Jan. 14-18, 2008 Session Bills Reviewed

By Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D.,
West Virginia School Boards Association Executive Director

Listed below are West Virginia Senate and House of Delegates bills introduced Jan.14-18, 2008 during the first full week of the Second Regular Session of the 78th West Virginia Legislature.

Bills are listed topically, beginning with public education bills. A series of education-related bills follow. Lastly, some measures are cited briefly. Senate bills are listed first.

A total 38 bills are reviewed.

For a copy of any bill, please contact WVSBA: 304.346.0571. You also may contact me at hocull@wvsba.org.

Bills are posted on the West Virginia Legislature’s Web site: http://www.legis.state.wv.us

 

PUBLIC EDUCATION

County Boards

County boards would be required to provide additional salary supplement to “classroom teachers” based on freed-up local share dollars – governor’s proposal

Senate Bill 225. Proposed revisions to §18A-4-5a would require county boards to provide an additional salary supplement to “classroom teachers” based the increased dollars local boards of education are to receive from freed-up School Aid Formula (SAF) moneys.

Beginning in FY09, county boards are to be able to “retain” 10 percent of their SAF local share dollars, based on legislation enacted in 2007.

The proposed change in statute reads:

“(Beginning July 1, 2008), any county board for which the calculation of levies for general current expense purposes as provided in (§18-9A-1 et. seq.) is (90 percent) of the levy rate for county boards, shall establish an additional supplemental salary schedule for classroom teachers.

“The supplemental salary schedule shall be in addition to any other salaries applicable to the classroom teachers of the county in effect on the effective date of this section.

“The supplemental salary schedule shall be established to distribute among the classroom teachers of the county in an amount equivalent to the increase in state aid resulting from the reduction in the calculation of levies for general current expense purposes from  (94 percent) to (90 percent) in accordance with the provisions of (§18-9A-1 et. seq.) of this code.

“The schedule shall be uniform throughout the county as to the classification of training, experience, responsibility and other requirements.”

Sponsored by Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, D-Logan, and Don Caruth, R-Mercer. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Education Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb225%20intr.htm

The companion measure is House Bill 4056. It is sponsored by House Speaker Richard Thompson, D-Wayne. Introduced Feb. 16. Referred to the House Education Committee, then House Finance Committee.

Reference:  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4056%20intr.htm

Both bills were introduced on behalf of the governor.

Fiscal Notes are requested for both measures.

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

 

Public School Personnel

Recruitment “bonus” to be provided to teachers employed to provide mathematics, science, or special education instruction or in teaching positions having remained vacant for one year or more

Senate Bill 223. Proposed revisions to §18A-4-21 would establish a recruitment bonus for new math, science and special education teachers, or teachers filling positions that have remained vacant for one year or more.

The proposal has a “Legislative finding” that:

“…(T)here is an urgent demand for the recruitment of new teachers to fill positions of immediate need, as well as to provide instruction in certain subject area fields such as mathematics, science, and special education, and that teacher shortages in these positions threaten the state's competitive standing in the economy of the twenty-first century. Therefore, prospective classroom teachers in the public schools of West Virginia should be encouraged to obtain certification in these subject area fields and/or to fill positions of immediate need through an additional salary bonus to be paid in accordance with the (bill’s proposed provisions).”

“Accepted an offer of employment”

In order to receive  the “additional salary bonus  “a classroom teacher shall have accepted an offer of employment in a position meeting one of the following criteria:

1. “The classroom teacher shall have accepted an offer of employment in a teaching position that, for a period of at least one year prior to the offer of employment, has been posted in accordance with the provisions of (§18-4-7a), and for which no fully qualified applicant has been employed; or


2. The classroom teacher shall hold a valid teaching certificate in accordance with the provisions of article three of this chapter licensing him or her to teach in mathematics, science, or special education and shall have accepted an offer of employment to provide classroom instruction in his or her area of certification and licensure.”
   To receive an “additional salary bonus,” a classroom teacher “shall have been offered employment on or after the effective date of this section.”

Provisos
There are three provisos:

The first states:” Provided, That a classroom teacher shall not have been employed in a position meeting either of the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (b) of this section within the twelve months immediately preceding his or her hire” or,

“ Provided, however, That on the effective date of this section, a classroom teacher employed in a position that does not meet either of the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (b) of this section may thereafter qualify for the additional salary bonus by accepting an offer of employment in a position meeting either of the eligibility criteria set forth therein” or,

“ Provided further, That notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, no classroom teacher is eligible to receive the additional salary bonus authorized by this section more than once.”

The “additional salary bonus” would amount to $5,000 paid “… subject to the availability of funds.”

Additionally, the statutory provision could not be “construed to guarantee payment of the additional salary bonus to any classroom teacher absent specific legislative appropriation therefor.”

“The additional salary bonus” would be paid in one lump sum and the funds would be subject t to applicable state and federal taxes.

Repayment
Teachers receiving the “additional salary bonus” would have to enter into a “written written agreement in advance of the payment of such bonus…”

If the classroom teacher voluntarily discontinues employment or voluntarily accepts another position of employment with the county board that does not meet the proposed statute’s eligibility criteria and limitations “at any time within three years immediately following payment of the bonus, he or she shall be obligated to pay to the county board a pro rata portion of the additional salary bonus equal to the part of such three-year period which the teacher has chosen not to remain employed by the county board in a position eligible for the receipt of such bonus.”

The county board would be authorized to withhold the  prorated amounts from any final payments due and owing to the teacher.

“Immediate Need Bonus Fund”

Under terms of the proposal, a special account designated as the “Math, Science, Special Education and Immediate Need Bonus Fund” would be established in the State Treasury.

The Fund would consist of moneys appropriated by the Legislature, including interest or other returns on the moneys.

Moneys remaining at the conclusion of a Fiscal Year do not “revert to the General Revenue Fund, but remain in the account.”

The state Department of Education would administer the funds, based on procedures established by the WVDE.

