99FAA26B5E8CE52E872584F100547C76 Hearing Summary

Representative Herod explained going into executive session and that it requires a 2/3 vote. Senator Hill questioned the motion to go into executive session. Representative Weissman spoke about the practice of the Committee with regard to executive sessions.

Senator Lundeen and Representative Weissman discussed the motion to go into executive session in this case.

Senator Hill addressed whether votes have to be taken in or out of executive session.

Representative Van Winkle explained why it would be better to stay out of executive session for transparency.

Representative Snyder disagreed because all decisions would be voted on outside of executive sesion.

Representative Soper explained the chilling effect of executive sessions on transparency.

Sharon Eubanks, Director, Office of Legislative Legal Services, testified before the Committee on the question of whether the Committee would agree to continue to fund the appeal of the Cooke v. Markwell case. Ms. Eubanks explained what had happened so far with the case and the history of the how the Committee makes these decisions.

Representative Van Winkle and Ms. Eubanks discussed whether money had already been spent on outside counsel.

Senator Lundeen and Ms. Eubanks discussed the amount of the expenses that have already been paid and the process of the Committee voting to fund an appeal.

Representative Weissman summarized the events leading up to the appeal and spoke about how this matter is procedurally uncommon and the importance of the case going forward to answer constitutional questions.

Senator Hill responded to Representative Weissman and agreed with the importance of the constitutional question. Ms. Pelegrin explained the constitutional history of the requirement to read a bill at length.

Representative Soper spoke to funding of the appeal and asked a clarifying question. Senator Lee answered the question. Senator Hill asked what the Committee is approving by the motion, and Ms. Eubanks responded.

Representative Soper spoke to funding the appeal and asked a clarifying question about whether the motion covers funding just for the Court of Appeals or also for the Supreme Court. Senator Lee responded that the motion includes funding for both.

Senator Hill and Ms. Eubanks discussed adding to the motion a cap on the amount of funding. Representative Herod offered the option of having the Office report to the Committee on the invoiced expenses at later meetings. Senator Lundeen asked a question.

Senator Foote explained the importance of funding the appeal and the issues raised by having a cap on the amount of funding.

Representative Soper and Ms. Eubanks discussed the hourly billing rate set by the Committee. Representative Herod explained the process the Committee went through when retaining counsel.

Senator Lundeen suggested that, due to the importance of the constitutional questions in the case, both sides of the case should be funded.

Representative Van Winkle agreed with Senator Lundeen and moved a substitute motion. Representative Herod suggested that the request needed to be discussed further and asked for a no vote.