Second Week's 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. 16-20, 2006 during the first full week of the Second Regular Session of the 77th West Virginia Legislature.

(This listing does not include House Carryover Bills pertaining to public education. These will be included in a separate issue of The 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 51 bills/resolutions 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: www.legis.state.wv.us.

Editor’s Note: Listing is not exhaustive.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

County Boards

 

 

Sheriff deputies’/city police electioneering rights clarified
Senate Bill 159. Proposed amendments to §7-14-15 (relates to Civil Service for deputy sheriffs) and §8-14-19 would prohibit deputy sheriffs and municipal police officers from being candidates for or holding public office in the county/municipality where they are 

These individuals also would be prohibited from soliciting political contributions or donations from members or employees of the county or municipality.

The bill provides a misdemeanor for those convicted of violating the statutes.

There are other provisions.

Sponsored by Sen. Evan Jenkins, D-Cabell. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.   http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_
HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb159%20intr.htm

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

 

Bill concerns disclosure of job-related information

Senate Bill 186. Proposed §55-7-18A would make employers immune from liability when they or an agent “(disclose) job-related information about a former or current employee to a prospective employer of the former or current employee...unless lack of good faith is shown by clear and convidence…”

Under terms of the proposed statute, “the presumption of good faith is rebutted upon a showing that the information disclosed by the former employer (or agent) was knowingly false, disclosed with reckless regard the  truth, deliberately misleading, was rendered with malicious purpose of the former or current employee, or was disclosed in violation of a nondisclosure agreement or applicable law.”

House Bill 4043 is a related measure, varying in stylistic format and defining “job-related information” as referring to a “person’s education, training, experience, qualifications, conduct and job performance (used) for the purpose of evaluating the person for employment.”

Senate Bill 186 is sponsored by Sen. Jenkins. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. 
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_
SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb186%20intr.htm

House Bill 4043 is sponsored by Del. John Amores, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to House Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_
SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4043%20intr.htm

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

Student dress codes would be required; effective FY09

Senate Bill 187. Proposed revisions to §18-2-25 would require the state Board of Education to develop a “rule” that requires county boards to “develop an implementation plan for a dress code that requires students to wear a school uniform.”

The provision would be effective in the 2008-2009 school year.

In order to implement the proposed statute, the county board could “create” an advisory committee comprised of parents, school employees and students.”

The advisory group would be responsible for considering whether the county board should adopt “different school uniforms for students in different schools within the district.”

The advisory committee also could “…make recommendations on alternative methods of paying for the school uniforms.”

The bill has a final section saying that its implementation cannot be construed to “(require) any level of funding by the Legislature, (county boards) or any other agency of government.”

Sponsored by Sen. H. Truman Chafin, D-Mingo. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Education. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_
SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb187%20intr.htm

Editor’s Note: Similar legislation, although with more extensive provisions, was considered by House Education last year. The matter was reviewed by a 2004 interim committee.

The House legislation died in the Senate.

Similar proposals have/introduced considered in previous legislative sessions.

 

Bill allows schools to receive surplus state computers

House Bill 4038. Proposed §5A-6-9 would allow state agencies to donate and transfer personal computers and other information systems, technology and equipment four-years-old and older after first notifying the Chief Technology Officer’s Office.

The CTO’s office is required to “examine the personal computers and other information systems, technology and equipment to determine whether they meet the minimum criteria for use in the public school system as he or she shall establish in consultation with the public school system.”

If The CTO’s office determines that the computer and/or related equipment “meets the minimum criteria for use in the public school system, he or she shall identify the commodity to the State Agency for Surplus Property and the (state) Department of Education.”

The State Agency for Surplus Property, prior to making “any other determination  or disposition of the commodities identified by the (CTO) shall reserve the commodities for a reasonable time (not less than 30 days) for donation and transfer to county boards…in accordance with a fair and equitable distribution method established by (the WVDE).”

Accordingly, the State Agency for  Surplus Property would be permitted to assess fees related to the costs of the costs of the care, handling and distribution related to the transfer.”

 

WVDE notification

Under terms of the bill, the WVDE would be responsible for notifying county boards regarding the availability of the personal computers and related equipment that has met the CTO’s minimum criteria for use in the public schools.

A final bill provision would allow county boards to donate obsolete hardware and equipment that is being replaced through the state Basic Skills and SUCCESS Programs to public school students, subject to WVBE rules and regulations.

The stipulations include removal of “confidential information…,” provisions for determining student financial need and eligibility, methods for providing parental notification regarding availability of the obsolete computer equipment, and a reporting system for the compilation of information concerning the number “and socioeconomic characteristics of recipient students.”

The WVBE or county boards would not be responsible for servicing the donated computers or software.

There are 10 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Tom Campbell, D-Greenbrier, who serves as House Education Chairman. Originating in House Education Jan. 17. Note: This legislation has passed the House of Delegates on Jan. 20. 
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_
SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4038%20intr.htm

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

 

Measure requires school closure/consolidation vote

House Bill 4040. Proposed revisions to §18-5-13a would require a county-wide vote on any school closure or consolidation that affects schools containing any grade levels 8 or below “with an average of (13) or more students per grade level” when the school involves the “construction of a new school building or the addition of two or more classrooms to an existing school building.”