Sponsored by Sens. Tomblin and Caruth. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Education Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb223%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4055. It is sponsored by Dels. Thompson and Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the House Education Committee then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4055%20intr.htm

Fiscal Notes are requested for both bills.

Bus operators would be prohibited from using “wireless communication devices” while operating a school bus

House Bill 4047. Proposed §17C-14-15 and §17C-14-16 would prohibit  a bus operator from using a “wireless communication device while operating the school bus.”

Based on another proposed bill provision, it appears bus operators could use “wireless communication devices” when the school bus is parked in a “safe area off of a highway” or in an “emergency situation.”

The proposed statutory provision states:  “use of a wireless communication device by an operator of a motor vehicle on a public road or highway is unlawful except when the device is a hands-free wireless device or the wireless communication device is used hands-free, provided that the placement does not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of a motor vehicle.”

Persons who would violate the bill would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could face a $50 - $100 fine upon conviction.

Definitions

The bill defines a “hands-free wireless device" as a “mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a conversation without the use of either hand: Provided, That this definition does not preclude the use of either hand to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of the telephone.”

It defines “use" of a wireless communication device includes, but is not limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic message via the wireless communication device.”

There are several other proposed provisions.

There are five House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Nancy Peoples Guthrie, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 15. Referred to the House Roads and Transportation Committee then to the House Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4047%20intr.htm

There is no Senate companion measure.

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Employees would have right to inspect and copy personnel files

House Bill 4048. Proposed §21-3-22 would provide employees the right to review and copy their personnel files.

As stated in the bill, “Every employee, whether public or private, has the right to inspect his or her personnel file, if the file exists. Inspection shall take place during regular business hours at a location at or reasonably near the employee's place of employment.”

Employers would be required, “within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request from an employee, (to)  provide the employee with a copy of all or any requested portion of his or her personnel file, provided the request reasonably identifies the materials to be copied. The employer may charge a fee of (10) cents per page for copying the file or any part of the file.”

Employers would not be required to “provide a copy of an employee's personnel file more than two times in a calendar year, unless the employee requesting the personnel file has been terminated involuntary.”

In that case, “ upon written request of the employee after notice of the involuntary termination, the employer will provide another opportunity to review or request a copy of the personnel file.”

Original copy
Employees could not remove the “original” copy of their personnel file or any part of the file from the employer’s premises “ where it is made available for inspection.”

Employers would retain the right to “protect… files from loss, damage or alteration to ensure their integrity,” and employers could require that “inspection of any personnel file take place in the presence of a designated official.”

Definitions

These are among bill definitions:

“Personnel file” would  mean “papers, documents and reports pertaining to a particular employee which are used or have been used by an employer to determine such employee's eligibility for employment, promotion, additional compensation, transfer, termination, disciplinary or other adverse personnel action including employee evaluations or reports relating to such employee's character, credit and work habits. "

It would not include “stock option or management bonus plan records, materials which are used by the employer to plan for future operations, security files, information such as test information, the disclosure of which would invalidate the test, or documents which are being developed or prepared for use in civil, criminal or grievance procedures.”

“Security files"  would mean “ memoranda, documents or collections of information relating to investigations of losses, misconduct or suspected crimes and investigative information maintained pursuant to government requirements, provided such memoranda, documents or information are not used to determine an employee's eligibility for employment, promotion, additional compensation, transfer, termination, disciplinary or other adverse personnel action.”

There are 10 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Barbara A. Fleischauer, D-Monongalia. Introduced Jan. 15. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4048%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Bill would prohibit dismissal of bus operators who have diabetes mellitus requiring use of insulin

House Bill 4059. Proposed §18A-2-10a would prohibit dismissal, “denial of employment,” or ineligibility for employment for ”reason that the person currently has been diagnosed or has a past history of having the disease of diabetes mellitus requiring insulin, as long as the person is under the care of a physician for the disease, is adhering to all treatment prescribed by his or her physician and also meets all of the requirements to be eligible for a commercial driver's license in this state.”

There are nine House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Larry Border, R-Wood. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee then the House Education Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4059%20intr.htm

There is no companion Senate measure.

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Bill would allow teachers to get additional endorsements in other certification areas, based on rules the state Board of Education promulgates

House Bill 4062. Proposed revisions to §18A-3-1 and -1a would require the state Board of Education to promulgate a rule for the “ approval and operation of alternative education programs to provide a route for teachers who hold a valid West Virginia teaching certificate to obtain an additional endorsement or endorsements in another area or areas of certification granted by the West Virginia Department of Education.”

A proposed bill provision states “A certificate to teach any one or more of the subjects taught at grade levels (K-8) means that the holder is highly qualified to teach each of the subjects for which certified and may be assigned to teach any of those subjects in a departmentalized or self-contained school structure.”

The  WVBE rule is to be reviewed by the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability (LOCEA) during  July 2008 legislative interim meetings or “as soon thereafter as practical prior to implementation of the programs.”

There are four House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Mary Poling, D-Barbour. Del. Poling his House Education Committee Chairperson. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Education Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4062%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

 

Public School Facilities

Bill would require adoption of “green building standards” for public buildings exceeding 5,000 square feet

House Bill 4066. Proposed §22-29-1 et. seq. would require adoption of green building standards for the construction or renovation of public buildings over 5,000 square feet.

The proposed legislation has several definitions and defines “Major facility project" as “(A) A building construction project larger than (5,000) gross square feet of occupied or conditioned space; or (B) A building renovation project when the cost is greater than (50) percent of the assessed value and the project is larger than (5,000) gross square feet of occupied or conditioned space.”

County boards would be affected under terms of the bill, based on the definition of “public agency” which is defined as “every state office, board, commission, committee, bureau, department or public institution of higher education, including counties and municipalities.”

