Iowa House Happenings

There have been many questions/concerns raised by the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sallee v. Stewart, in which the Court was asked to interpret Iowa’s Recreational Land Use Immunity doctrine. Like most of my colleagues, I’ve read the relevant court cases and studied the applicable statutes, and I’ve reviewed  House File 605, the Farm Bureau’s proposed bill intended to fix the “crisis” allegedly created by the Sallee ruling – and like many others, I’ve concluded that the actual impact of the Sallee ruling on Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine is minimal, and that the Farm Bureau’s proposed legislation is an over-reaction to Sallee’s extremely narrow holding.

What is Recreational Land Use Immunity? 

Ordinarily, if you invite people onto your land, you have a duty to use reasonable care to either ensure that the premises are in a reasonably safe condition, or to warn your guests about any dangerous condition that isn’t obvious to them but of which you are, or should be, aware. And if you don’t do that, and someone gets hurt on your property, and if they sue you and can prove that their injury is due to your failure to use reasonable care – i.e., your negligence – then most likely your homeowner’s premises liability policy is going to be paying out for their damages. Mistakes happen, and that’s why we have insurance, right?

But back in the seventies, in order to encourage private landowners to make their land/water areas available to the public for outdoor recreational purposes, the Iowa legislature passed Iowa Code Chapter 461C, which decreed that “an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.” 461C.2 defines “recreational purposes” as: hunting, trapping, horseback riding, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, motorcycling, nature study, water skiing, snowmobiling, other summer and winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites while going to and from or actually engaged therein.

So the general idea behind Iowa’s Recreational Land Use Immunity Doctrine is that if folks choose to take advantage of a landowner’s generosity and enter onto his (generally unfamiliar to them) land to engage in any of the “recreational activities” set out in 461C.2, they do so at their own risk, and the landowner cannot be held responsible for any injuries related to a dangerous condition of the land (e.g., if a hunter trips over a hidden tree stump) unless the landowner acts “willfully or maliciously” (e.g., invites a group to set up camp in a specific field and fails to warn them of the fact that the field is known by the farmer to be completely infested with a rare and very poisonous type of tiny ant).

OK – so what happened in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

 The Stewart family owns a dairy farm in Northeast Iowa, and often provided groups of students with (free of charge) guided tours of their farm. In May of 2010, Ms. Sallee was a chaperone for one such guided student tour, which ended with a visit to the barn’s hayloft to allow the children to play on and around the bales of hay stored in the hayloft.

Mr. Stewart accompanied the group to the hayloft – he assisted them up the ladder, and warned the children not to climb too high. Mr. Stewart did not warn or mention to the group the fact that some of the hay bales were placed on top of large holes in the floor, totally covering the holes from view (these “hay drops” were normally used to push hay down to the cows in the barn below). There was testimony that earlier in the day, while inspecting the hay loft, Mr. Stewart had stood on each of the bales of hay covering a hay drop to ensure its sturdiness; unfortunately, when Ms. Sallee (who was described in the ruling as a “large woman”) stood on one of these bales of hay, it collapsed under her weight and she fell through the floor, sustaining serious injuries.  Eventually, Ms. Sallee sued the Stewarts, and the Stewarts’ insurance company moved for summary judgment, citing Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine.

How did the District Court rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

The District Court ruled in favor of the Stewarts’ insurance company, finding that Ms. Sallee was present at the Stewarts’ farm for a recreational purpose, and thus the Stewarts owed her no legal duty to ensure her safety and/or to provide her with any warning of the possible danger posed by the holes in the hayloft floor, even though Ms. Sallee couldn’t see the holes since the Stewarts had covered them up with bales of hay.

How did the Court of Appeals rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

Ms. Sallee appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Iowa Court of Appeals; its ruling  agreed with the District Court that in their capacity as landowners, the Stewarts enjoyed immunity from liability for Ms. Sallee’s injuries – but then went on to rule that nonetheless, Ms. Sallee had a cause of action against the Stewarts under a “negligent supervision” liability theory. The Court reasoned that by putting themselves in charge of where the tour group went and what the tour group did while on the farm, the Stewarts voluntarily assumed the role/status of “tour guides,” and as such they had a duty to warn Ms. Sallee about possible dangers associated with the tour-related activities of which the Stewarts were or should have been aware but which Ms. Sallee could not reasonably be expected to have anticipated.

How did the Iowa Supreme Court rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

The Stewarts appealed this ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which, somewhat surprisingly, issued a majority opinion that specifically declined to adopt the Court of Appeal’s “tour guide” liability theory, and instead held that Ms. Sallee had a right to move forward with her premises liability claim against the Stewarts for the simple reason that  “playing in the hay” was not one of the “recreational activities” set out in Iowa Code section 461C.2 -  and thus the recreational land use immunity doctrine did not apply under the specific facts of the case. And that’s really the complete sum and total of the Sallee holding: that “playing in the hay” isn’t a recreational activity for purposes of Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine. Period.

Does Sallee reduce landowners’ protection under the recreational land use immunity doctrine?

In a word – NO. It’s true that in the long and somewhat rambling discussion of the origins and nature of the recreational land use immunity doctrine leading up to its holding, the Sallee opinion cites several appellate rulings in which courts from other states chose to interpret their own recreational land use immunity statutes in ways that restricted the scope of protection offered by those statutes -  but the Sallee opinion also cites rulings from states in which the appellate courts went the other way. And most importantly, in the end, our Court specifically declined to adopt any of the policy based holdings set out in any of these cases, instead issuing a very narrow ruling based solely on the unusual set of facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Sallee’s injury. Thus, despite assertions to the contrary, the holding in Sallee in no way restricts or reduces a landowner’s protection under the recreational land use immunity doctrine if the landowner is allowing public entry onto his land for the primary purpose of engaging in one of the recreational activities specifically spelled out in 461C.2.

Do farmers have recreational land use immunity for guided farm tours?

After Sallee, there remains a question as to whether Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine affords farmers immunity from liability for injuries that take place during a guided farm tour –  since while the Iowa Supreme Court declined to adopt the Court of Appeal’s holding that a landholder who chooses to guide a group of persons on a tour of his/her farm automatically forfeits this immunity, the Court also didn’t explicitly reject this theory. Seeking to do away with this uncertainty, the Farm Bureau has sponsored House File 605, which defines a “guided farm tour” as a “recreational activity” under 461C, and further clarifies that a landowner cannot be held liable for any injury incurred by a person participating in such a guided tour unless the injured person can prove that the injury was due to willful or malicious actions on the part of the farmer. The bill also expands the scope of a “recreational activity” to include “any activity undertaken for recreation, sport, exercise, relaxation, education or pleasure” – which pretty much encompasses all non-employment related activities, right?