The above provision would become operative if a petition were filed within 60 days following the public hearings outlined in statute for school closure and school consolidations, and if the subsequent vote were ratified by a simple majority of voters voting in the election.

According to a separate bill provision, the petition required to trigger the county-wide election referred to above must be signed by a minimum of 20 percent of the registered voters in the county.

Provisions would not apply to school closures/consolidations approved by the county board prior to the bill’s effective date or to closures and consolidations resulting from emergencies such as fire or flood, or to closures and consolidations included through the passage of a school facilities bond or excess levy that specifically calls for construction of a new school or addition of 2 or more classrooms or school closures and consolidations.

Within five days of receiving the signed petitions, the circuit clerk is to notify the county board in writing that a petition “objecting to the closure of the school in question has been received.”

 

Circuit clerks

The circuit clerk would have 30 days in which to “verify whether or not the petition has been signed by the requisite percentage of the registered voters of the county.”

The circuit clerk then must apprise the county board in writing of this information within 5 days of the tabulation as to whether or not the “petition is sufficient to mandate an election before the school may be closed.”

Note: This bill does not specify “when” or within how many days the county board has in which to schedule the election.

There are 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Larry A. Williams, D-Preston, who serves as House Education Vice Chairman.

Note: This bill, which originated in House Education Jan. 17, was approved by the House Jan. 19. It has been referred to Senate Education, then Senate Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4040%20eng.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced in previous legislative sessions.

 

Bill relates to eminent domain

House Bill 4045. This legislation would prohibit the state or its political subdivisions from exercising eminent domain in order to “advantage” one private property owner over another.

There are 5 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Mary Poling, D-Barbour. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to House Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4045%20intr.htm

NOTE: House Bill 4048, a related measure, passed the House Jan. 19. It has been referred to Senate Economic Development, then Senate Government Organization, then Senate Judiciary (triple reference).

The bill has a proposed section that would disallow eminent domain from being used for “private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development, or for enhancement of tax revenue; or…to purchase property for a purpose that results in a transfer in fee of the property to a person, nongovernmental entity, corporation or other business entity to fulfill the purpose of the use of eminent domain.”

Another bill provision states that “property condemned by use of eminent domain if not used for the purpose or purposes for which it was condemned or for some other public use by the condemning party or its successor or assign within ten years, shall be offered by the condemning party or its successor or assign for resale to the person or persons from whom the property was condemned, who shall have the right to purchase the property at the price originally paid for the property…”

The above right would expire within 90 days after receipt of the notice of the right to purchase the property, as stipulated above. 

A final bill provision states that the proposed statutory provisions “would not apply to the use of  eminent domain to acquire contiguous properties for the purpose of construction of a road, utility service, or other similar use that requires acquiring contiguous properties or rights of ways to those properties to connect the infrastructure being provided, but does include the acquisition by eminent domain of any property that is not essential to providing that road or service.”

The bill amends current sections of law relating to “internal improvement,” which would be narrowed to various utilities, water lines, public transportation and the like.

House Bill 4048 has 11 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Kevin Craig, D-Cabell. The bill originated in House Judiciary Jan. 18. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4048%20intr.htm

Also refer to several other similar bills included in the Jan. 16 issue of The Legislature. Additionally, refer to Senate Joint Resolution 8. If placed before voters, it would amend the state Constitution to prohibit the taking of private property for public use by amending §Article 3, §9 of the State Constitution.

There are 22 Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. John Yoder, R-Jefferson. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to Senate Judiciary, then Senate Finance.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sjr8%20intr.htm

 

 Board members could not act in an “individual capacity”

House Bill 4062. Proposed revisions to §18-5-4 would prohibit county board members, except as “expressly authorized by law,” from operating in an “individual capacity separate from the setting of a county board of education convened for the transaction of business.”

Additionally, the county board member, if acting individually, would be prohibited from “(making) obligations on behalf of the board, (from committing) the board’s funds (from utilizing) the board’s property, employees or services without prior knowledge and consent of the board.”

Members, if acting individually, would be prohibited from “administer(ing) the school system, (hiring) board employees, (supervising) or (evaluating) the board’s employees or students, (disregarding) the policies of the board or rules of schools or (attempting) to exercise any other authority relating to the county schools or school board outside the scope of authority expressly provided by statute.”

If violating its statutory provisions, members may be charged with malfeasance and would be subject to removal from office.

 

Pecuniary interest

The bill has an additional section saying that “when a question is put  to a vote of the board, any member having a direct personal or pecuniary interest…shall announce this fact and request to be excused from voting…”

“The member may be excused from voting if in the opinion of the presiding chair the disqualifying interest affects the member directly and not as one of a class.”

Sponsored by Del. David Perry, D-Fayette. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to House Education, then House Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4062%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced in previous legislative sessions.

 

School Employees

Bill would establish school employee transfer guidelines

House Bill 4064. Proposed revisions to §18A-2-7 would define the term “transfer,” as used in this section, to mean the following:

1. The assignment of the teacher to a different school;
2. The assignment of the teacher to teach one or more classes in a certification area not  used by the teacher in the teacher’s present assignment; or
3. The assignment of an elementary grade classroom teacher to teach a different grade level than the teacher’s present assignment or to a split grade.

