The July 14, 2005 meeting of the Program Review and Investigations Committee was held at 10:00 AM, in Room 131 of the Capitol Annex. Senator Ernie Harris, Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.
Present were:
Members: Senator Ernie Harris, Co-Chair; Representative Tommy Thompson, Co-Chair; Senators Charlie Borders, Brett Guthrie, Vernie McGaha, Joey Pendleton, Dan Seum, and Katie Stine; Representatives Adrian K. Arnold, Sheldon E. Baugh, Dwight D. Butler, Charlie Hoffman, Rick G. Nelson, Ruth Ann Palumbo, and Susan Westrom.
Guests: Melinda L. Wheeler, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts; Ed Crockett, General Manager of Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the Courts; and Mary Pederson, Program Manager, Unified Criminal Justice Information System.
LRC Staff: Greg Hager, Committee Staff Administrator; Kara Daniel; Rick Graycarek; Jim Guinn; Tom Hewlett; Margaret Hurst; Van Knowles; Erin McNees; Cindy Upton; John Foster; and Susan Spoonamore, Committee Assistant.
Minutes of the June 9, 2005 meeting were approved, without objection, by voice vote upon motion made by Rep. Palumbo and seconded by Sen. Seum.
Kara Daniel, Program Review staff, presented a summary of the report Improved Coordination and Information Could Reduce the Backlog of Unserved Warrants.
Ms. Daniel stated that there were an estimated 265,000 to 385,000 unserved arrest warrants in Kentucky. She explained that the estimate included three types of criminal warrants: complaint warrants, bench warrants, and indictment warrants. She stated that after a warrant was issued, it remained active indefinitely until it was served by arresting the wanted person or it was recalled by a judge. She said that as a warrant aged, it became less likely to be served. She stated that the report included one recommendation to address this problem by encouraging the implementation of periodic review policies.
Ms. Daniel stated that because there is no comprehensive, statewide database of warrant information, and because the different types of warrants are processed differently, staff had to gather information from several sources. She stated that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provided CourtNet data on bench and indictment warrants issued statewide for the period January 2000 through January 2005 and complaint warrant data for Jefferson County. Staff also gathered data on complaint warrants from six other counties: Fayette, Franklin, Grayson, Jackson, Kenton and Madison. She stated that there were more unserved bench warrants than any other type. She also stated that the backlog of unserved bench and indictment warrants had increased by approximately 28,000 per year over the last three years. She stated the report included five recommendations intended to reduce the number of bench warrants that are issued.
Ms. Daniel stated that data were analyzed to determine the severity of the underlying crimes associated with the unserved warrants. She said that, among bench and indictment warrants, only 16 percent of the felony warrants were unserved while more than 30 percent of misdemeanor warrants were unserved. She stated that among the complaint warrants for the seven counties studied, the largest category of unserved warrants was misdemeanors in every county except Jefferson.
Ms. Daniel stated that among all the unserved warrants, the most common crime was theft by deception, typically committed by presenting a bad check. She said that reducing the number of bad check warrants issued could significantly reduce the backlog of unserved warrants. She stated the report included two recommendations intended to reduce the number of bad check warrants issued.
Ms. Daniel stated that the issuance, tracking, and serving of warrants requires the cooperation of multiple separate agencies in two branches of government, and presently there is no statewide system nor single agency responsible for coordinating the warrant system. She said the report included one recommendation intended to foster coordination.
Ms. Daniel stated that the existing databases contain only a portion of the warrants that are issued and that counties have devised their own methods to track warrants. She said that because there is no statewide database of warrant information, law enforcement officers often have no way of learning about warrants issued outside their own county.
Ms. Daniel stated that because there is no statewide database or reporting requirements, many opportunities to serve warrants are lost and there is little information available that can be used to evaluate law enforcement’s performance at serving warrants. She stated the report included seven recommendations addressing warrant tracking.
Ms. Daniel stated that a pilot project for a limited electronic warrant system is being planned for Clark and Woodford Counties that would handle complaint warrants with a numeric identifier and are for more serious crimes. She said there were five recommendations in the report regarding the e-warrant project.