What’s the problem with House File 605?

I’ve received many emails from many farmers urging me to pass HF 605 without amendment, and warning me that if we don’t pass it exactly as drafted,  children across the state will forever be deprived of the fun and educational experience of a field trip to a local farm. But I can’t vote in favor of HF 605 in its current form, and I sincerely believe that the majority of Iowans – including the majority of Iowa’s farmers – aren’t in favor of a bill that seeks to hold a farmer (or actually, the farmer’s insurance company) completely immune from liability even if a farmer leads a group of children or dependent adults directly into contact with a dangerous condition of which they could not possibly be aware, and then fails to provide them with any warning of, or protection from, the dangerous condition.

Following are just a few scenarios in which a farmer would be held immune from liability as a matter of law under HF 605:

1.         A farmer owns a dog who doesn’t like children, who has bitten a child in the past, and who generally hangs out in the barn in hot weather. The farmer knows all this, and thus typically locks the dog up when students visit the farm, but in the confusion surrounding the arrival of a large group of first graders it slips his mind – and so he marches the children into the barn to watch a cow being milked without first checking to see if the dog is in the barn and/or warning the kids to stay away from the dog. When some innocent little first grader goes to pet the nice doggy sitting next to the cow and gets her face eaten off, do we really want to tell her parents that sorry, the farmer can’t be held liable for their child’s permanent and severe disfigurement?

2.         Imagine the same facts as in the Sallee v. Stewart case, except this time it’s a kindergartener who suffers severe brain injury when the bale of hay on which he is playing (under the direction and supervision of Mr. Stewart) collapses, causing him to plummet through the hidden hay drop. Under HF 605, the fact that the child wouldn’t have fallen through the hay drop but for the fact that Mr. Stewart disguised it by putting a bale of hay on top of it and then instructed the child to jump on the bale of hay would be irrelevant – Mr. Stewart would have complete immunity, since he didn’t intend for the child to be injured.

3.         Finally, imagine a farm couple has invited a group of high school kids to tour their apple orchard and make apple cider. The farmer mistakenly sets the heating element on the cider pasteurizer way too high, and it explodes, blinding several of the teens. Again, even though it’s clear that the sole reason for the injuries is a major screw up on the part of the landowner, HF 605 would hold him immune from financial liability.

The common thread in the above examples is that the landowner has led or directed the child into contact with a dangerous condition created by the landowner of which the child could not possibly have been aware, and while I am sure that none of us would deliberately create a dangerous condition and then lead a group of children into the middle of it, mistakes do happen. And when a mistake has tragic consequences and causes permanent injury or death to a child or dependent adult, the insurance company representing the person responsible for making the mistake should be held financially liable for the mistake.

Is a compromise/resolution possible?

Absolutely! While legislating away any and all responsibility for our children’s safety is an unacceptable public policy, farmers who allow student groups the opportunity to visit a working farm provide a wonderful service to Iowa’s children, and in order to encourage farmers to continue to provide this service it’s appropriate to shield them from liability for injuries due to circumstances outside of their control (e.g., a child is bitten by a pig after ignoring the farmer’s warning not to pet said pig). To that end, legislators from both parties have been working together to pass a bill that will clarify a landowner’s rights and responsibilities with regards to guided farm tours, and clear up any confusion generated by the Sallee ruling and the (over) reaction to it. Like most compromises, I don’t anticipate that it will make everyone (or even anyone) particularly happy, but it should provide all relevant parties with adequate guidance and protection.

In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions, comments, or suggestions about any of this – it’s a complicated issue and I certainly welcome any and all input!

Hi there. Last week I posted all of the pending House Judiciary bills that have been assisgned to a subcommittee through January 31;  here are the House Judiciary bills assigned to subcommittees the first week of February:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Iowa House Judiciary Bills assigned to subcommittees first week of February

HF 109 [Beth Wessell-Kroeshell]:  A bill for an act relating to consideration of the educational setting of a minor child in a child custody proceeding

–  Creates a rebuttable presumption that it is in a child’s best interests to remain in the same educational setting if the parents (i.e. parents in a divorce/custody dispute) cannot agree otherwise.  Currently the judge ruling in a custody dispute is required to take all relevant factors into consideration when determining the child’s best interests, and the child’s educational setting would certainly be a relevant factor, so it appears that this specific concern is already addressed by current law.

HF 104 [Mark Smith]:  A bill for an act relating to the payment of reasonable attorney fees relating to an appeal of a termination of parental rights order

–   Currently, if a parent files a private termination of parental rights action and the Court appoints an attorney to represent the other parent (i.e., the parent who is in danger of having his/her parental rights terminated), then the parent who filed the termination action can be ordered to reimburse the State for the attorney fees paid to the attorney representing the other parent (unless the Court determines that the parent who filed the private termination action is indigent, which is usually not the case).  Under this bill, if the parent whose rights were terminated appeals the termination, the parent who filed the action would not be required to reimburse the State for the appellate attorney fees incurred by the other parent (but would still be required to reimburse the State for attorney fees incurred in the original termination proceeding).

HSB 100 [Tyler Olson]:  A study bill relating to the boards of directors of public corporations

–  This bill simply repeals the scheduled repeal of a current law that allows for the management of a public corporation by its board of directors.  If you’d like additional info on this bill, please contact Rep. Tyler Olson

HSB 104 [Rick Olson]:  An Act concerning prescription drug or controlled substance medication defenses in operating=while=intoxicated cases

–  Requires a defendant charged with operating while under the influence of drugs  to give notice to the State if the defendant intends to argue at trial that s/he had a valid prescription for the drugs in his/her system. I assume most defense attorneys already provide this information to the county attorney in advance of trial, in the hopes that the county attorney will then do the reasonable thing and dismiss the case without requiring the expenditure of time/money inherent in a jury trial.

HSB 105 [Mary Wolfe]:  A study bill relating to the sentencing of a minor who commits murder in the first degree, providing penalties, and including effective date provisions

–  Similar to HSB 33, except it creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 50 years before a person who committed a 1st degree murder as a juvenile would be eligible for parole (as opposed to the 60 year sentence proposed by HSB 33), and throws in some additional factors to be considered by the judge.