According to the Bill Note, the legislation will provide a “degree of certainty to education employer/employee relations by defining when classroom teachers are transferred so that school administrators know when to implement the (transfer notice provisions).”

The Bill Note says the proposed legislation is consistent with cases decided by the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board.

Sponsored by Del. Perry. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to House Education, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4064%20intr.htm

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

 

School Funding

Bill would cap local share at 2002 charge back rate

House Bill 4025. Proposed revisions to §18-9A-11 would set and cap the School Aid Formula local share charge back at the 2002 rate.
“
According to the Bill Note, this approach would allow county boards to  “receive and keep  (100 percent) of the growth in their local levies after 2002 with no reduction in their basic foundation allowances from the state (SAF).”

Sponsored by Del. Charles Trump. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to House Education, then  House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4025%20intr.htm

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

 

Higher Education

Fees could be increased based on student course loads

Senate Bill 176.  Proposed revisions to §18B-10-1 would allow higher education institutions to increase the fees of undergraduate students taking more than 16 hours in a regular term “pro rata based upon 1/12th of the full-time rate per credit hour.”

Graduate students’ fees also could be increased if the student is taking more than 9 hours. The increased would be based “pro rate…upon 1/9th of the full-time rate per credit hour.”

Sponsored by Sen. Frank Deem, R-Wood. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Education, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb176%20intr.htm

 

Public Employees Insurance Agency             

PEIA would provide acupuncture coverage

Senate Bill 190. Revisions to §5-16-7 and proposed §33-16-3s, §33-24-7i, §33-25-8g and  §33-25-8h would require health insurance policies, including those issued by the Public Employees Insurance Agency, to cover acupuncture treatments performed by a licensed acupuncturist. The “Chapter 33” designations apply to private insurance providers, including Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs).

Sponsored by Sen. Shirley Love, D-Fayette. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Banking and Insurance, then Senate Finance.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb190%20intr.htm

NOTE: This legislation appears identical to Senate Bill 104, which has Sens. Love and John Pat Fanning, D-McDowell as its sponsors. It was reviewed in the Jan. 16 issue of The Legislature. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb104%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in past legislative sessions.

 

Teachers Retirement System

1-time supplements would be given to TRS retirees

Senate Bill 225. Proposed revisions to §18-7A-26t would provide a one-time $500 supplement to Teachers Retirement System (TRS) retirees who have been “in retirement” for 10 years.

The bill has a second provision saying a $400 supplement is to be provided to TRS retirees having been retired from 5 but less than10 years.

The supplement would not be subject to state income taxes.

There are six Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Ed Bowman, D-Hancock. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to Senate Pensions, then Senate Finance Committee. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb225%20intr.htm

NOTE: Sen. Jon Blair Hunter, D-Monongalia, has introduced legislation that would provide teachers a Cost of Living Adjustment. The bill is  Senate Bill 93. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb93%20intr.htm

Similar proposals have been introduced/considered in past legislative sessions.

 

Education-Related

Abortion

Law would ban taking minors across state lines for abortion

Senate Bill 189. Proposed §61-2-8a would make it illegal (misdemeanor) to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, without the written consent of both parents of the minor’s legal guardians.

Sponsored by Sens. Love and Clark Barnes, R-Randolph. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Health and Human Resources, then Senate Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb189%20intr.htm

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

 

Crimes

 

Bill addresses assault, battery of some public employees

Senate Bill 197. Proposed §61-2-15b would enact a statute addressing violence against public employees.

The bill’s provisions apparently would affect only public employees not covered by  §61-2-15 (school employees) and §61-2-15a (athletic officials) as well as §61-2-10b  (police officers, conservation officers, probation officers, humane officers et. al.) while the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment in terms of assault and battery.

Persons convicted of the crimes would be guilty of misdemeanors, fined from $50-$100 and up to six months in jail for an assault and from $100-$500 for battery, along with up to a year in jail

Sponsored by Sen. Joe Minard, D-Harrison. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb197%20intr.htm

 

Measures relate to sex offenders; includes governor’s bill

Senate Bill 205. This proposed legislation would amend several sections of law, including §15-12-2, §15-12-3, §15-12-5, §15-12-8, §15-12-10, §61-8B-3 and §61-8B-7. New sections would include §15-12-6a and §15-12-11, along with §18A-3-12 and §61-12-27.

These are among bill provisions:

• Registered sex offenders must register at the State Police Detachment in the county of his residence, place of employment, occupation, and school and/or training facility which he or she attends.
• A post office box would not be considered a valid physical residential address.
• The individual would have to register any vehicle, trailer or motor home, including specific information regarding make, model, color, license plate and VIN number.
• The individual would have to provide any telephone or electronic paging numbers that he or she uses, including residential, work and mobile telephone numbers.
• The individual would have to notify authorities about changes in registration information, including vehicle-related information.