Green building standards

“Green standards,” as defined in this bill, are based on the "LEED silver standard.” LEED is a non-profit organization dedicated to sustainable building design and construction. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Council Rating System™ encourages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria, according to the organization’s Website: http://www.usgbc.org.

Accordingly, all “major facility projects of public agencies shall be designed, constructed and certified to at least the LEED silver standard…”

The same would apply to “All major facility projects of a public school district, where the project receives any state funding, shall be designed, constructed and certified to at least the LEED silver standard.”

These provisions apply to major facility projects that have not entered the design phase prior to July 1, 2008 for state agencies and Jan. 1, 2009 for school facilities.

School facilities

Additionally, all “major facility projects by any person, corporation or entity other than a public agency or public school district, where the project receives any state funding” would have to be designed, constructed and certified to at least the LEED silver standard.

This provision would apply to major facility projects that have not entered the grant application process prior Jan. 1, 2008.

The proposal contains some exceptions, including an absence of LEED silver standard for the building or renovation or if there is “practical way to apply the LEED silver standard to a particular building or renovation project.”

In these cases, the state Department of Administration is to set “lesser green building standards that are appropriate to the project.”

Rules/reportage

The Department of Administration is to propose legislative rules, including rules that determine whether a project “qualifies for an exception from the LEED silver standard, and the lesser green
 building standards that may be imposed on projects that are granted exceptions.”

The Department of Administration is also required to monitor and document “ongoing operating savings that result from major facility projects designed, constructed and certified as meeting the LEED silver standard and annually publish a public report of findings and recommended changes in policy. The report shall also include a description of projects that were granted exceptions from the LEED silver standard, the reasons for exceptions, and the lesser green building standards imposed.”

Advisory Committee

Lastly, the Department is to create a Green Buildings Advisory Committee. It would be comprised of representatives from the design and construction industry involved in public works contracting, personnel from affected public agencies and school boards that oversee public works projects, and others at the (Department of Administration’s) discretion to provide advice on implementing this section.

The advisory committee would be required to make recommendations regarding an “education and training process and an ongoing evaluation or feedback process to help the department implement (the statute).”

There are other provisions.

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Fleischauer. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Government Organization Committee, then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4066%20intr.htm

There is no Senate companion measure.

 

West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE)

 

Only “healthy beverages” could be sold in public schools

Senate Bill 222. Proposed revisions to §18-2-6a would allow county boards, in order to “generate funding for necessary programs and supplies,” to permit the sale of healthy beverages and “healthy snacks” as defined in the legislation.

(Current statute also allows the sale of “soft drinks” in schools “except during breakfast and lunch periods” with certain exceptions.)

Definitions

Under terms of the proposed legislation, "Healthy beverage" would mean water, 100 percent fruit and vegetable juice with no added sugars flavored or unflavored nonfat, low-fat milk.”

As stated in the proposed legislation, “fruit and vegetable juice portion sizes should be limited to no more than four ounces for elementary students and no more than eight ounces for middle or high school students per product or package . Coffee, coffee-based products and caffeine containing beverages, with the exception of those containing trace amounts of naturally occurring caffeine substances, are prohibited…”

“Healthy or  nutritional snacks" means fruits, vegetables, cheese, yogurt, grain foods containing whole grain as the first listed ingredient, nuts and/or seeds. Nutritional elements on healthy snacks should:

1. “Limit total calories to no more than 200 per product or package;
2. Limit total fat to no more than 35 percent of calories per product or package excluding nuts, seeds or cheese;
3. Limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of the total calories;
4. Limit trans fat to less than or equal to 0.5 grams per product or package;
5. Reduce sugar content of food items to no more than 35 percent of calories per product excluding fruits;
6. Limit sodium to no more than 200 milligrams per product or package.”

Note: Current law allows the sale of “juice beverages with a minimum 20 percent real juice.”

There are six Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Roman W. Prezioso, D-Marion. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee and then the Senate Education Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb222%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4051. There are six House sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Don Perdue, D-Wayne. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee and then the House Education Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4051%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

 

West Virginia Department of Education/State Superintendent of Schools

 

Measure would create self-sufficiency centers for displaced homemakers and single parents

House Bill 4040.  Proposed §18-10P-1 et. seq. would authorize the Superintendent of Schools to enter into contracts with public and nonprofit private entities to support Nontraditional Career Development Centers to  assist displaced homemakers or single parents in receiving job counseling, job training, job placement services and other support services leading to high-skill, high-wage jobs.

Definitions

The bill has the following definitions:

“Displaced homemaker" or "single parent" means an individual who:

1. “Has worked in the home, providing unpaid household services for family members;
2. Is not gainfully employed or is underemployed;
3. Has had, is experiencing or would have difficulty in securing adequate employment; and
4. Has been dependent on the income of another family member but is no longer supported by that income, or has been dependent on government assistance but will be or is no longer eligible for such assistance, or is supported as the parent of minor children by government assistance or other support.”

“Nontraditional career development center" means a community-based organization, local educational agency, postsecondary school, institution of higher learning or area vocational education school that provides the services specified in section four of this article for displaced homemakers and single parents.”

Applications

Applications for becoming “nontraditional career development centers” would have to be submitted and approved by the State Superintendent by July 1, 2008.

The State Superintendent either may approve or disapprove applications seeking state funding for nontraditional career development centers.

All applications must include “comprehensive classroom curriculum that will include a hands-on component, physical fitness component, job shadow component and a job placement component.”

In order for an application to be approved, the application must show that the proposed center will have a “comprehensive program specifically designed to result in high-skill, high-wage job placements for program participants.”

Additionally, the application must “include a statistical assessment of the service area and the service needs thereof. It shall also include evidence of proven experience and success in assisting displaced homemakers or single parents to achieve self-sufficiency as currently demonstrated by the center, and a demonstration of the center's fiscal support and stability.”