Greetings.

It’s three weeks into the 2013 legislative session, and so far there have been 35 bills assigned to House Judiciary subcommittee groups.  Each subcommittee is made up of three legislators – since the Republicans hold the majority in the House, Judiciary Chairman Chip Baltimore appoints two Republican judiciary committee members to each subcommittee and I (as the Judiciary ranking minority member) appoint one Democratic judiciary committee member to each subcommittee.  [Note that occasionally with very controversial or complicated bills the subcommittees are made up of five legislators - three Rs and two Ds - but no five person Judiciary subcommittees have been appointed to date].

[Slightly off topic, here's a picture of the entire House Judiciary Committee - although I am sure not fond of my photo and we just got new photos taken earlier this week so I'm looking forward to posting the revised version of this montage in the near future]

Normally each subcommittee meets at least once to discuss the proposed bill and to hear from interested parties. ”Interested parties” include members of the group that sponsored the bill, members of the press, and lobbyists that represent any groups/businesses/ organizations that might be impacted – negatively or positively – by the bill.  E.g.,  lobbyists from the Iowa State Bar Association and the Iowa Association of Justice attend most Judiciary subcommittee meetings, and depending on the subject of the bill we might also have representatives from the Department of Corrections, the various state-wide law enforcement organizations, the Iowa Association for Civil Liberties, the Iowa Business Association, OneIowa, and the Iowa State Association of Counties, among many others.

After the three legislators on a bill’s subcommittee listen to whatever anyone has to say about the bill and (try to)  get answers to any questions he or she may have about the bill, each of them either signs the form moving the bill forward for full debate in the House Judiciary Committee, or declines to do so.  It takes two signatures to move a bill forward, and since House subcommittees are made up of 2 Rs and 1 D, any bills that the Rs want to move forward move forward, and any bills that they don’t want to move forward, don’t move forward (same thing happens in Senate subcommittees, only the Ds control over there so it’s reversed). That’s just the way it goes, and luckily, at least some of the bills that we deal with in Judiciary are non-partisan, so not all of the votes end up 2-1.

A list of all House Judiciary Committee bills assigned to subcommittee can be found here; it’s updated on a daily basis.  Note that there are bills that the Speaker of the House has assigned to the Judiciary Committee which Representative Baltimore has not yet assigned (and may never assign) to a subcommittee – the list of all bills assigned to the Judiciary Committee can be found here.

The subcommittee chart lists the bill number (with a hyperlink to take you directly to the bill), the name of the bill, the names of the Judiciary members assigned to the bill’s subcommittee, and the date(s) of any scheduled subcommittee meetings. Normally notice of a subcommittee meeting has to be posted at least 24 hours in advance so that lobbyists/special interests monitoring a specific bill have a chance to be present – however, it doesn’t always happen that way, which is unfortunate.

You will note that not all of the assigned bills have, as yet, been scheduled for a subcommittee meeting – there’s still plenty of time, but some of those bills may never get that far. The subcommittee’s chairperson (in the House, it’s almost always a Republican, in the Senate,  a Democrat) has a lot of power, since he or she can effectively “kill” a bill by simply refusing to schedule it for a subcommittee meeting – this is frustrating for legislators/special interests who really want the opportunity to have a public discussion/debate on a particular bill … but that’s politics.

March 8th (the Friday of the 8th week of session) is the first “funnel” date – this means that any House Judiciary bill that has not been passed by both its individual subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee as a whole is arguably “dead” for this session – i.e., it’s not eligible to be voted on by the entire House.  However, there are ways around that, so at least hypothetically no bill is ever truly dead until the Speaker declares the session over (which is supposed to take place on or before May 3rd, but which likely will take place several weeks later).

FYI, here’s a list of all bills assigned to a House Judiciary subcommittee through the end of January – I’ve included the name of the Democratic legislator I assigned to the bill, and if you want to know what happened to that bill or have any questions/suggestions/concerns about a particular bill you can contact him/her/me or comment below.  You can find contact info for individual legislators here; please put the bill number in the heading of your email.

Thanks for your support!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BILLS ASSIGNED TO HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEES THROUGH 1/31

HSB 5 [Dave Dawson]:  An Act providing access to child abuse record in juvenile court and the prosecution of certain juvenile offenders

-        Expands youthful offender program eligibility to include juveniles 16 and 17 charged with a forcible felony – currently only juveniles 15 and under are eligible. Sponsored by the Judicial Branch, and should be fairly non-controversial. Hopefully.

HSB 6 [Marti Anderson]:  An Act relating to interpreters and translators

-        Makes Iowa law conform w/federal Civil Rights Act by authorizing payment for interpreters in many types of proceedings and clarifying that this is free of cost to the person needing the interpreter (e.g., can’t be assessed as court costs against a criminal defendant). Non-controversial, probably.

HSB 7 [Dave Dawson]:   An Act relating to immediate return of seized property

-        Requires claimant requesting return of property (usually money, car, or a phone) seized by law enforcement to sign the application under penalty of perjury. This has already passed out of the Judiciary Committee 20-1

HSB 8 [Rick Olson]:  An Act relating to conducting condemnation proceedings

-        Relieves county attorneys from obligation to conduct condemnation proceedings involving “school corporations.” Since apparently there is no longer any such legal entity. This is what is called a “clean up” bill, intended to just bring code in line with reality.

HSB 9 [Beth Wessel-Kroeschell]:  An Act relating to authority of cities to regulate and restrict the occupancy of residential rental property

-        Enjoins cities from passing zoning laws that would restrict occupancy of rental property on the basis of familial relationships – i.e., a city couldn’t pass an ordinance that required landlords to restrict renters to family members only. Apparently some cities have passed such zoning ordinances, with the intent (I believe) of avoiding situations in which, say, ten students (with ten cars) rent out a two bedroom house in a family neighborhood and take over all the parking spots on the entire street and/or trash the house and thus lower the surrounding property values. It is completely understandable why cities/home owners would want such zoning laws ; however the concern is that such an ordinance might be written too broadly (e.g., might enjoin a family from hiring a live in nanny, or enjoin a single mom w/two kids from allowing her boyfriend to move in), and/or have a disparate impact on minority populations, who sometimes have a fairly loose definition of “family.”