School board notification

• Within 5 days of receiving any sex offender notification, the State Police are to relay this information to various officials, including county schools superintendents, the Child Protective Services office located within the county (or charged with investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect in the county where the registrant resides, is employed or attends school or a training facility.”
• Other entities that are to receive notification include community organizations or religious organizations which “regularly provide services to youths in the county…”
• Day care centers also are to receive the notification.
• The FBI also is to receive the notification.
• The sex offender registration information is not subject to the state’s Freedom of Information Act, and may be disclosed.
• When a person is determined to be a “sexually violent predator,” the State Police are to notify the county prosecuting attorney of the individual’s whereabouts.
• The prosecuting attorney then is to conduct a “community notification program which is to include publication of the offender’s name, photograph, place of residence, employment and education or training, as well as information concerning the legal rights and obligations of both the offender and community.”
• Those individuals required to register as sex offenders, under terms of the statute, and who provide false information could be both fined and sentenced to jail, with second  and third offenses constituting a felonies, including both fines and imprisonment of up to 25 years.
• Persons who avoid registration face a 1-5 year jail sentence, with second and third offenses constituting felonies.

Parole, probation

• Persons under parole supervision, if failing to register, would forfeit their parole or probation status and “returned to confinement for the remainder of any suspended or “unserved” portion of his or her original sentence.”
• Persons who “know” that a sexual offender is required to register but who may assist the sexual offender in avoiding registration or withhold information about the sex offender to law enforcement officials, including the whereabouts of the sexual offender, or who provide false information to law enforcement officials could be fined and receive up to a one-year jail sentence.
• The bill has a proposed provision, §18A-3-12 which would require county boards to “check against the state’s (Central Abuse Registry), and the U.S. Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Registry, prior to permitting school service personnel, contractors or service providers direct contact with students or access to school grounds when students are present (in regard to the) name and address of such school service personnel, contractors or service providers.”
• Under terms of the proposed legislation, “contractor and service provider shall include any vendor, individual or entity under contract with a county board.”

Current school service personnel

• Current school service personnel, contractors or service providers would have to have their “names and addresses checked against the (Central Abuse Registry) within a reasonable time from (the bill’s effective date).”
• Fines for sexual abuse are increased
• Individuals convicted of sexually violent offenses could be subject to supervised release for life and subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of their supervised release.

There are several other provisions.

Sponsored by Sens. Earl Ray Tomblin, D-Logan, and Vic Sprouse, R-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 18. Referred to Senate Judiciary . http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb205%20intr.htm

The companion House Bill is House Bill 4039. It is sponsored by Speaker Bob Kiss, D-Raleigh, and Trump. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLn S/hb4039%20intr.htm

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

 

Violent sexual predators have to wear GPS monitors

House Bill 4029. Proposed revisions to §15-12-2 would require sex offenders to wear Global Positioning Monitors when released on probation, parole or to community programs.

Violent sexual predators would have to wear the devices for life in order to be released from confinement or commitment.

The State Police would be required to establish a Global Positioning Monitoring System for registered sexual offenders. The legislation calls for appropriation of funds for such in the State Police’s budget.

This proposed legislation would require “re-registering” of sexual offenders. The registration would be with the State Police.

In re-registering, information regarding the predator and changes in his or her address, employment, school enrollment  and similar data.

No one required to re-register under terms of the legislation could be released on probation or parole unless agreeing to wear a GPS device. Violent sexual predators would have to agree to wear the GPS for his or her lifetime in order to receive probation or parole from prison.

According to the legislation, such a requirement will “insure the security, safety and peace of mind of the citizens of the state.”

There are other provisions.

There are five House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Cindy Frich, R-Monongalia. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Judiciary, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4029%20intr.htm

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

 

Bill would bar sex offenders from living near schools

House Bill 4050. Proposed revisions to §15-12-10 would disallow a sex offender from establishing a residence or from accepting employment within 2,000 feet of  “the property on which any school or child care facility is located.”

Additional bill provisions would prohibit convicted sex offenders of establishing residences “or any other living accommodation: within 1,000 feet of the property on which any of his or her former victims, or the victims’ immediate family members reside.

Adult criminal sex offenders also could not establish a residence or “any other living accommodation where a minor resides.”

Adult sex offenders, however, could live with a minor unless his or her parental rights have been terminated “or are in the process of being terminated,” or if a minor with whom the sexual predator would be presiding was the victim of the sex offender or residing with the adult sex offender at the “time of the offense…committed by the adult criminal sex offender.”

(The above provisions apply to adult sex offenders who are the parents, grandparents, or stepparents of the minor.)

Additional bill provisions prohibit sex offenders from coming within 1,000 of their former victims or from making any “visual or audible sexually suggestive or obscene gesture, sound or communication to the former victim.”

There are various fines for those who would be convicted of violating the statute, which would be considered felonies.

There are 10 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Speaker Kiss. Introduced Jan. 19. Referred to House Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4050%20intr.htm

 

Sex offenders would have to provide specific addresses

House Bill 4067. Proposed revisions to §15-12-5 would require the State Police to include the specific addresses of registered sex offenders when  releasing the names of sex offenders to the public.

There are three House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Frich. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to House Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4067%20intr.htm

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

 

Minors would not be able to use cell phones when driving

Senate Bill 219.  Proposed §17B-2-3b and proposed amendments to §17B-3-6 would prohibit minors from using wireless communications devices, including mobile telephones, while driving under an instructional permit or provisional license.

There are five Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha. Introduced Jan. 19. Referred to Senate Transportation and Infrastructure, then Senate Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb219%20intr.htm

 

 

Consolidated Retirement Board

 

Retirement board could assess delinquency fees

Senate Bill 172. Proposed amendments to §5-10D-1 would permit the state’s Consolidated Public Retirement Board to assess a delinquency surcharge against employers who fail to pay retirement collections in a timely manner.