Job counseling services

Nontraditional career development centers would provide job counseling services that meet the following criteria. They must:

1. “Operate specifically for a person entering the job market after a number of years as a homemaker and include “life skills training and counseling to prepare displaced homemakers and single parents to enter and sustain training and employment”;
2. “Counsel” displaced homemakers and single parents with respect to appropriate job opportunities, focusing on high-skill, high-wage jobs leading to self-sufficiency;
3. Provide prevocational training and educational services including outreach and information about other programs which are determined to benefit displaced homemakers and single parents to achieve economic self-sufficiency;
4. Provide training-related support services, including “dependent care, transportation, tuition, books, equipment and tools”; and
5. Provide job search skills training to prepare displaced homemakers and single parents for writing resumes, completing job applications and participating in employment interviewing.”

Placement services

A  nontraditional career development center is to provide job training, educational and job placement services which include provision of information, direct training, referrals to institutions providing post-secondary education credits or other services designed to assist the individual to become economically self-sufficient, including basic education and bilingual programs “when appropriate.”  

These service centers must:

1. “ Develop, in collaboration with state and local government agencies and private employers, placement programs for jobs in the public and private sectors;
2. Provide financial assistance in the payment of expenses related to training and assisting displaced homemakers and single parents to gain admission to existing public and private job training programs and opportunities and to determine eligibility for financial aid; and
3. Assist in identifying community needs and creating new jobs in the public and private sectors.”

Additionally, a nontraditional career development would be required to provide:

1. “ Information about and referrals to appropriate health education sources;
2. Financial management services which provide referrals for information with respect to insurance, taxes, estate and probate problems, mortgage loans and other related financial matters; and
3. Outreach and information services with respect to federal and state employment, education, health and unemployment assistance programs which the superintendent determines would be beneficial to displaced homemakers and single parents.”

Financial assistance

In terms of funding, the priority for financial assistance (West Virginia Department of Education) is to go to nontraditional career development centers having received “state assistance during the fiscal year prior to the year of application.”

The State Superintendent would be required to file an report with the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Government and Finance which provides a “thorough assessment of each nontraditional career development center.”

There are other provisions.

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Guthrie. Introduced Jan. 14. Referred to the House Industry, Labor, Economic Development and Small Business Committee and then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4040%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

 

Public Employees Insurance Agency (PEIA)

 

Bill would eliminate PEIA Finance Board’s exemption from state purchasing laws

Senate Bill 254. Proposed revisions to §5-16-9 would allow state Department of Administration regulations to apply to any contracts for “any insurance coverage or professional services authorized to be executed (under provisions of §5-16 et. seq.).

Existing law states that Department of Administration Division of Purchasing rules “shall not apply to any contracts for any insurance coverage or professional services” as per §5-16 et. seq.

Thus, the Bill Notes states that the effect of the proposed statutory change, if enacted, would “eliminate PEIA’s exemption from purchasing laws.”

Sponsored by Sen. Ed Bowman, D-Hancock. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to the Senate Government Organization Committee and then the Senate Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb254%20intr.htm

There is a request for a Fiscal Note.

 

Teachers Retirement System (TRS)

Bill would reduce state income taxes for TRS, PERS Retirees, among others

House Bill 4037. Proposed revisions to §11-21-12 would reduce state income tax liability for Teachers Retirement System (TRS) and Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirees (among other retirees) by increasing the amount of retirement income received that is excluded from state personal income taxes. The amount would be increased from $2,000 to $20,000.

Bill provisions also would apply to some federal retirees.

The bill’s provisions would apply for applicable taxes filed after Dec. 31, 2008.

There are other provisions.

There are six House sponsors, including lead sponsor House Majority Leader Joe DeLong, D-Hancock. Introduced Jan. 11. Referred to the House Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb254%20intr.htm

Bill would provide one-time TRS supplements to persons reaching age 70

House Bill 4063. Proposed §18-7A-26u would provide a three percent supplement to Teachers Retirement System (TRS) annuitants when they reach age 70.

An identical benefit would be applied to Public Employees System Retirees (PERS) under terms of an amended §5-10-22j.

There are five House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Doug Stalnaker, D-Lewis. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Pensions and Retirement Committee then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4063%20intr.htm

A Fiscal Note has been requested.

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Bill makes technical changes in statutes relating to TRS; allows loans to be made 60 days after payment  of previous loan

Senate Bill 227. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to make several technical revisions in statutes relating to the Teachers Retirement System (TRS), including sections relating to “employer errors.”

The bill states that in case of “employer errors,” if  the error “results in any person receiving from the system more or less than he or she would have been entitled to receive had the records been correct, the board shall correct the error, and as far as is practicable shall adjust the payment of the benefit in a manner that the actuarial equivalent of the benefit to which the person was correctly entitled shall be paid.

“Any employer error resulting in an underpayment to the retirement system may be corrected by the employee remitting the required employee contribution and the participating public employer remitting the required employer contribution.

“Interest shall accumulate… and any accumulating interest owed on the employee and employer contributions resulting from the employer error shall be the responsibility of the participating public employer

“The participating public employer may remit total payment and the employee reimburses the participating public employer through payroll deduction over a period equivalent to the time period during which the employer error occurred.”  

A final bill provision would allow a TRS member, upon full payment of a loan, to “apply for a subsequent loan after (60) days beginning the first day of the month following receipt of the final payment.”

There are other provisions.

Sponsored by Sen. Dan Foster. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Pensions Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb227%20intr.htm

The companion bill is House Bill 4081. It is sponsored by Del. Sharon Spencer, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Pensions and Retirement Committee then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/HB4081%20intr.htm

A Fiscal Note has been requested.

 

 

Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)

 

Bill relates to Public Employees Retirement System “rollovers”

Senate Bill 226. Among other provisions, proposed changes to §5-10-27c would permit rollovers of any amount from PERS (currently less than $200,000).

Other proposed statutory revisions relate to transfer of PERS retroactive service credit from the State Police Death, Disability and Retirement Fund.

There are other provisions.