HSB 10 [Vicki Lensing]:  An Act relating to the discharge of a firearm near buildings or feedlots by certified law enforcement officers for training purposes and providing penalties

-        This bill is basically intended to address a Cedar Rapids police department outdoor firing range (that is also used by surrounding cities/counties and the feds) that may or may not be located within 200 yards of some private homes, which may or may have been in existence prior to the existence of the firing range.  The bill would create an exemption from existing zoning laws for this firing range and any other law enforcement outdoor firing ranges currently in existence that is within 200 yards of a residence/feedlot (of which there aren’t any, as far as we could ascertain).

HSB 11 [Mary Wolfe]:  An Act relating to the waiting period before the granting of a decree dissolving a marriage

-        Iowa law requires a 90 day waiting period from the date the Respondent in a divorce is served with notice that a divorce petition has been filed, unless a judge waives the waiting period for good cause shown (which is usually some type of unavoidable emergency). This bill would allow (but not require) a judge to waive the 90 day waiting period upon agreement of both parties. Makes sense to me; however, we had the subcommittee meeting on this earlier this week and I predict that this bill is dead.

HSB 12 [Mark Smith]:  An Act relating to the possession of alcohol by certain minors and juvenile court jurisdiction

-        Addresses penalties for juveniles who provide alcohol to a person under 21.

HSB 13 [Jo Oldson]:  An Act relating to statute of limitation period in executing a judgment in an action on a claim for rent

-        Eliminates two-year statute of limitations for executing small claims judgment against renter for unpaid rent…. i.e., if you don’t pay your rent, and your landlord sues you and gets a judgment against you, the landlord can attempt to collect it forever (I think).

HSB 14 [Dave Dawson]:  An Act relating to county attorney duties when representing the dept. of human services in juvenile court

-        County Attorneys are currently required to represent the “state” in Child in Need of Assistance proceedings, with the state being defined as the Department of Human Services – this bill would remove DHS as a party to a CINA case and thus allow county attorneys discretion to prosecute CINA cases as they see fit. This bill has already passed the full Judiciary Committee, and will probably pass the House (it did last year), but may or may not move forward in the Senate (it didn’t last year).  Note that newly elected Rep. Dave Dawson helped draft this bill a few years ago in his (then) capacity of  county prosecutor, and did an excellent job of explaining the somewhat complicated bill to the full Judiciary Committee.

HSB 15 [Vicki Lensing]:  An Act relating to the administration of the judicial branch    including provisions pertaining to shorthand reporters and the practice of law

-       This is a clean-up bill that makes it clear that interpreters are required at every level and in every type of court proceeding if they are necessary, and that the cost of employing an interpreter cannot be assessed against the person utilizing the interpreter – the State has to pay

HSB 16 [Marti Anderson]:  An Act relating to the nomination and appointment of district judges

-        Requires district court judge to be a resident of the judicial district where the nomination occurred before assuming office.

HSB 17 [Dave Dawson]:   An Act relating to the appointment and removal of clerks of the district court

-        Allows the chief judge of a judicial district to appoint the district clerk of court (currently district court judges elect clerk) and fire the clerk (currently takes a majority vote of district court judges).

HSB 25 [Marti Anderson]: An Act relating to forfeiture of bail in criminal case

-        Increases time granted to whomever posted bail to set aside bail forfeiture from sixty days to ninety days – i.e., if a criminal defendant fails to show up for court, his/her family and/or the bondsman now has 90 days to hunt him/her down before the court clams the bail money posted by the family or bondsman. This bill has already passed Judiciary.

HSB 28  [Jo Oldson]:   An act relating to residential landlord/tenant laws and related forcible entry and detainer actions and providing penalties

-      Increases late  rent payment fees, re-defines various terms, amends several provisions in ways that benefit landlords.

HSB 31  [Vicki Lensing]:  An act requiring in-state construction contracts and disputes thereof to be governed by Iowa law

-      Voids any provisions in in-state construction contract that make contract subject to laws of another state or requires litigation in another state … makes sense to me.

HSB 32  [Mark  Smith]:  An act relating to penalties for the criminal offense of sexual exploitation of a minor by the purchases/possession of child pornography

-      Increases penalty for first violation of this crime from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony, second violation from Class D felony to Class C felony.  Defendant convicted of 2^nd offense would now be subject to lifetime special sentence pursuant to 903B.1. The legislature sure does enjoy enhancing criminal penalties, even in the absence of any data that the enhancement will do anything whatsoever to make Iowa a safer place to live.

HSB 33 [Mary Wolfe]:   An act relating to the sentencing of minors convicted of murder in the first degree

-      Creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 years for a person who is convicted of Murder 1 for a murder committed prior to age 18; also allows judge to impose sentence of life without parole after making certain findings of fact as to why this is appropriate.  Note that the ISBA has a bill proposing a 45 year mandatory minimum.

HSB 34 [Mary Wolfe]:   An act relating to the practice/procedures of state public defender

-      Public defender’s omnibus bill; among other provisions, it includes one that would require local judges to at least take into consideration the proximity of an attorney to a defendant when appointing contract attorneys to represent indigent defendants.

Each county has a list of attorneys who have contracted with the State Public Defender’s office to represent indigent criminal defendants (at a rate of $60 an hour) in cases the Public Defender cannot handle. An attorney isn’t required to have an office in the county seat (i.e., the city where the county courthouse is located) or even in the county itself to be eligible for the list, and under current law the judge is supposed to appoint the attorneys on a strict rotational basis, taking into consideration only “the experience of the lawyer and the difficulty of the case.”  In some counties this means that there are dozens of attorneys on the list that live and work outside of the county, who must drive sometimes long distances to meet with their clients and/or attend court hearings, and who are appointed to cases at the same rate as attorneys who live and work in the county.

This bill would require judges to at least consider giving local counsel priority when appointing an attorney for an indigent defendant, which is a good thing for several reasons. First, it’s fiscally responsible give priority to local contract attorneys, when local counsel is available. Out-of-county attorneys bill the State .39 for each mile they drive to/from the county in which they were appointed to meet w/their client or attend a court hearing/deposition or any other case related proceeding.   This adds up — in 2012 the Public Defender paid contract attorneys over $700,000 in mileage reimbursement alone. Since defendants are required to reimburse the State for all fees paid to their court appointed attorneys,  indigent (i.e., poor) defendants given out of county contract attorneys get hit with an additional mileage fee that defendants provided with local contract attorneys aren’t required to pay -  sometimes this amounts to hundreds of dollars over and above the fee for legal services. And since the Public Defender’s Office estimates that only about 10% of all contract attorney fees are actually collected (which isn’t too surprising, since we’re talking about poor people here), in the end it’s the State that is on the hook for all that mileage – i.e., for at least $630,000 of the $700,000 plus paid out in 2012 mileage reimbursement.