The delinquency surcharges would be equal to approximately the interest or earnings lost as a result of the late payment(s).

There are six Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Foster. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Pensions, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb172%20intr.htm

The companion measure is House Bill 4032. There are seven House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Doug Stalnaker, D-Lewis. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Pensions and Retirement, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4032%20intr.htm

 

Elections

Bill relates to counting of absentee vote ballots

Senate Bill 171. Proposed revisions to §3-1A-6 would permit counties using non-electronic voting machines to begin counting absentee ballots beginning at 9 a.m. on  Election Day.

Results, however, could not be released prior to closing of the polls.

Sponsored by Sens. Michael Oliverio, D-Monongalia, and Hunter. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Judiciary.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb171%20intr.htm

 

Office holders’ pre-election grant handouts may be nixed

Senate Bill 226.  A proposed amendment to §3-8-12 would prohibit any elected official or individual, acting on behalf of an elected official, from personally distributing, handing out, or “otherwise dispens(ing) publicly any state or federal public moneys and appropriation grants, including state grants and economic development funds, to any individual, corporation, organization, or entity within (90) days of an election in which the elected official is a candidate.”

Sponsored by Sen. Barnes. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to Senate Judiciary, then Senate Finance.  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb226%20intr.htm

 

Volunteer election observers could be deployed; training

House Bill 4054. Proposed §3-6-13 would allow the Secretary of State to appoint, train and pay the expenses of teams of volunteer election observers who could be deployed in the Primary and General Elections as well as special elections.

Teams could have no more than 2 or 3 members, with no more than 2 of the members being from the same political party.
Before being deployed, team members would have to receive training.

Teams would have “access to observe all county and municipal election activities in the vote counting centers on the day of the election from the time the polls open until the unofficial returns are posted.”

Volunteer observers could not serve in their county of residence or in a contiguous county, and the bill contains some restrictions regarding volunteers from having family affiliations with candidates, employees of candidates or the candidate’s campaign committee.

Additionally, the bill has a section that would prohibit out-of-state individuals to serve as election volunteers. 

Sponsored by Del. Amores. Introduced Jan. 19. Referred to House Judiciary, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4054%20intr.htm

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

 

Governmental Entities

 

Community Corrections group would meet quarterly

Senate Bill 155. Proposed revisions to §62-11C-2 would require the Community Corrections Subcommittee (Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency, and Correction) to meet quarterly.

The measure also seeks to increase revenue for the West Virginia Community Corrections Fund. (These moneys are collected by persons on probation.)

There are other provisions.

Sponsored by Sens. Tomblin and Sprouse (at the request of the governor). Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb155%20intr.htm

The House companion is House Bill 4018 .http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4018%20intr.htm
Purchasing specs would include product ‘expected life’

Senate Bill 156. Proposed §5A-3-5 would add the “expected life of (a) product or commodity” as a factor in standard state purchasing contracts.

Under terms of the proposal, the state Purchasing Division could exempt items, commodities or products from the proposed statutory requirement “if it is considered necessary and advisable.”

Sponsored by Sen. Russ Weeks, D-Raleigh. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Government Organization, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb156%20intr.htm

 

Bill would revise state purchasing procedures

Senate Bill 182. This measure would amend several Code sections dealing with state purchasing and would add 7 new sections.

These are among bill provisions:

1. The threshold for competitive bids would be raised from $10,000 to $25,000. “Stringing” would be prohibited.
2. Spending units which award multiple contracts for “the same or similar commodity or service to an individual vendor over any (12-month) period, the total of which exceeds ($25,000), shall file copies of all contracts awarded to the vendor within the (12) preceding months with the director, along with a statement explaining how the multiple bids do not circumvent the ($25,000) threshold.”
3. The Purchasing Director would be empowered to “conduct a review of any spending unit to ensure compliance…,” issuing a report summarizing his or her findings and forwarding the report to the affected spending unit.
4. Bids could be procured through electronic format or transmission.
5. Vendors who owe Workers Compensation debts would be prohibited from bidding, unless in the process of contesting any fines or apportionments.
6. The legislation would authorize “best value procurement,” meaning that “best value awards” could be made on the basis of “…price, the total cost of acquiring, operating, maintaining and supporting a commodity or service over its projected lifetime, the evaluated technical merit of the bidder’s bid or proposal, the bidder’s past performance, and the evaluated probability of performing the requirements stated in the solicitation on time, with high quality, and in a manner that accomplishes the business objectives…in the solicitation.”
7. The award would have to be made to the “highest scoring responsive and responsible bidder whose bid is determined, in writing, to be most advantageous to the state…”

‘Sole procurement’

8. “Sole procurement” would be permitted. Under terms of the bill, the Purchasing Division Director could award a contract without advertisement or competition if he or she determines there is only “one source for the required commodity or service.” In order to award such contracts, however, written documentation would be required, detailing the basis for such judgment.
9. “Special purchases” would be allowed. These are defined as purchases which the Division of Purchasing can initiate “with prior public notice…(in cases where it is determined that) an unusual circumstance or situation exists that makes the application of all requirements of competitive sealed bidding, competitive sealed proposals or competitive bidding contrary to the public interest…”
10. Prior to making “special purchases,” various forms of written notification are required.
11. If a bid exceeds available funds, the Purchasing Division can initiate “negotiations,” including best “final offers” from responsible bidders, including bidders’ submissions of revised proposals. Information concerning other bidders’ proposals, however, could not be divulged.