Sponsored by Sen. Foster. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Pensions Committee then the Senate Retirement Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb226%20intr.htm

The House companion bill is House Bill 4082. Sponsored by Del. Spencer. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Pensions and Retirement Committee then the House Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4082%20intr.htm

A Fiscal Note is requested.

 

EDUCATION-RELATED

Child Welfare

 

Measure would create “Uniform Maternal Screening Act”

Senate Bill 221. Proposed §61-4E-1 et. seq. would establish the “Uniform Maternal Screening Act.”

The purpose of the legislation is to develop a “more comprehensive and uniform approach to “any screening conducted by physicians and midwives to discover at-risk and high-risk pregnancies.

“ A uniform approach would simplify the process, standardize the procedure and better identify those pregnancies that need more in-depth care and monitoring.

“ Additionally, a uniform application would provide better and more measurable data regarding at-risk and high-risk pregnancies.

“This would allow public health officials to gain a better understanding of those conditions that are most frequently observed and to develop methodology to address those concerns.”

The above language is taken from the bill’s “Legislative Findings.”

To accomplish the bill’s purposes, an  Advisory Council on Maternal Risk Assessment would be established  within the Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Public Health (BPH), Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health.

The coordinating council would assist in developing a “uniform maternal risk screening tool.”

The BPH Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health would be charged with convening the advisory council at least annually and providing administrative and technical assistance to the advisory council as needed.

Members of the advisory council would be appointed by the Commissioner of the Bureau for Public Health.

Advisory council members would include:

1. “At least one private provider of maternity services;
2. At least one public provider of maternity services;
3. One representative from each of the state's three medical schools;
4. The Commissioner of the Bureau for Public Health, or his or her designee;
5. The Director of the Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health, or his or her designee;
6. At least one representative of a tertiary care center; and
7. At least one certified nurse midwife.”
   
   

These would be among  advisory council duties. To:

1. “Advise the Bureau for Public Health, Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health with   respect to the implementation of this article;
2. Offer expert advice to the Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health on the development of a uniform risk screening tool and review the tool at least annually to offer suggested updates based upon current medical knowledge;
3. Provided comments to the Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health on any legislative rules necessary for the accomplishment of the any requirements of this article;
4. Develop in conjunction with the Office of Maternal, Child and Family Health a statistical matrix to measure incidents of high-risk and at-risk pregnancies for planning purposes by public health officials.”

The DHHR would be responsible for proposing legislative rules which would include a uniform maternal screening tool to “identify women at risk for a preterm birth or other high-risk condition.”

The bill stipulates that, once developed, “all health care providers offering maternity services shall be required to utilize the uniform maternal risk screening tool in their examinations of any pregnant woman. Additionally they shall notify the woman of any high-risk condition which they identify along with any necessary referral and report the results in the manner provided in the legislative rule.”

Sponsored by Sen. Prezioso. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb221%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4052. There are nine House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Don Perdue, D-Wayne. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee then the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4052%20intr.htm

 

Maternal Mortality Review Team would be established to study causes of “maternal deaths”

Senate Bill 234. Proposed §48-25A-1 et. seq. would establish a Maternal Mortality Review Team which would operate under auspices of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

According to the Legislative Findings, “there is a need for a process to study the causes of maternal deaths. It has been found that comprehensive studies indicate that maternal mortalities are more extensive than first appears on death certificates. The Legislature finds that more extensive studies would enable a more fully developed plan to avoid these deaths in the future.”

The Maternal Mortality Review Team would be comprised of representatives of the state Bureau of Public Health, the director of the office of Vital Statistics, representatives of the state’s medical schools and  a representative of the state Medical Association and state Nurses Association, among other persons, as well as “any additional person that the chair of the team determines is needed on a particular case being considered.”

Members would be appointed by the governor and would serve three-year terms.

The Team would have several responsibilities, including development of its standard operating procedures as well as the protocols for “review of maternal mortalities.”

In order to accomplish these objectives, the Team would:

1. “Review all deaths of women who die during pregnancy, at the time of birth or within one year of the birth of a child;
2. Establish the trends, patterns and risk factors;
3. Provide statistical analysis regarding the causes of maternal fatalities in West Virginia; and
4. Promote public awareness of the incidence and causes of maternal fatalities, including recommendations for their reduction.”

The Maternal Fatality Review Team would submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature concerning its activities and the incidents of maternal fatalities within the state. It would be due December 1 of each year.

The report is to include statistics setting forth the number of maternal fatalities, identifiable trends in maternal fatalities in the state, including possible causes, if any, and recommendations to reduce the number of preventable maternal fatalities in the state. The report is to also include the number of mothers whose deaths have been determined to have been unexpected or unexplained.

The above activities would have to be taken in accordance with legislative rules.

Additionally, the Maternal Fatality Review Team would be prohibited from:

1. “Calling witnesses or taking testimony from individuals involved in the investigation of a maternal fatality;
2. Contacting a family member of the deceased mother, except if a member of the team is involved in the investigation of the death and must contact a family member in the course of performing his or her duties outside of the team; or
3. Enforcing  any public health standard or criminal law or otherwise participate in any legal proceeding, except if a member of the team is involved in the investigation of the death or resulting prosecution and must participate in a legal proceeding in the course of performing in his or her duties outside of the team.”

Proceedings, records and opinions of the Maternal Fatality Review Team would be confidential and would not be subject to “discovery, subpoena or introduction into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding…”

Additionally, members of the Maternal Fatality Review Team “may not be questioned in any civil or criminal proceeding regarding information presented in or opinions formed as a result of a meeting of the team.”

The bill finally states that nothing in its provisions would disallow or “prevent a member of the Maternal Mortality Review Team from testifying to information obtained independently of the team or which is public information.”

There are other provisions.

There are nine Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Prezioso. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb234%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4071. There are nine House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Perdue. Introduced Feb. 17. Referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee then the House Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4071%20intr.htm

 

Office of Oral Health would be established under Bureau of Public Health auspices

Senate Bill 235. Proposed revisions to §16-41-2, -3, -4, and -6 would be amended in order to establish the state Office for Oral Heath.