Appointing local counsel when possible is also more conducive to effective attorney/client communication. I am sure that out-of-county attorneys do the best they can to initiate and maintain contact with their clients, but again, people who have court appointed attorneys are generally poor, and they can’t afford to be driving 30/50/100 miles to/from meetings with their attorney. Sometimes a phone conference can be arranged – but a phone conference is simply not the same as a face to face meeting, not to mention that sometimes the defendant doesn’t have a phone, or has a phone number that is frequently not in service, or can’t reach the attorney by phone. And when a defendant is sitting in jail, s/he needs to meet with his/her contract attorney ASAP – a local attorney can get to the jail within a few hours of being appointed, while due to logistics it can take an out-of-county attorney considerably longer to make the trip.

Finally, Iowa’s rural and small town attorneys are a threatened species, and allowing the court to at least consider giving local counsel priority in court appointed cases should provide them with some much-needed support.  Back when I graduated from law school (1992), judges generally didn’t appoint out of county attorneys to criminal cases, and the fact that I knew that there weren’t many attorneys in Clinton handling court appointed criminal cases and thus  I would be able to obtain a lot of trial experience handling a lot cases while earning (just barely) enough money to pay my overhead was one of the reasons I decided to return to practice law in small town Clinton after I  graduated from law school – the other (bigger)  reason is that it allowed me to work with my mom and dad, but I wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t been sure of a fairly steady source of income from court appointed cases. Currently, a new attorney can set up shop in Davenport or Dubuque and pick up just as many court appointed cases as, say, my dad, who has live and worked in Clinton forever – so there’s a lot less incentive for a new attorney to set up shop in Clinton, or other rural county seats.  So along with being fiscally responsible and fostering improved attorney/client communications, the provision in this bill requiring judges to at least consider giving priority to local counsel in court appointed cases will hopefully provide a little support for those attorneys who have chosen to live and work in Iowa’s more rural areas, and might just encourage a few new attorneys to do the same.

HSB 35 [David Dawson]:  An act relating to conformity with federal law concerning unemployment insurance employer charges and claimant misrepresentation

-      This is a Workforce Development bill that hits employers w/certain penalties if they don’t cooperate with and/or if they misrepresent info during  Department’s investigation into  payment of benefits. Designed to encourage employers to take the Departments requests for info seriously, which will arguably allow the Department to process unemployment claims in a more timely and efficient manner.

HSB 36 [Rick Olson]:  An act relating to certificate of merit affidavits

-      (One of ) the Governor’s proposed tort reform bill(s); would require that within a certain relatively short time after filing a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff (i.e., injured party, or the family of the injured party if the injury was fatal) would be required to file a statement by a doctor swearing that the lawsuit has merit. This is, realistically, a doctors vs. lawyers bill, and various versions of it have been filed in prior years, and representatives from both sides have been working for at least a few years to try to come up with a compromise. Maybe this is the year. Probably not, but maybe.

HSB 37 [Marti Anderson]:  An act relating to transmission of court records by the clerk of district court to clerk of supreme court in an appeal

-      This is a clean up bill clarifying who does what when an appeal is filed

HF 57 [Mary Wolfe]:  A bill for an act relating to the justifiable use of reasonable force and providing a remedy

-   The infamous “Stand your Ground” bill – last session this passed the House on a straight party line vote (except for maybe Brian Quirk), then died in the Senate – as it would if it moves out of the House this year.  Here’s a post I did on last session’s version of the bill; if it moves forward this year I’ll update that analysis to incorporate any new info/data.

HF 58 [Marti Anderson]: A bill for an act relating to child support obligations and neglect or abandonment of a child based on nonsupport, and providing penalties

-  A non-custodial parent who is $2,000 behind on child support could be convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor, $10,000 or more behind would be a Class C felony. Also creates a mandatory minimum support obligation of $100 a month.

HSB 60 [Jo Oldson]: A study bill relating to the failure to wear a motor vehicle safety belt or safety harness or use a motor vehicle child restraint system

-    This is a tort reform bill – currently a defendant in an auto accident personal injury case is not allowed to bring up the fact that the plaintiff wasn’t wearing a seat belt at trial – instead, if the plaintiff was not, in fact, wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, the judge automatically deducts 5% from whatever damages the jury awards to the plaintiff.  This bill would allow defendant to argue that plaintiff was at least in part responsible for his/her injuries if s/he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, if the defendant can first prove to a judge that the fact plaintiff wasn’t wearing a seatbelt was a contributing factor in plaintiff’s injuries. The concern is that at least some members of a jury would be inappropriately prejudiced against an injured automobile accident victim if they were informed that the victim wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and “punish” the victim by not awarding any damages, even if it’s clear that the defendant was primarily at fault and thus the victim is clearly entitled to at least some recovery.

HF 67 [Dan Dawson]:  A bill for an act relating to elimination of the authorization for a court to order the payment of a postsecondary education subsidy in dissolution of marriage proceedings

- This bill, which I sponsored along with Rep. Rick Olson, does away with the provision in current Iowa law that allows a judge to order the divorced parents of an adult child to pay up to 1/3 of the cost of his/her secondary education expense. I filed the same bill last year and it went nowhere; there’s no subcommittee meeting scheduled yet, so that doesn’t bode well for the bill’s future this session.   Here’s a post from last year explaining my position; I could do a better job now but don’t want to waste my time if the bill is dead.  So stay tuned.

HF 72 [Jo Oldson]:  A bill for an act providing for an exception to municipal tort liability for claims arising from sledding on municipality-controlled property

-  This bill grants cities immunity for injuries that occurr on “sledding hills” under certain circumstances.

HF 73 [Vicki Lensing]:  A bill for an act relating to optional permits to acquire firearms and to permits to carry weapons and providing a penalty

OK, here’s what the official summary says about at least part of this bill:  Current law provides that any person who intends to purchase a pistol or revolver is required to first obtain an annual permit to acquire pistols or revolvers unless the person is otherwise exempt from obtaining such a permit.  The bill eliminates this type of mandatory permit and provides instead for an optional permit to acquire firearms in order to satisfy the requirements of federal law allowing the holder of such a permit to acquire firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.  A person is not required to obtain a permit to acquire firearms to purchase firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer if the person possesses a valid permit to carry weapons issued in accordance with Iowa law or if the person has otherwise completed a satisfactory national instant criminal background check required by federal law to purchase firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

I have not yet worked through quite what all that actually means, and whether it makes the law better or worse, or makes Iowa a safer or more dangerous place to live.  Vicki and I will work on figuring it out prior to any subcommittee meeting , and we’d certainly appreciate any assistance from any of you.