Ms. Daniel explained that different law enforcement agencies serve warrants in each county according to individual policies and procedures and this impacts the number of warrants served. She stated there is little information available to evaluate law enforcement's performance at serving warrants but that staff used the limited information obtained from CourtNet to estimate the time it took for law enforcement to serve bench and indictment warrants. She stated there was wide variation among the counties, but the Kentucky average was 674 days to serve 75 of every 100 warrants issued. She said that it was unknown how Kentucky compared to other states, because there are no state or national standards. She said the report included six recommendations intended to facilitate service of warrants by law enforcement.
Ms. Daniel concluded that most of the unserved warrants were issued for writing bad checks or for failing to comply with court orders; there are various problems throughout the fragmented warrant process; and there is a lack of access to needed information.
Rep. Baugh asked if the e-warrant pilot project would help to establish information on outstanding warrants that would be included in the national database. He also asked if officials were able to access the National Crime Information System (NCIC) database to search for outstanding warrants from another state.
Ms. Daniel stated that officials could access the NCIC database to check for outstanding warrants issued from Kentucky and other states, but the information was limited. She stated that in the future it was the goal to have all outstanding warrants entered in that system.
Rep. Palumbo asked if the recent Supreme Court decision regarding domestic violence complaints would affect Kentucky’s warrant system.
Ms. Daniel stated that each county is required to establish a coordinated approach for handling domestic violence complaints. She said that there is no such requirement for a coordinated warrant process among Kentucky’s counties
Rep. Palumbo stated that it was her understanding that domestic violence complaints would go to the bottom of the list as a priority. She asked if staff had an opinion on the ruling.
Ms. Daniel stated that she would have to review the Supreme Court decision, but based on what she had just heard, it could present problems for domestic violence cases.
Sen. Seum asked if 16 percent of the estimated 385,000 unserved arrest warrants were felony warrants.
Ms. Daniel explained that felonies did not account for 16 percent of the total, rather that 16 percent of the felony bench and indictment warrants that were issued remained unserved. She stated that staff was able to determine that percentage for bench and indictment warrants but not for complaint warrants because that information was not available.
Sen. Seum asked if a domestic violence complaint would be a complaint warrant and if domestic violence warrants were a part of the unserved warrants
Ms. Daniel stated that domestic violence warrants were usually complaint warrants, unless a bench warrant or indictment had resulted from a domestic violence case.
Sen. Seum asked if staff had an estimate on how many outstanding warrants would be in the system ten years from now, especially if the number of unserved warrants continued to grow at the same rate.
Ms. Daniel stated that staff did not make any projections but that over the last three years the number of unserved bench and indictment warrants had increased approximately 28,000 per year.
Sen. Seum asked if some of the felony warrants could be related to cold checks.
Ms. Daniel stated that was correct.
Sen. Seum asked if 25 percent of the 41,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Jefferson County were felony warrants.
Ms. Daniel stated the percentage would vary depending on whether you were looking at just the bench and indictment warrants or at all arrest warrants.
Sen. Seum stated that it was his understanding that the percentage did not include the complaint warrants, which could be felony warrants.
Ms. Daniel stated that in looking at just the bench and indictment warrants in Jefferson County, there was a higher percentage of felonies. She said that if complaint warrants were included then the percentage would come down to approximately 30 percent unserved felony warrants.
Sen. Seum asked if Jefferson County had around 12,000 potential felons roaming the streets.
Ms. Daniel stated that the number would be around 10,000.
Sen. Seum asked if the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would be proposing legislation to address the issue of unserved warrants.
Melinda L. Wheeler, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts stated that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had been working on the warrant system with the Unified Criminal Justice Information System (UCJIS), and the Criminal Justice Council for 15 years. She stated that the process had been difficult, and she agreed that changes needed to be made.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC disagreed with the estimated number of active warrants. She said that the report failed to take into account that District Court cases are destroyed after 5 five years and that most districts recall and eliminate misdemeanor bench warrants on a regular basis.