‘Multiple vendor awards’

12. Multiple vendor awards would be permitted if, at the time of purchase, these awards would be the “most practical and economical alternative and (are) in the best interests of the state.”
13. If determined to be in the best interests of the state, multiyear contracts would be permitted if “encouraging effective competition or otherwise promoting economies in state purchasing.”
14. The state could participate in various federal government cooperative purchasing agreements or consortia if, among other considerations, participation in the consortium is “financially advantageous.”
15. State surplus property, under a proposed amendment, could be done by “means of an Internet auction site approved by the (director of purchasing).
16. The annual vendor fee would be increased from $45 to $125 per year.
17. The amount under which spending units could purchase commodities and services without competitive bidding would be increased from $1,000 to $2,500.
18. Duplicate bids would not have to be submitted to the state Purchasing Division and state Auditor’s Office.

 

Sponsored by Sens. Tomblin and Sprouse (at the request of the governor). Introduced Jan.  17. Referred to Senate Government Organization, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb182%20intr.htm

The House companion, sponsored by Dels. Kiss and Trump, is House Bill 4031. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Government Organization, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4031%20intr.htm

 

Athletic Trainer Licensure Act of 2006 introduced

Senate Bill 169. This bill would establish the Athletic Training Licensure Act of 2006 which would be included in proposed Code sections §30-41-1 et. seq.

The Act would encompass several provisions, including required licensure for all athletic trainers after July 1, 2005 (sic).

Licensure would be through the state Athletic Training Licensure Board which consists of 7 members, 5 of whom are to be athletic trainers (1 of which may be certified by the state Board of Education for appointments prior to July 1, 2008). The other 2 members would include a licensed medical practitioner and a citizen member.

Members would be appointed by the governor with consent of the state Senate.

The board would meet at least twice annually, and could employ staff.

Among other duties, the board could propose rules relating to athletic directors’ licensure and continuing education requirements, standards of practice, professional disciplinary actions and “other issues of concern.”

In order to be licensed by the Athletic Training Licensure Board, an applicant would have to complete an applicant licensure form, pay application and licensure fees, meet certain “moral character” standards, including non-addiction or “intemperate use of alcohol or narcotic drugs or other controlled substances.”

Applicants could not have been convicted of crimes involving “sexual abuse or sexual misconduct, or that have a direct bearing on the applicant’s ability to practice competently as determined by the (Athletic Training Licensure Board).”

Licensure

Additionally, the applicant would be prohibited from receiving licensure if he or she has had disciplinary action taken against them by the Athletic Training Licensure Board or by a corresponding licensing board in another state.
Applicants must have at least a B.A. degree that meets the “academic standards for athletic trainers established by the National Athletic Trainers’ Association,” including completion of the National Association Board of Certification Examination, although this requirement could be waived for persons practicing as athletic trainers prior to July 1, 2005 (sic).

Athletic trainers would have to complete various continuing education requirements.

Trainers would be provided various forms of licensure identification.

 

Court injunctions

The state Athletic Training Licensure Board could use court injunction, among other means, to enforce its powers and authority, and would have the ability to suspend, revoke, or place athletic trainers on probation for reasons such as fraud, drug addiction, gross negligence in the practice of athletic training, practicing athletic training without a license – does not apply to student athletic trainers – practicing athletic training with use of a canceled, revoked or suspended license, including an out of state license, or conviction for sexual abuse or sexual misconduct.

(There are other cited reasons for licensure suspension or revocation.)

Some persons – primarily medical practitioners and students – would be exempt from the statutory provisions, including those practicing in “secondary school settings (using) WVBE Athletic Certification prior to (July 1, 2005), provided such practice is in accordance with (WVBE) policy then in effect.”

There are other provisions.

Sponsored by Sens. Billy Wayne Bailey, D-Wyoming, and Tracy Dempsey, D-Lincoln. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Government Organization. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb169%20intr.htm

Senate Bill 178 appears to be identical legislation, with the exception of having reference to July 1, 2006 rather than July 1, 2005, as its effective date.

That bill is sponsored by Sens. Oliverio, Andy McKenzie, R-Ohio, and Roman Prezioso, D-Marion. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Government Organization, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb178%20intr.htm

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

 

Bills relate to floodplain management/regulation

Senate Bill 206. Proposed amendments to §7-1-3u and §19-21A-4 would, among other things, allow conservation agencies, to “enter any property regardless of ownership when and where necessary to most efficiently carry out the tasks necessary to reduce additional flooding hazards during a flood event” without such constituting “taking of private property or trespass.’

The bill ostensibly deals with prohibiting or regulating placement of manufactured housing (whether permanent or temporary) “utilized for a residence, vacation home or camp and storage of hazardous or floatable materials, outbuildings, culverts, pipes and fuel oil and propane tanks within the regulate flood plain.”  

Under terms of the bill, “manufactured housing” would include mobile homes, factory-built homes, modular homes, campers, trailers and RVs.