HF 74 [David Dawson]:  A bill for an act relating to the regulation of firearms and ammunition in a state of public emergency and providing a remedy

-    under current law, if the Governor delcares a state of emergency he has authority to   restrict the use of firearms and even confiscate firearms from private citizens; this bill removes the Governor’s authority to do this.  I’m actually good with this bill, I do believe. Or at least most of it. If for no other reason than I don’t want my brother the police officer to be required to attempt to collect guns from folks who have absolutely no intention of allowing them to be collected. Because Kevin has four children and a lovely wife and they would prefer to have him stay alive, as would I.

HF 75 [Marti Anderson]:  A bill for an act relating to the disposition of legal firearms and ammunition seized by a law enforcement agency

-   if I’m reading it correctly, this bill allows the seizing agency (e.g., the local police or sheriff department) to keep any legal weapons seized and/or to sell them and keep the money. Currently, if seized firearms/ammunition are worth more than $500 they have to be turned over to the Dept. of Public Safety, and if they are sold the money has to be turned over to the State general fund. So … on the one hand, I’d just as soon keep things local, but would this bill encourage local law enforcement to seize more firearms, since now they can keep them all? Hmmm…..

HSB 80 [Beth Wessell-Kroeschell]: An Act relating to the transfer of real estate and the filing of a mortgage release certificate, providing for a fee, and making remedies applicable

-   this bill has something to do with real estate transfers …. to be honest, at the moment that is the best I can do.  I note that the Bar Association has registered in favor of the bill and the Bankers are undecided …. whatever that means.

HF 81 [Mark Smith]: A bill for an act concerning the confidentiality of certain information relating to holders of nonprofessional permits to carry weapons and permits to acquire pistols and revolvers

-   This bill would require County Sheriffs to keep the lists of folks granted permits to carry weapons and/or acquire firearms confidential. Would appreciate constituent feedback on this one.

HJR 4 [Rick Olson]: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa relating to an individual’s right to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms

-    So called “2^nd Amendment” bill – language of bill is much broader than US 2^nd Amendment and would arguably render any restrictions on firearms unconstitutional. This bill has not yet been scheduled for a subcommittee meeting.

Last year the House Public Safety Committee (which is the committee in which all the gun bills ran last year, and in which none of the gun bills are running this year – go figure), of which I was and am a member,  actually passed an amended version of this bill with language identical to the ”real” 2nd Amendment, and which would have passed in the Senate and presumably have been signed into law by the Governor. However, when the bill ran in the full House the majority party stripped out that language and substituted their original, broader language, despite the fact that they were well aware that by doing so, they were killing the bill in the Senate. Their choice, I suppose – maybe they’ll make a different one this time around.  Here’s a post explaining that whole mess in a little more detail.

Hello, District 98! It’s Thursday of the first week of my second term in the Iowa House of Representatives, and not surprisingly it’s been a busy one.  I drove out on Sunday to get moved into my temporary session housing, which didn’t take long, since “moving in” consisted of unpacking my suitcase. This year I’m sharing an apartment with my friend Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic from Waterloo, and while we are a little short on furniture (as in, we don’t have any yet – thank goodness for Craigslist) we do have a fabulous view of the State Capitol, which is only a few blocks away. Plus ZombieBurger  (fabulous restaurant with fabulous hamburgers) is right downstairs – looking forward to taking my son John (who is currently a Senior at Clinton High) there when he  visits me in Des Moines (which he will hopefully be able to do over spring break).

Monday was exciting – there are 26 newly elected Representatives and all of their friends and family were at the Capitol to see them sworn in for the first time, so it was standing room only in the House Chamber.  Later that afternoon we selected our seats for the term – I moved to an aisle seat (good) close to the front of the Chamber (good) and close to the press (good?) but very far away from the Chamber restroom facilities (not so good). Here I am signing my official oath of office (I look so happy!) –

After lunch I stopped over at the Senate to say hi to newly elected Senator Rita Hart, who seemed right at home – so happy she’s here out to help represent/stand up for Clinton County!

Tuesday morning the Governor gave his “State of the State” speech – it was all about education and property tax reform, which is fine, but his proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget (which was also released on Tuesday) included 0% allowable growth for FY 14 and 15 … not good for schools, and if it passed in its present form, local property taxes across the State would increase to the tune of $51 million – so not good for property owners. The Governor’s budget plan also neglected to include funding for the mental health redesign’s promised property tax “backfill,” which is incredibly problematic since (1) we just passed a bill promising it last session and (2) there’s no way the new mental health regions can be viable without it. What the heck? I don’t understand why he would put his name on such a  patently unworkable proposal, even if everyone knows that the ultimate budget passed by the Legislature will look quite a bit different. At  least I assume and hope that it will look quite a bit different.

Wednesday Chief Justice Mark Cady gave his State of the Judiciary speech, which was fantastic – he stressed the importance of Iowa’s juvenile justice system, from both a moral and fiscal perspective. Clinton’s Judge Pelton was in the House Chamber for Justice Cady’s speech, and thanks to his assistance I was able to get my picture taken with our Governor at the reception following Justice Cady’s speech – thanks, Judge Pelton!

(And yes, I know this is not a good picture of me but since it’s most likely the only picture of me with the Governor that will ever be taken, and since Judge Pelton looks great, here it is for your viewing pleasure). Everyone at the reception wanted to congratulate Justice Cady on his speech – Senator Hart and I had to wait in line for quite a while before getting our chance to shake his hand (but it was worth it).

Wednesday was also my first House Public Safety Committee meeting (first of this session – it’s my third session serving on this committee, which I really enjoy). Like the other committee meetings this week, is was basically an opportunity for the Chair to welcome new members and for the new members to introduce themselves. Rumor is that there won’t be any gun bills run in Public Safety this session …. but that there will be plenty run in Judiciary – so since I’m ranking member of that committee, that should be interesting.