Ms. Wheeler said that AOC agreed with the statements that the system is fragmented, and that there is no single agency responsible for managing warrants. She said that the warrants system had failed simply because there was no system. She stated that the Criminal Justice Council and the UCJIS warrant committee were in the process of bringing statewide standards to bear on the problem. She said that they were actively working on the problems and believed that solutions would be found.
She suggested that decriminalizing theft by deception under $300 and removing constraints on small claims filing would eliminate the cold check warrant dilemma that is currently in the system. She stated that the problem is that most checks are for small sums. She stated that if theft by deception were decriminalized and made a civil matter, then the courts could increase the number of small claims filings allowed to more than 25 a year, which would eliminate a lot of warrants.
Ms. Wheeler stated that there is no single law enforcement agency that bears the statutory responsibility of serving warrants. She said that AOC would look forward to working with the General Assembly and the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet to identify an entity to do that.
Ms. Wheeler stated that the Law Information Network of Kentucky (LINK) is the statewide database for warrants, complaints, bench warrants and indictments. She said that she agreed that the validation process is cumbersome and that it is a problem.
She stated that the process as described in Figure 1.A, Processes for Complaint and Bench Warrants, was atypical and incorrect. She stated that in most instances the clerk does not receive the complaint warrant until it has been served. She stated that it does not become a court document until it is in the hands of the court, and a court date is set.
Ms. Wheeler stated that the number of people going through the court system each year was growing, but AOC believed there was only a one percent increase per year in the number of unserved warrants. She said that decriminalizing theft by deception would help to reduce the number of outstanding warrants in the future.
She stated that warrants for traffic offenses are sent to the Department of Transportation for suspension of licenses, but the department does not recognize misdemeanors or other offenses. She stated that a bench warrant is the only process available for people not paying fines or missing a court date on misdemeanor charges or other offenses.
Ms. Wheeler stated they do not believe that law enforcement are not trying to serve the warrants. She stated AOC would be willing to participate in electronically feeding bench warrant information to whatever warrant system is set up. She stated AOC is a willing participant in that process but wants to ensure that CourtNet is not taken to another phase. She stated that CourtNet, in conjunction with Kentucky Courts II, is a case management system that the courts need for court purposes. She stated that AOC gave police officers across the state access to CourtNet information so they could find dispositions and other relevant information. She stated she believes there is a council in place to address the warrant issue and that Ms. Pederson will be able to discuss that further.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC agreed with Recommendation 2.4. She said that AOC does encourage all district courts to adopt a policy of providing a written notice stating the next court date or payment deadline before the defendant leaves court.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC agreed with Recommendation 2.5. She said that AOC does encourage courts to refer all eligible cases to the Department of Transportation in lieu of issuing a bench warrant, but if people failed to appear in court, the judge would issue a bench warrant.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC is willing to look at the issue raised by recommendation 2.6. She stated that in the past pretrial services sent reminder slips to everybody about the next court date but that the bulk of misdemeanor arrests are handled at arraignment within a day or two of arrest. In many cases, if a person is released from jail and doesn’t come back, there is no time to provide notice and a bench warrant is issued. Most of the felons appear in court; it is the misdemeanor and traffic offenders who fail to appear.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC disagreed with Recommendation 2.7. She said that there is no authority for a standing court order that allows deputy clerks to recall a warrant when the fine is paid at the counter. She said that it would place an unauthorized and improper judicial duty upon clerical staff.
Ms. Wheeler stated that Recommendation 2.8. would place an undue burden upon Pretrial Services if staff were required to contact every defendant who failed to appear for court.
Ms. Wheeler stated that in accordance with Recommendation 2.9, AOC already has an independent organization helping to develop a more cohesive warrant system.
Ms. Wheeler stated that AOC does not agree with Recommendation 2.11. She said that many of the counties have a hard time keeping up with warrants, so there is a concern with giving them confidential information on defendants. She said that if a police officer asked for the information, then AOC would gladly provide it.
Sen. Seum asked if a bench warrant could be issued for a felon who failed to appear in court.
