SENATE  BILL  46

This was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and assigned to the Senate Ways And Means Committee.  It relates to the mandatory retirement of Judges.  Presently Judges may retire at age 65, or at age 62 with the completion of 10 years of service, but Judges must retire upon reaching age 70, except that a Judge may continue serving the current term when the Judge attains the age of 70.  This bill would increase the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75, but would delete the provision permitting the Judge to finish the current term when reaching the mandatory retirement age. 

SENATE  BILL  49

This was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and assigned to the Senate Ways And Means Committee.  It would provide that the budget for the judicial branch of state government would be presented to the legislature unchanged from the way it was submitted by the Chief Justice. 

SENATE  BILL  58

This bill was introduced by the Senate Committee On Financial Institutions And Insurance, and referred back to that committee.  This bill appears to be identical to two bills which we opposed last year:  HB 2825, and HB 3039.  It relates to consumer protection, and provides that "No supplier shall obtain or submit for payment, other than for the continuation of existing and recurrent services, a check, draft or other form of negotiable instrument or payment order drawn on a person's checking, savings, share or similar account without the consumer's express written authorization."

I would urge all members of both organizations to review this bill.

I am sending the KCA-KCAA Bill Status Report, both as an attachment and as a part of this E-mail.

The pace of legislative activity is starting to pick up. There now have been 73 House bills and 67 Senate bills introduced. In the Bill Status Report I list two of general interest, and one that is pretty much a re-run of legislation which we successfully opposed last year. I would urge members of both groups to specifically review SB 58, and give me your views on it. Since we opposed similar legislation last year, I presume you will want me to appear in opposition to it when it is scheduled for hearing.

On next Tuesday, there are several hearings scheduled. The House Appropriations Committee, which meets in room 514-S from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM will hear presentations on an update on the non-judicial salary initiative pay plan. Presentations are scheduled by Chief Justice Kay McFarland; Judge John White, who is the Chair of the non-judicial salary initiative; and Jerry Sloan and Kathy Porter, of the Office of Judicial Administration. I did not think it was wise for me to bill the groups for my time to sit through the presentations when as yet there has not been a specific bill introduced, but I have contacted the committee secretary who has promised to save me a copy of all of the written materials presented. 

At 8:30 AM on Tuesday, in room 123-S, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to hear a review of proposed telemarketing legislation by Steve Rarrick, Assistant Attorney General.

Yesterday, I had conferences with Sen.. Vratil, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with Rep. Nile Dillmore, concerning our proposed legislation to eliminate the prohibition against wage garnishment after an account has been assigned.

Sen. Vratil has asked me to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9:30 AM on Tuesday in Room 123-S to make a formal request to the committee to introduce the legislation.

In my conference with Rep. Dillmore, I explained to him that our decision was to introduce it on the Senate side this year. Rep. Dillmore is supervisor of the Emprise Bank in Wichita, and is well acquainted with Bruce Ward. Bruce Ward had been in contact with him concerning this legislation. Rep. Dillmore has promised to visit with Rep. Janice Pauls, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and also with the Minority Leader, Rep. Jim Garner. Rep. Dillmore is a freshman Representative, and is a Democrat who serves on the House Judiciary Committee. He is very supportive of this legislation, and will do his best to soften the opposition to it by Rep. Pauls
and Rep. Garner.

Thus far, none of the bills introduced in the House seem to have any direct bearing on our organizations. 

From the Legislative Lobbyist Directory put out by the Secretary Of State, I see that Bud Grant is listed as a lobbyist for "Kansas Merchants Security Association". I do not know whether that is the name adopted by the group of attorneys seeking changes in the bad check laws, but I presume it is.

In visiting this week with Randy Hearrell, the Executive Director of the Kansas Judicial Council, I learned that the Judicial Council proposed legislation concerning Chapter 61 has been authorized for introduction by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is just a matter of getting the bill drafted by the Revisor of Statute's office before it is introduced. You will recall that we had agreed that rather than asking for a separate bill to be introduced with our additional amendments to Chapter 61, we should wait until the hearing on the Judicial Council bill, and suggest our amendments as supportive amendments, which we hope will have the approval of the Judicial Council.

Sincerely,
Elwaine F. Pomeroy