Wednesday afternoon I attended a meeting on the Attorney General’s proposed domestic/sexual violence regionalization plan, which emphasizes rapid re-housing over emergency shelters.  We heard a brief presentation about Oregon’s program, which was interesting but which I noted was transitioned in over a period of years, as opposed to months. The presenters stressed that the AG is willing to allow a longer transition period, but that this is contingent on increased funding – their estimate is that they would need approximately 1.5 million dollars to allow current shelter programs an additional year of transition time.

Wednesday night I attended a reception held by the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, where I was happy to see Clintonians Tom Determan and Rich Phelan, who both serve on the ABI’s board of directors.  Legislators attend a lot of these receptions throughout the session, and it is always nice to have the opportunity to discuss issues with interested parties outside of the Capitol.

Today (Thursday) I’ll be attending my first Transportation and Judiciary committee meetings – the House Transportation Committee is full of legislators who have gone on the record as being in favor of a reasonable state gas tax increase, so I assume we’ll be passing a bill out of committee sooner rather than later – we’ll have to see what happens after that. It would be nice if the Governor would commit to signing off on a gas tax increase if it makes it to his desk – so far he’s saying maybe, and only if he’s happy with the eventual property tax reform package agreed upon by the legislature. So not real helpful.

And right before I sent this to press, I was thrilled to get a visit from a Clinton County mentoring group, Campus Pals.  This is a program in which Ashford University students meet with Clinton middle school students a few times a week – they work on school assignments, extracurricular activities, community service, and (obviously) field trips to places like the State Capitol.  It’s a great program, and everyone involved should be proud of themselves.  The Ashford student mentors were Caitlin Geise, Arthesian Tillery, and Karley Wahl; their (adorable) mentees were Kayla Conely (Lyons Middle School) and Taj VanAuwelaer (Washington Middle School), and they were accompanied by supervisor Jerry Drake (from Ashford) and Alexis Wierenga (mentoring site coordinator). Thanks for visiting, guys!

This week has been fun, and somewhat productive, but next week we get to work for real. I’ve asked for several bills to be drafted to address the problematic issues with the mental health redesign funding mechanism, and I’ll be working on trying to get other legislators on board (including, hopefully, our other Clinton County legislators!). I’ll also continue to work on generating support for increased transitional funding for Iowa’s shelter programs – shelters need to know what they have to work with budget-wise ASAP, so time is definitely of the essence.

I’m hoping to see some of you at the Capitol this session – if you’re heading to Des Moines, please let me know so that I can be sure to be available to say hi and discuss any suggestions you might have re what the legislature is or isn’t doing (contact me by email at mary.wolfe@legis.state.ia.us). I’ll be back in Clinton most Fridays/Saturdays/Sundays, so if you belong to a group that has questions or concerns about legislative issues that does or is willing to meet on one of those days, I’d love to be there. Every Friday I’ll be discussing legislative issues on KROS with Representative Steve Olson and Senator Rita Hart – that runs at 12:30 p.m. and (I believe) is posted on KROS’s website  so you can listen to it over and over again. Finally, throughout the session I will be posting these weekly updates as well as posts on specific legislation/issues on my legislative blog – RepresentativeMaryWolfe.com – I appreciate any and all input/feedback from my constituents (aka my bosses).

Thank you for your support, and have a fabulous weekend!

Mary

Governor Branstad has vocally objected to the requirement in the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that each state set up an online health insurance “exchange” to assist and advise citizens in picking out the most appropriate health insurance plan – the Governor says that his objection is based on the fact that he has  many questions about the exchange process which he believes have not been adequately answered.  I just received a copy of a report prepared by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that appears to answer the bulk of Governor’s questions, and thought I’d pass it along.  Note that last session Iowa accepted seven million dollars of federal money which was intended to assist us in designing and implementing our health insurance exchange – we need to follow through, in a timely fashion, because if we don’t, the federal government will come in and do it for us, and my guess is that no one is going to be particularly happy with a state health insurance exchange program designed by the federal government.

Here’s the report:  Health Insurance Exchanges

So this past Saturday I took a firearms safety class (required to obtain a concealed carry permit, which fyi allows one to legally conceal and carry not just a firearm but also a taser or brass knuckles or a big knife) – it was taught by Brian Forney of Dynamic Firearms Instruction, who did an excellent job of making the five-hour long class interesting. About half of the class time was spent discussing firearms and firearms safety; the other half was spent on an overview of Iowa’s firearm related laws, which was a good refresher for me and which reminded me that there are a few firearm related issues that I would like to address in the coming legislative term (assuming I’m re-elected). One of those issues is set out below, and I’d appreciate any input, positive or negative - e.g., do you agree there’s a problem with the current law, and if so, does what I’m suggesting to fix it make sense?

QUESTION: Should a defendant granted a deferred judgment for a felony offense be considered a “convicted felon” for 2nd Amendment purposes?

In State of Iowa v. Den Kon Tong the IA Supreme Court held (pursuant to a fairly convoluted statutory analysis) that when the IA legislature passed a bill making it illegal for a person ”convicted of a felony offense” to possess a firearm (Iowa’s “felon in possession” statute, 724.26), the legislature actually intended to also make it illegal for a person granted a deferred judgment for a felony offense to possess a firearm. Even though the legislature sure didn’t say that.  Go figure. So ever since Den Kon Tong was decided in 2011, a defendant granted a felony deferred judgment is a convicted felon as far as Iowa gun law is concerned. And since under the federal Brady Act each individual state (i.e., “jurisdiction”) gets to decide what constitutes a felony “conviction” for purposes of federal firearms law, the Den Kon Tong ruling means that an Iowa felony deferred judgment triggers both a state and federal firearm disability (See Section 20 of the Brady Act’s definition section).

IMHO, the Court’s ruling in Den Kon Tong is just…wrong. I think the Court’s statutory analysis is technically incorrect (for complicated reasons that I could explain in detail, but won’t, to avoid making this even longer than it is), but I also feel strongly that the ruling is wrong on a more fundamental “that’s just not fair” level – since the whole point of a felony deferred judgment is to allow a (usually) first time offender charged with a non-forcible felony to avoid a felony conviction. The defendant pleads guilty to the felony offense, but the judge defers – puts off – sentencing the defendant, and after a period of probation (1-3 years), and assuming the defendant hasn’t screwed up, the case is expunged (closed and removed from public access) without a judgment of conviction ever being entered. So if asked (before or after the case has been expunged) by an employer or anyone else, the defendant can truthfully state that s/he has never been convicted of a felony, and is not a convicted felon.