Ms. Wheeler stated that a bench warrant could be issued.
Sen. Seum asked what percentage of bench warrants resulted from felonies. He also asked if all bench warrants were not necessarily for minor offenses.
Ms. Wheeler stated that all bench warrants were not necessarily for minor offenses. She explained that even in the district court system with preliminary hearings and felony arrests before indictment, many of those warrants are also bench warrants.
Sen. Seum asked if AOC had been able to look at what other cities, counties, or states were doing to handle the problem of unserved warrants.
Ms. Wheeler said that all the states are having problems with unserved warrants.
Mr. Ed Crockett, General Manager, AOC Pretrial Services, stated that they had asked other agencies for their innovative practices. He stated that other agencies were essentially using the same process. He stated that Pretrial Services makes phone calls to the defendants, and they also alert law enforcement officials whenever they obtain location information. He stated that statewide access through the LINK system in cooperation with e-warrants and CourtNet would be the best solution for handling information.
Ms: Wheeler stated that all states are having serious problems because the FBI requires fingerprint-based data to enter information into its Interstate Identification Index system. She stated this has been one of the problems for states entering information into the system.
Rep. Baugh asked Ms. Wheeler to explain her comment regarding the flaw in the information concerning the estimated number of warrants. He asked if district court cases were destroyed after five years, or were they transferred to a different court, or were the warrants served.
Mr. Crockett explained that in older cases police officers may have retired, the complaining witness may refuse to prosecute, or a business may no longer exist. He said that in some instances the crimes were not solved because they were unprosecutable.
Rep. Baugh asked if decriminalizing theft by deception under $300 would help the court by eliminating cases, and would it help the aggrieved person. He asked if there would be any mechanism in place besides a judgment for a business or an individual who obtained a judgment through small claims court against a person for theft by deception. He also asked if collecting the money would become a burden upon the business or individual.
Ms. Wheeler stated that most of the bad checks written were for small amounts and that it would be the responsibility of the business or individual to collect the money once a judgment is entered.
Rep. Baugh asked why an individual or a business should go through small claims court if it would not help to collect money on bad checks.
Ms. Wheeler explained that decriminalizing theft by deception of $300 or less would reduce the number of warrants and would also reduce the number of people being incarcerated.
Rep. Baugh stated that he thought it would shift more of the burden to businesses and individuals rather than the court and the state.
Ms. Wheeler stated that when a bench warrant was issued on a cold check warrant, sometimes the only recourse available for restitution was jail.
Sen. Stine asked what distinctions were found between counties that serve their warrants in a timely manner and the counties that do not bother to serve warrants at all.
Ms. Wheeler stated that law enforcement officials in rural counties had very few staff. She said that in smaller communities officials were used as court bailiffs, as well as being responsible for patrolling and serving warrants.
Sen. Stine stated that was not the case for Harlan and Green Counties because they were doing the best job.
Mr. Crockett stated that there could be extenuating circumstances or it simply could be a factor that the individual had absconded from the jurisdiction and the location information was not available. He stated that this is where the issue of a statewide database becomes critical.
Sen. Stine agreed that the state definitely needed to be moving toward a statewide database. She asked that someone from the Sheriff’s Association address the issue as to why the bottom 26 counties were not serving warrants.
Sen. Harris stated that the Sheriff’s Association had been invited to attend and respond to the report, but there was no representative in the audience on their behalf.
Rep. Palumbo asked why taxpayer dollars were being used to collect bad checks in the amount of $25 for a big corporation like Walmart. She asked why Walmart did not turn them over to a collection agency.
Ms. Wheeler stated that there is a limit on how many bad checks could be pursued through small claims court, so they use the warrant process.
Rep. Palumbo stated that she thought it would be better for the court system if businesses turned over cold checks to a collection agency, especially for checks in small amounts.
Ms Wheeler stated that AOC would like to remove cold checks from the system.
Rep. Palumbo recommended that the legislature look into helping resolve the issue of collecting cold checks through the court system.
