third reading.
S. B. 4015, Supplementing, amending, reducing and increasing items of existing appropriation from Department of Agriculture, Fees Fund,
S. B. 4016, Making supplementary appropriation to Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Land Protection Authority,
S. B. 4017, Supplementing, amending, reducing and increasing items of existing appropriations from State Fund, General Revenue, to Division of Human Services and Higher Education Policy Commission.
At the request of Delegate Staton, and by unanimous consent, leave of absence for the day was granted Delegate Morgan.
Delegate Frich announced that she was absent when the votes were taken on Roll Call Nos. 806, 807, 809, 810 and 811, and had she been present, she would have voted "Yea" thereon.
Delegate Frich asked and obtained unanimous consent that the poem authored and read by Delegate Hrutkay entitled "We Need People Like That" be printed in the Appendix to the Journal.
Delegates Mahan and Stevens asked and obtained unanimous consent that the explanation by the Speaker and the ensuing dialog of members concerning the research provided by the House Clerk and Parliamentarian, relative to the prerogatives of the House as to its procedures in dealing with items on the Proclamation, be printed in the Appendix to the Journal.
At 11:31 p.m., the House of Delegates adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Monday, September 12, 2005.