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 almost 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."  A hearing has been scheduled for 9:30 am on Wednesday, January 31, in Room 234-N.

SENATE  BILL  85

This bill was introduced by and referred back to the Senate Ways And Means Committee.  It concerns docket fees, and is a part of the proposal to fund compensation for nonjudicial employees of the judicial branch through docket fees.  Most significantly, the bill attempts to establish a fee of $10.00 to be paid for each nonearnings garnishment request, and $25.00 for each continuing earnings garnishment request. 

 HOUSE  BILL  2095

This bill was introduced by the five representatives from Douglas County, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  It would create an additional district judge position for Douglas County.

HOUSE  BILL  2100

This bill was introduced by the House Committee On Utilities, and referred back to that committee.  It deals with unsolicited telephone calls.  Among other provisions, it provides that the Attorney General shall advertise for bids and enter into a contract with an entity to act as the administrator of the telephone solicitation program described in the bill.  That administrator would create, maintain and distribute a database containing a list of telephone numbers of consumers who do not wish to receive any unsolicited telephone calls at the listed numbers.  It provides for updating and distributing that list.  A hearing has been scheduled for 9:00 am on Tuesday, January 30, in Room 526-S.

HOUSE  BILL  2150

This bill was introduced by the House Business, Commerce And Labor Committee and referred back to that committee.  It makes numerous changes to the worthless check statute, K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-2610, and repeals K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-2611.  It attempts to make mandatory the awarding of reasonable attorney fees, which is defined in the bill as $350.00 for a single check with an additional $50.00 for each additional check. 

HOUSE  BILL  2157

This was introduced by the House Committee On Local Government, and referred back to that committee.  It authorizes counties to develop, own, sell, lease, license, market or otherwise distribute computer software; to obtain and own copyrights; to adopt a licensing fee, royalty fee or other price structure for computer software; and enforce and defend rights pertaining to computer software. 

HOUSE  BILL  2174

This bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee, and referred back to that committee.  It amends K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 20-343 and 20-345 relating to the appointment of clerks, chief clerks, and bailiffs, court reports, secretaries, court service officers and other clerical and nonjudicial personnel.  The present statutes provides that those persons shall be appointed by the Chief Judge, with the approval of a majority of the other district judges of the judicial district.  This bill would strike the language requiring the approval of a majority of the other district judges of the judicial district, leaving the appointing power solely in the Chief Judge.

HOUSE  BILL  2175

This was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee.  It amends K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-2202 to apparently clarify that a judgment shall be a lien on the debtor's real property that is located in the county in which the original filing is made, but a filing may be made subsequently in any county in which real property of the judgment debtor is located.  It also amends K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-2418, relating to judgments rendered pursuant to the code of civil procedure for limited actions to provide they may, after payment of the fee prescribed by K.S.A. 28-170, be a lien only upon the debtor's real property that is located in which the original filing is made, but provides that thereafter a filing may be made in any county in which real property of the judgment debtor is located.  The amendment further provides that execution to satisfy the judgment shall be issued from the county in which the case was originally filed. 

HOUSE  BILL  2179

This was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee.  It appears to be identical to SB 49, and provides that the budget for the judicial branch of state government would be presented to the legislature unchanged from the way it is submitted by the Chief Justice.  

I am sending as a part of this E-mail and also as an attachment the bill status report, which has been updated as of information contained in the House and Senate calendars for today. The material which is new from the last bill status report is printed in red, for the convenience of those who have color printers. 

As I stated in my E-mail that I sent out yesterday, hearings have been scheduled on two bills that we are tracking.  There is a 9:00 am hearing on Tuesday before the House Utilities Committee on HB 2100 which provides for the creation of a "no-call" list of consumers. That hearing will be before the House Utilities Committee. 

On Wednesday at 9:30 the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee has scheduled a hearing on SB 58, which provides "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." Last year, I was directed to appear in opposition to similar legislation. I will need instructions as to whether I should make an appearance at the hearing on Wednesday. 

We are still waiting for the introduction of the bill we requested to eliminate the prohibition against wage garnishment after an account has been sold or assigned. We want to build support for that legislation, but it will be much easier to do so one we have a specific bill number. 

Also, the bills requested by the Kansas Judicial Council dealing with Chapter 61 technical amendments and making the Chapter 60 garnishment procedure identical to Chapter 61 garnishment have not yet been introduced.

As soon as our bill or the Judicial Council bills appear, I will immediately E-mail everyone.

It appears that in our fight against further docket fee increases an organization that was our opponent last year may be supportive of our position this year. In the January 22nd Legislative Bulletin of the Kansas Bar Association, it was stated that the KBA supports continuation of the non-judicial salary initiative and also supports the step increases and COLA's that have been requested by the Office of Judicial Administration. However, it goes on to state: "The KBA believes any enhancement of the non-judicial salary initiative or the judicial branch budget should come from the state general fund and not from further docket fee increases." I will be contacting Paul Davis to see if that stated position can be translated into active opposition to SB 85, which would establish a "docket fee" of $10.00 for each non-earnings garnishment request and $25.00 for each continuing earnings garnishment request.

Those of you that participate in the weekly conference call should be sure that if at all possible you will be available at 2:30 on Monday for that call.

Sincerely,
Elwaine