There are other provisions. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb206%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4059.
 http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4059%20intr.htm

 

Manufactured Housing to be “secured”

Senate Bill 207 is a related bill. It would require all new or previously owned manufactured homes, outbuildings and propane or fuel-oil tanks utilized for such homes, installed in a flood plain after June 30, 2008, to be “sufficiently secured to prevent…(these structures) from being separated from (their) foundations or location(s) during a flood.”

Those who install manufactured housing would be responsible for obtaining a certificate from the county or municipal flood plain manager, stating that the proposed site for these homes is not “in a flood hazard area location.”

Utilities would be prohibited from servicing these homes until the “appropriate site certification or installation approval (has) been obtained.”

The bill outlines various penalties for violating its provisions, and includes language requiring the state Public Service Commission to deny utilities to any “public or private building or manufactured housing, to be used for commercial or dwelling purposes, until the building or property owner or his or her designee provides the utility with a certificate that the building or manufactured housing is not in a flood hazard area…”

(If in a flood hazard area, the PSC can permit utilities to be supplied as long as there is assurance from local authorities that the “construction, engineering and installation design have been approved by the county or municipal flood plain manager for site specific flooding conditions.)

There are other provisions.

The bill’s provisions would amend §21-9-4, §21-9-12 and §24-2-2.
 http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb207%20intr.htm

The House companion is House Bill 4058. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4058%20intr.htm

 

Condemnation of abandoned structures

Senate Bill 208 would authorize the state Public Land Corporation to condemn abandoned structures located within waterways that it determines will inhibit water flow and exacerbate flooding or stream-bank erosion.

In order to accomplish this purpose, the Public Land Corporation is granted enforcement authority, including eminent domain rights.

(The bill refers to culverts, pipes, bridges, railroad trestles, etc.) http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb208%20intr.htm

The House companion is House Bill 4057. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4057%20intr.htm

Each Senate bill has Sen. Oliverio as lead sponsor. All Senate Bills have been referred to Senate Judiciary, then  Senate Finance.

The companion House Bills have 9 sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Joe DeLong, D-Hancock. The House Bills have been referred to House Judiciary.

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

 

Office of Administrative Hearings would be started

Senate Bill 221. This legislation, which would establish a new Code Article §29A-8-1 et. seq., seeks to create an Office of Administrative Hearings within the executive branch of state government.

Its provisions would affect “any authority, board, bureau, commission, committee, division, section or office authorized by law to conduct adjudicatory proceedings, except those in the legislative or judicial branches and the office of the governor.”

The bill establishes a 7-member Administrative Law Commission for the Office of Administrative Hearings, including appointees designated by the state Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Senate President and House Speaker, the Attorney General and the Dean of the West Virginia University College of Law.

The Commission would be headed by a Chief Administrative Law Judge appointed by the governor with advice and consent of the state Senate. The Chief Administrative Law Judge must be an attorney with at least three years’ experience practicing law.

At least three of the appointees must be attorneys.

Each appointee would serve 3-year terms.

 

Agency  ‘assistance’

All state government agencies would be required to provide the Commission assistance and “facilities that the Commission requests, including access to records and other information pertaining to prospective nominees, to enable the commission to perform its functions. All furnished records and information shall be treated as privileged and confidential by the Commission.”

The Office of Administrative Hearings would be authorized to employ various adjudicators who would preside over hearings, based on a hearing examiner system similar to current law.

Adjudicators would be paid based on experience and abilities, as indicated by an extensive evaluation system included within the proposed statute. These individuals would become members of state Classified Service.

Under terms of the bill, “all functions performed prior to (June 30, 2007) by the administrative law judges, hearing officers or other persons previously utilized by the agencies…to conduct administrative hearings or other proceedings (would) be transferred to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

The Office also could use the facilities and the services of various agencies’ officers, employees and other transferred personnel “from which functions and duties are transferred…so long as they may be needed to facilitate the orderly transfer of those functions and duties (under the proposed statute).”

Additionally, previously-determined orders, determinations, rules, regulations, certificates, licenses and privileges which have been issued or are in effect when  the statute would become law would continue unless modified or superseded by rulings of the Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicators.

 

Pending matters

(Matters pending before agencies or “components of agencies” prior to the bill’s effective date would not be affected, either continued before the Office of Administrative Hearings or, to the extent the proceeding does not relate to the transferred functions, or continued before the agency.)

The bill provides the Chief Administrative Law Judge considerable authority, including directing and supervising Administrative Law Judges, hearing examiners and other office employees.

(Under terms of this bill, hearing examiners are non-attorneys appointed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct or preside at administrative hearings and other proceedings, as outlined in the bill, including “transfer” to the Office of Administrative Hearings.)

Adjudicators would be required to provide “fair, expeditious, and impartial hearings.” They could administer oaths, issue subpoenas, making various rulings, regulate hearings, recommend alternative dispute resolution, and negotiate concerning resolution of issues in controversy, among other powers, authority and duties.

Adjudicators’ decisions would be final and binding, except for appeal to Kanawha County Circuit Court.