The Office would be staffed by a full time director who would be required to have at least three years' experience in health or management in a health care related setting. The director would employ any administrative or professional employees required for the “proper administration of the programs provided in this (proposed statute).”

The director would be required to appoint a consulting dentist licensed in this state and is to administer the program.

Responsibilities
The Director of the Office for Oral Health would be responsible for implementing and maintaining the Oral Health program to achieve existing statutory goals (such as consultation to provide for coordination of federal and state programs concerned with dental health; assisting local health departments and “boards of education in the implementation of a dental health component in their program plans”; and  providing programs aimed at preventing and detecting oral cancer in the state, among other goals) partly through the establishment of an advisory board that would be responsible for advising  the director in the “development of a comprehensive plan with designated benchmarks and responsible parties to improve the oral health of citizens in the state.”

Advisory Board
 The advisory board would be comprised of the Director of the Office for Oral Health. He or she would serve as the chairperson; a representative of the West Virginia Dental Association; the West Virginia Dental Hygienist Association; the West Virginia University Dental School; the  the West Virginia Primary Care Association;  the Free Clinics in West Virginia; a dentist and a dental hygienist working in private practice in the state; a pediatrician and family practice physician;  a representative of the Bureau of Medical Services; a representative of the(Childrens Health Insurance Program) and the Public Employee Insurance Program;  a representative of the Department of Education and “other representatives of state agencies and private sector entities who the director believes will bring a broad prevention perspective to the board.”

Oral health program design
The bill several additional provisions, including a section that would required the “design of oral health programs that assure children entering kindergarten, grade two and grade six have an oral health exam and appropriate preventative programs including recommendations for potential funding sources…”

In order to implement the program, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources would be responsible for transferring funds previously used in the BPH oral health program “unless specifically earmarked for the Division of Maternal and Child Health and from other programs within his or her control, to the special revenue account created in this section (for the oral health program and director).”

The bill contains additional provisions relating to funding, including grant procurement and a special account in the state Treasury.  

By December of each year, the commissioner of the Office for Oral Health would be responsible for submitting a report regarding the Commission’s findings to the governor, the Legislative Oversight Commission on Health and Human Resource Accountability and the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Government and Finance.

The report is to include “a summary of program accomplishments during the preceding year and the identification of existing barriers to proper oral health care in the state and recommendations addressing the removal of the barriers.”

There are other provisions.

There are six Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Prezioso. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Government Organization Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb235%20intr.htm

 

The House companion measure is House Bill 4074. There are six House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Perdue. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee then the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4074%20intr.htm

A Fiscal Note is requested.

 

Comprehensive Joint Parenting Act proposed

House Bill 4042.  Proposed §48-9A-101, -102, -103, -104, -105, and -106 would establish a Joint Parenting Act, relating to custody of children after divorce, including provisions addressing rebuttable presumptions concerning custody, parental relocation, and tax implications of divorce and child custody.

The bill states that, in cases of marital dissolution or unmarried parentage, it is the policy of this state that “both parents enjoy a rebuttable presumption of joint legal and physical custody of their children. Joint physical custody of the children is defined as equal time-sharing.”

The bill states that the “burden of overcoming the presumption rests on the parent challenging the presumption. The presumption may be overcome only by demonstrating an unfitness of the parent being challenged that would cause substantial harm to the children. The clear and convincing evidentiary standard shall be used in making a fitness determination.”

If both parents were residing in the home before filing for separation or divorce, any temporary orders issued would maintain an “equal time-share allocation” between both parents and their children, with both parents enjoying joint legal and physical custody of the children while any temporary order is in effect.

If both parents weren’t residing together before filing for custody, then any temporary orders are to include a “reasonable, specified time-table to establish an equal time-share allocation as soon as possible.”

Abuse allegations
The bill states that “simple allegations of substance, spousal or child abuse or neglect and any subsequent issuance of protective orders would not be sufficient to cause cessation or reduction of parent-child contact.”

Thus, only a “written finding of substantiated abuse would be sufficient to allow the court to deviate from an equal time-share arrangement and award custody to one parent.”  An allegation of abuse would be considered substantiated if affirmed using “the clear and convincing evidentiary standard.”

Courts could not limit parent-child contact during the “pendency of custody determinations absent compelling necessity to prevent substantial and imminent harm to the child.”

False abuse allegations
“Knowingly false” allegations of child or spousal abuse would become sufficient grounds to challenge “parental fitness of the accuser, with allegations raised in the context of divorce or custody proceedings (deserving) heightened scrutiny as to their veracity.”

Abuse allegations would be considered as “criminal complaints affording the accused all rights and due process of law available to those criminally accused.”

Parenting plan/mediator
A parenting plan would be required, reflecting  parental agreement on “matters of substance concerning the children's education, upbringing and religious training.”

If parents cannot agree on decisionmaking authority and responsibility as to the child’s welfare, they are to “submit to and abide by the decision of a preselected mediator.”

Parental fitness

Courts would have to follow strict statutory guidelines in order to determine “parental fitness,” including the “capacity and disposition of the parents to give the child love, affection, guidance and protection as well as to continue the academic and religious education of the child.”

Other factors include provision of food, clothing and medical care, parents’ mental and physical health and that of “other household members,” the “home, school and community behavior of the child,” and parents’ willingness to “demonstrate facilitation and encouragement of a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent”

Relocation
Relocation by either parent with the children “may only take place by joint agreement of both parents. In the absence of a joint relocation agreement, the burden of overcoming the presumption against relocation is on the relocating parent.”

The bill provides several procedures that must be followed in cases of relocation, including a revised parenting plan. These plans would be filed with the “court” having issued the custody order.