That’s what lawyers and judges and probation officers have always told defendants and it’s a correct interpretation of the law – or it was, until the Court decided that the rules are different when it comes to guns, and that people who have been granted felony deferred judgments are somehow supposed to realize that as far as their 2nd Amendment rights are concerned – and only as far as their 2nd Amendment rights are concerned (for example, voting is still legal) - they are convicted felons. Even though no one told them, and even though some of these defendants probably would have taken their chances at trial if they had been aware that the result of their guilty plea was a (possibly permanent) firearm disability.

I don’t believe that this result is what the legislature intended when it passed 724.26, and thus I’m proposing that the legislature make this clear by amending Iowa Code section 724.25 to add a new subsection, as follows: “(3) The entry of a deferred judgment for a felony offense does not constitute a conviction for purposes of 724.26.” Simple and unambiguous – two good things when it comes to drafting criminal laws. And it’s not going to put anyone at risk or make Iowa a more dangerous place to live, because obviously the judge or probation officer can always make “no guns” a condition of any defendant’s probation. Although hopefully any such condition will only be imposed in cases where there’s evidence suggesting that the defendant poses a threat to the community if allowed access to guns – since without such evidence, a non-felon really should be allowed to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment rights, so long as s/he does it responsibly.

All this proposed amendment does is clarify the legislature’s intent that Iowa Code section 724.26 applies only to a convicted felon, and thus does not apply to a person who has been granted a deferred judgment, aka the opportunity to avoid becoming a convicted felon. This adjustment to Iowa law appears to me to be fair and reasonable, and since a firearm restriction can still be imposed as a condition of probation if it’s merited, it doesn’t make Iowa a more dangerous place to live. Please let me know if you agree, or not.

And if you haven’t already done so, please don’t forget to vote – you can vote early five days a week (and I think Saturday as well) at the Clinton County Auditor’s Office, or you can vote at the polls on November 6th.  Thanks!

Next Tuesday, October 23^rd, at 6:00 p.m., the Crime Victim Assistance Division (CVAD) of the Iowa Attorney General’s office will host a public meeting at the Clinton Community College Auditorium to receive input from Clinton County residents on the CVAD’s proposed regionalization of Iowa’s domestic and sexual assault victim services programs.  Under this proposal, it appears likely that our local programs (including our emergency shelter program) will not be eligible for the state and federally funded grants administered through the CVAD, and that most of the services currently being offered to local victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse will be relocated to larger cities (e.g., Davenport or Iowa City). It also appears likely that the proposed regionalization will have an extremely negative impact on  the ability of Clinton County residents to access these valuable – and sometimes life saving – services.

In the past few years, Clinton County has lost its Workforce Development Field Office and its Social Security Office, and now the State is contemplating cutting off funding for our emergency shelter and victim services programs.  Enough is enough – we need to stand up for ourselves, and next Tuesday is a good place to start. So at 5:30 p.m., half an hour before the CVAD public meeting, please join our victim services providers and community leaders at Clinton Community College to show our support for our local victim services programs. And if you can, please stay for the 6 p.m. meeting to learn more about this important issue and to help convince the Attorney General to slow down a bit and allow the Iowa legislature and our community (and other communities across the state who share our predicament) the opportunity  to find additional and/or alternative funding for these services. Regionalizing Iowa’s victim services programs is a big change, and if we’re going to do it, we need to take the time to get it right, the first time – because the cost of getting it wrong should be unacceptable to all of us.

As a criminal defense attorney, I know how hard it is for some victims to ask for help, and how quickly victims can seize upon the smallest delay or inconvenience as an excuse for staying right where they are – and that’s why it’s so crucial that the array of victim services offered to Clinton County residents by the YWCA and other local providers remain readily and easily accessible. If Clinton County victims seeking emergency shelter for themselves and their children are required to travel to another county in the middle of the night, or wait days or weeks before being able to meet with a therapist, I’m sure that at least some of these victims won’t follow through – instead, they’ll stay in the abusive relationship, at least until they’re hurt seriously enough to have the decision to leave taken out of their hands. And if they stay, so will their children – and children who grow up surrounded by domestic violence are far more likely to grow up to be abusers, or victims of abusers, themselves.

We also need to keep in mind that if our local domestic/sexual violence victim services programs are eliminated, our local law enforcement officers, jails, court systems, schools, and hospitals/mental health providers will have no choice but to assume responsibility for providing at least some of these eliminated services.  I’m sure that all these dedicated professionals will do their best, but Clinton County’s current victim services providers receive specialized training and are granted certain legal immunities that our local police, deputies, county attorneys, teachers, and health care providers simply don’t have – not to mention the fact that our local city and county budgets are already strapped, and ill equipped to take on any additional (significant!) financial burden.

Regionalization will most likely entail centralizing services in counties with larger urban populations, like Scott or Johnson – and presumably Clinton County victims will remain eligible for these services, assuming that they can either get themselves to the service provider or are willing to wait for the service provider to come to Clinton. The details of the proposed regionalization haven’t been worked out, and thus it’s difficult to predict how far Clinton County victims will have to travel, or how long they’ll have to wait, and maybe it won’t be that far, or that long. But clearly, the loss of state and federal funding for our local emergency shelter and  other programs will result in the loss of local access for the majority of these services, which will inevitably result in fewer Clinton County victims getting help, and more of our residents getting seriously hurt or even killed, and more of our children suffering the lifelong consequences of being exposed to domestic violence, and more violent crime sucking up more of our local law enforcement officers’ time and resources. I could go on, but you get the picture – and it’s not a pretty one.

As our Attorney General, Tom Miller’s job is to ensure that Iowa is a safe place for law abiding citizens to live, work, and raise a family. Tom Miller is a good man who takes his job seriously, so I am hopeful that he will be willing to reconsider his decision to eliminate funding for many community based programs that provide protection and assistance to some of our most vulnerable citizens. At the very least, CVAD should push the proposed implementation of the regionalization plan back just one fiscal year, so as to ensure that during the coming session, the Iowa legislature has an opportunity to conduct a full and informed review of the alleged funding problem and the proposed solution.  Given the chance – which we haven’t been given, yet – I am confident that the legislature can set aside our differences and work together to identify and allocate additional sources of funding for Iowa’s victim services grants in an amount sufficient to allow successful existing victim services programs – like ours in Clinton County – to be grandfathered into any future regional funding structure.