The bill has a severability clause and states that its provisions are not to be construed as depriving state agencies of the right to set policy, although agencies, in setting policy, may remand cases to adjudicators, fully explaining policy rationale which makes the matter inapplicable to adjudication by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

There are 7 Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Oliverio. Introduced Jan. 19. Referred to Senate Judiciary, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb221%20intr.htm

The companion House measure is House Bill 4060. There are 8 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Virignia Mahan, D-Summers. Introduced Jan. 20. Referred to House Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4060%20intr.htm

 

Public Employees Retirement System

 

Bill relates to PERS disability retirees; several provisions

Senate Bill 175. Proposed amendments to §5-10-26, §5-10-44 and §5-10-54 would remove the requirement that a no longer disabled employee must return to his or her former job.

The bill also would permit administrative hearings before disability retirement termination, among other provisions.

Additionally, the proposed statutes would clarify that the PERS Board may terminate not only early retirement benefits but also regular or disability retirement benefits for someone who obtained them fraudulently.

The county prosecutor would receive notice of such removal which, as with current law, constitutes a misdemeanor, upon conviction.

There are several other provisions.

There are five Senate sponsors, including lead sponsor Sen. Foster. Introduced Jan. 16. Referred to Senate Pensions, then Senate Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb175%20intr.htm

The House companion measure is House Bill 4034. There are five House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del. Stalnaker. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Pensions and Retirement, then House Finance Committee. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4034%20intr.htm

 

PERS retirees could repurchase sick leave

Senate Bill 179. Proposed revisions to §5-10-15a would allow PERS retirees who were unable to convert accumulated sick leave into credited service for retirement – due to having to use it during times of illness – to purchase it back by having withholdings taken from future pay.

Sponsored by Sen. Love. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Pensions, then Senate Finance Committee. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb179%20intr.htm

 

Choice for PERS “insurable interest” beneficiaries

House Bill 4035. Proposed revisions to §5-10-27 would remove the ability of a PERS member to  choose a beneficiary who has an “insurable interest,” other than his or her spouse or disabled dependent child, to receive an annuity. (The current language refers to a beneficiary who has an interest in the PERS member’s “life.”)

The bill also would allow a PERS member or former member to choose to have the preretirement death benefit paid in a lump sum to any beneficiary or beneficiaries as he or she chooses.

There are other provisions.

There are 6 House sponsors, including lead sponsor Del, Stalnaker. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to House Pensions and Retirement, then House Finance. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4035%20intr.htm

 

Resolutions

 

6-year term for governor

Senate Joint Resolution 7. If this constitutional amendment were approved by voters, the governor could serve for one 6-year term. It also would limit governors from succeeding themselves. Sponsored by Sen. Chafin. Introduced Jan. 17. Referred to Senate Judiciary. http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sjr7%20intr.htm

 

Eligibility to serve in Legislature clarified

House Joint Resolution 101. This is the same as Senate Joint Resolution 4. If adopted by voters, this measure would clarify the term “lucrative office” as applying to those eligible to seek public office.

(In the past, this “term” has been considered and interpreted by some legal scholars to preclude public higher education employees, including college professors, from seeking election to and serving in the Legislature.) http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2006_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hjr101%20intr.htm

 

Briefly

Senate Bill 153 would require a “Jobs Impact Statement” for legislation expected to have both a short- and long-term impact on jobs in the state…Senate Bill 165 would authorize existing municipalities in West Virginia to consolidate. There are numerous provisions…Senate Bill 181 would place the West Virginia Cultural Center under the authority of the General Services Division (Department of Administration)…Senate Bill 184 would establish a pilot project for public funding of election campaigns for 2 Senate Districts and 3 single-member House of Delegates’ districts. This would be accomplished through the establishment of a Public Campaign Financing Fund. There are numerous provisions…Senate Bill 195 would provide an additional deputy magistrate court clerk for Braxton County…Senate Bill 202 would require election of state Supreme Court of Appeals Justices via nonpartisan ballots. The measure has been introduced in several previous legislative sessions…Senate Bill 209 would establish that a completed accident report form is conclusive upon its issuance as to the issue of the cause of the accident, unless  a court were to rule otherwise…Senate Bill 227 would allow the Division of Highways to lease property it owns to nonprofit corporations for less than the fair market value…Senate Bill 228 would expand the counties covered by the  West Virginia Route 2 and Interstate 68 Authority to include Cabell, Mason, and Jackson Counties…Senate Bill 233 would establish a state income tax exemption to retirees for the first $20,000 of their retirement income.

House Bill 4028 would establish liens upon child support obligors as received from Workers’ Compensation, civil settlements, judgments, or awards from arbitration or other alternative dispute resolutions…House Bill 4041 would establish limited immunity from civil damages for persons who volunteer their services to public health departments. There are certain restrictions in which the limitation would not apply such as omissions constituting gross negligence…House Bill 4046 would allow for a reduction in the federal adjusted income for motor fuel expenses incurred in commuting to and from one’s occupation. The rate would be that provided at the federal income tax level as calculated by Internal Revenue Service guidelines…House Bill 4047 would require the Wetzel County Prosecuting Attorney to serve as a part-time prosecuting attorney regardless of county classification…House Bill 4056, first introduced last year, would issue “orders of interdiction” which would prohibit some persons convicted of alcohol-related offenses from purchasing beer, wine or alcohol. It also would include interdiction for persons convicted of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or controlled substances or drugs. There are numerous provisions, including procedures for issuing the interdiction orders.