The bill has several provisions discussing how a parent would object to relocation. If parents cannot agree, a preselected mediator is to resolve the parenting plan differences. If he or she cannot, the court may issue a revised parenting plan by written findings, after an evidentiary hearing for which notice has been provided to both parents. The relocating parent would have the  burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing.

If the non-relocating parent “were not to file a notice of objection, the court may approve the relocation with the children.”

If relocating parent moves with the children before a signed, revised parenting plan is in place, they are guilty of contempt of court and subject to sanctions as determined by the court.

If uncontested, a court may approve the request upon written stipulation of both parties, without the requirement of a hearing.

In determining whether the relocating parent has overcome the presumption against relocation with the children, the court would consider several factors, including whether or not the “…child will lose substantial contact, joy and rearing with the non-relocating parent”; “whether or not the relocation with the children would improve the general quality of life for the children, giving primary consideration to the disruption, caused to the day-to-day relationship between the non-relocating parent and the children,” among other factors.

If  a parent “willfully prevents” the other parent from their share of time with the children, the court would be required, based on clear and convincing evidence, to hold the “violating parent in contempt of court and order the violating parent to give compensatory time to the other parent equivalent to the lost time…”

Remedies

The bill specifies several remedies for a parent who willfully prevents the other parent from sharing time with the children, including payment of attorney’s fees, fines, bonds to assure “future compliance with visitation rights,” etc.
The bill has several other sections, including provisions that would:

• Grant a court “subject matter jurisdiction” when the state intervenes to rescue the children. When the children are being cared for and under no substantial and imminent threat to their well-being, child support will not be ordered from either parent.
• Give law-enforcement officers the ability to enforce all court orders relating to parenting
• Determine joint custody financial responsibilities, including matters relating to income taxation

The 11-page bill has numerous other provisions.

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. John N. Ellem, R-Wood. Introduced Jan. 14. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4062%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Measure seeks to protect children from toxins in toys

House Bill 4084. Proposed §46A-6M-1 et. seq. would seek to protect the public from “phthalates, which are a class of chemicals used in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to improve flexibility and in cosmetics to bind fragrance to the product.”

“As phthalates are used in many products intended for use by young children, including, but not limited to, teethers, toys, soft plastic and books. It is the intent of the Legislature to ban these from endangering the citizens of West Virginia.”

The above statements are taken  from the bill’s Legislative Findings.

Under terms of the legislation, beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, “no person or entity may manufacturer, sell, or distribute in commerce any toy or child care article that contains di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP0, dibutylphthalate (DBT)), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent.”

The bill also states that, beginning Jan. 1, 2009, “no person or entity may manufacture, sell or distribute in commerce any toy or child care article intended for use by a child under three years of age if that product can be placed in the child's mouth and contains diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent.”

Other bill provisions state that “manufacturers are to use the least toxic alternative when replacing phthalates,” but that they cannot replace “phthalates… with carcinogens rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as A, B, or C, carcinogens, or substances listed as known or likely carcinogens, known to be human carcinogens or identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Additionally, manufacturers  could not replace phthalates “ with reproductive toxicants that cause birth defects, reproductive harm, or developmental harm as identified by the (EPA).”

There are several other bill provisions.

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Bonnie Brown, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4084%20intr.htm

 

Insurance carriers would have to “cover” autism

House Bill 4091. Proposed §33-15-22 would require insurers to “provide…full coverage for the prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder, regardless of whether such prevention, early detection, diagnosis or treatment methods are research based or experimental.”

Additionally, insurance policies would have to “…provide full in-state or in-network coverage for the prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder even if the individual is unable to receive a service, or treatment, within the State of West Virginia and must receive this service or treatment from an out-of-state provider.”

The bill defines autism as “…a neurobiological condition that includes Autism, Asperger syndrome, Retts syndrome, or Pervasive Development Disorder.”

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Ralph Rodighiero, D-Logan. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to the House Banking and Insurance Committee then the House Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4091%20intr.htm

 

 

Crimes

 

Bill seeks to protect computer owners from computer spyware

House Bill 4053. Proposed §61-3C-4a, -b, -c, and –d would seek to protect consumers from unsolicited electronic mails and perhaps “fraudulent orders from unsolicited pop-up electronic mail.”

Under terms of the legislation, it would be illegal for persons to transmit computer software for the purpose of modifying settings, collecting personal information by deceptive means or preventing reasonable efforts to protect a computer to access a computer.

The proposal also would make it a crime to transmit software to control in such a way as to cause damage or opening multiple pop-up windows as well as transmitting software for the purpose of modifying settings that protect personal information.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would make it unlawful to transmit software for the purpose of blocking reasonable efforts to block or disable computer software.

There are several other provisions.

There are 10 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Bill Proudfoot, D-Randolph. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4053%20intr.htm

 

Video image-monitoring would be permitted during Amber Alerts

House Bill 4075. Proposed §15-3A-2 would use of video recording device monitoring systems during Amber Alert periods.

The bill would require the Secretary of Military Affairs and Public Safety to develop plans to implement the video monitoring systems.

The bill includes several definitions, stating that video monitoring systems “yet another set of eyes to assist law enforcement and aid in the safe recovery of an (abducted or missing child)…”

There are seven House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. DeLong. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4075%20intr.htm

 

Elections

 

Judges would be elected on a nonpartisan basis

Senate Bill 218. Proposed §3-5-6a, -6b and proposed revisions to §3-5-7, -13 and -13a would require the election of all state Supreme Court Justices and all state circuit judges on a nonpartisan basis.

Sponsored by Sen. Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 15. Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in a previous legislative session or sessions.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb218%20intr.htm

 

 

Judicial

 

Bill would increase jurisdictional limit for filing suits in circuit court.

Senate Bill 318. Proposed revisions to §51-2-2 would increase the monetary limit required to file a suit in circuit court from $300 to $1,000.

Sponsored by Sen. Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb238%20intr.htm

 

 

Taxation

 

Seniors’ Tax Deferment Plan Introduced

Senate Bill 239.  Proposed §11-6I-1, et. seq. would establish the Senior Citizen Property Tax Payment Deferment Plan which would allow deferment of property taxes, including creation of a lien on property for which the deferment would be approved.

The bill has numerous other provisions.

Generally speaking, it would apply to persons age 65 and older.

Sponsored by Sens. Tomblin and Caruth. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb239%20intr.htm

The House companion bill is House Bill 4061. It is sponsored by Dels. Thompson and Armstead. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the House Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4061%20intr.htm

The bills were introduced at the request of the governor.

Fiscal Notes have been requested.

Cap would be placed on property tax assessment increases

Senate Bill 246. Proposed revisions to §11-1C-9 would limit property tax valuation to not more than a 10 percent increase in assessments.

Sponsored by Sens. John Yoder, R-Jefferson, and Clark Barnes, R-Randolph. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to the Senate Education Committee and then the Senate Finance Committee.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb246%20intr.htm

A Fiscal Note has been requested.

Bill would develop methodology for aircraft tax valuation

Senate Bill 265. Proposed §11-6H-1 et. seq. would develop a means to determine tax valuation of all aircraft owned/leased by commercial airlines, charter carriers, private carriers, private companies or private firms.

There are several provisions.

Sponsored by Sens. Tomblin and Caruth. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to the Senate Economic Development  Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb265%20intr.htm

The bill was introduced at the request of the governor.

A Fiscal Note has been requested.

Tax credit would be available for new teachers teaching in critical needs areas

Senate Bill 269. Proposed §11-13Y-1 and revised §18-2-5 would authorize a tax credit for new teachers in critical needs areas. It requires the state Board of Education to determine standards defining "critical needs areas" in both subject areas and geographic areas. The tax credit for the first three years of employment in these critical areas would equal the teachers' liability for personal income taxes. If the teacher continues to teach in a critical needs area for another five years, the tax credit is equal to 50 percent of the tax liability.

Sponsored by Sen. Jon Blair Hunter, D-Monongalia. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to the Senate Education Committee then the Senate Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb269%20intr.htm

 

The House companion measure is House Bill 4015. There are nine House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Larry A. Williams, D-Preston. Introduced Jan.  10. Referred to the House Finance Committee.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4015%20intr.htm

 

Briefly...

 

Senate Bill 216 – House Bill 4041 is the companion measure – would provide an equitable way to tax natural gas and coalbed methane, dedicating some of the funds to the state’s Infrastructure Fund. There are several other provisions. The bills were introduced on behalf of the governor...Senate Bill 219 would allow counties to collect additional fees (impact fees), using the moneys for county infrastructure development…Senate Bill 236 would eliminate obsolete language relating to the role of circuit clerks in  elections…Senate Bill 238 would repeal a section of Code relating to a requirement that circuit clerks file annual reports of expenditures for assistants, deputies and employees…Senate Bill 240 and House Bill 4050 would create the state Public Campaign Financing Act, providing alternate campaign financing options for state Senate and House of Delegates candidates. There are numerous provisions…Senate Bill 241 would, among other things, require consumers to be notified of a breach of information security maintained by data collectors...Senate Bill 243 would clarify the fees to be assessed by circuit clerks, increasing the amount circuit clerks would be allowed to charge for copies and for preparing appeals…Senate Bill 247 would require the state to divest moneys (state moneys) from companies that do business in countries that “sponsor or promote terrorist activities”,,,

Senate Bill 248 would disallow West Virginia to participate in the REAL ID Act of 2005 as enacted by the U.S. Congress in Public Law 109-13…Senate Bill 249 would provide a housing allowance to members of the State Police…Senate Bill 250, a similar bill, would compensate state troopers for off-duty work time when they are required to be on standby to be called back to work…Senate Bill 264 would authorize state agencies to condition compensation paid to employees for job-related training, education or professional development on continued employment with the state agency…Senate Bill 267 would provide retention salary increases for Division of Corrections and the Division of Juvenile Services employees…House Bill 4054 would address “illegal immigration” in West Virginia. There are numerous bill provisions…House Bill 4058 would require group insurance companies and third party administrators to furnish claims experience to policyholders…House Bill 4060 would extend the deadline for submission of the written plan for participation in the pilot program for increased powers for municipal governments…House Bill 4070 would change the closing hours of private clubs from 3:00 a.m. or 3:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. There is a companion Senate Bill…House Bill 4076 would increase compensation of legislators in terms of extra compensation and expenses for additional duties inherent to the positions…House Bill 4077 would allow municipalities to file liens for delinquent service fees. It also requires municipal ordinances to have assessment and collection procedures for the service fees House Bill 4083 would phase-in requirements for electric providers to add renewable energy systems to “help protect and sustain the environment…”

…House Bill 4080 would make a change in the calculation of farm equipment dealers’ inventory to an average monthly basis rather than the inventory as of July 1 of each year…House Bill 4089 would redistrict the House of Delegates into 100 single member districts after the 2010 Census…House Bill 4090 would clarify the fiscal responsibility and authority of county commissions over their budgets and expenditures, particularly in regard to salaries of department heads and elected county officials. (This information is taken from the Bill Note.)

         

The Legislature is published by the West Virginia School Boards Association. It provides county board of education members, state policymakers, school administrators and the education community information and opinions regarding West Virginia legislative issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect official opinion or policies of the WVSBA, unless specifically stated.

West Virginia School Boards Association
PO Box 1008
Charleston, WV 25324
Phone (304) 346-0571 • Fax (304) 346-0572 WVSBA.ORG

Sally Cann (Harrison), President
WhoCann5@cs.com

Howard M. O’Cull, Ed. D., Executive Director, Editor
hocull@wvsba.org

Shirley M. Davidson, Administrative Assistant,
Production and Circulation
sdavidson@wvsba.org

Vincit omnia veritas
“Truth conquers all”