Ms. Wheeler addressed Rep. Palumbo’s earlier question on the issue of domestic violence complaints. She stated that domestic violence complaints do not go to the bottom of the pile in Kentucky. She stated that according to AOC statistics, there is an 80 percent service rate on domestic violence warrants.
Rep. Nelson stated that it was important to remember that sheriffs are not required to have any law enforcement experience to be elected to the office, and in some counties a new sheriff was elected every four years. He stated that having a sheriff with law enforcement experience contributed to a more orderly process of getting warrants served.
Sen. Borders stated that the system needed to concentrate more on people who were a threat to society. He said that while it was important to take care of businesses, it may come to the point that businesses may have to take bad checks into consideration as part of their cost of doing business.
Sen. Seum asked if too many new laws criminalizing behavior were being passed.
Ms. Wheeler stated that people recognized there were a lot of new laws, but they had no idea or no understanding of the new laws.
Mary Pederson, Program Manager, Unified Criminal Justice Information System, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet and Commonwealth Office of Technology, explained that the Unified Criminal Justice Information System (UCJIS) is a program of public safety projects with the common goal of sharing and integrating justice information. She stated that e-warrants was one of several projects that UCJIS had either completed, or was a current or future project.
She stated that the report contained several recommendations regarding the formation of an independent organization or criminal justice council. She stated that the Kentucky Criminal Justice Council (KCJC) had recently been reorganized and was scheduled to meet on July 22, 2005. She stated that the reorganized council consisted of 15 members, all of whom had a direct interest in the functioning of the criminal justice system and UCJIS.
Ms. Pederson stated that UCJIS is planning to implement an e-warrant pilot project in Clark and Woodford Counties beginning in August 2005. She stated that it had taken a long time to put the project together because each county handles the warrant process differently.
Ms. Pederson responded to the following recommendations:
Recommendation 2.10: She stated that the formalization and standardization of the warrant process is a key component of the UCJIS e-warrant pilot project as well as the statewide implementation project. She said that the formalization and standardization process would include the adoption and use of AOC’s uniform warrant form.
Recommendation 2.12: She stated that the e-warrant system would allow for the capture of an alternate address as well as a place of employment on the complaint warrant. She stated that the standard AOC warrant form would be printed for serving the warrants. She said that additional information would be available in the system but only for law enforcement, judges, jailers and any other criminal justice officials who needed to view the information on that warrant. She stated that there would also be space to include any additional information that might be acquired at a later time, which would help to update the actual database.
Recommendation 3.1: She stated that the e-warrants project would ensure that procedures were in place to promptly update the system when a warrant was served. She stated that training would be provided and assistance provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. She said that for the system to work correctly, it would be contingent upon the individual using the system to enter the information in a timely fashion.
Recommendation 3.2: She stated that the UCJIS program manager would report to the Council on all matters pertaining to the development of a statewide e-warrant system.
Recommendation 3.3: She said that they had received a commitment from the Kentucky State Police to review the feasibility of allowing Internet access to LINK and NCIC, and that they would report their findings to the Kentucky Criminal Justice Council.
Recommendation 3.4: She stated that the e-warrants system was utilizing two electronic signature technologies. She stated that the Office of Legal Services of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet was in the process of drafting proposed amendments to court rules to specifically include the use of an electronic signature on a warrant.
Recommendation 3.5: She stated that as part of the pilot project, the UCJIS Program Manager would develop a Memorandum of Understanding among the Commonwealth Office of Technology, the Kentucky State Police, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and any other pertinent agencies that establishes if and how information can be exchanged between e-warrants and CourtNet, e-warrants and LINK, and/or CourtNet and LINK. She stated that there was no plan right now to exchange information as part of the pilot between CourtNet and the actual e-warrant system, but there is a plan in place to share information with the e-warrant database that would have all the warrants across the state of Kentucky included in it.
Recommendation 3.6: She stated that the e-warrant statewide implementation project would include the submission of the validation process to the FBI for review and approval. She stated that even though the e-warrant database would not be subject to federal validation standards, they wanted to ensure that the process would be handled correctly since there is the potential that the state system would eventually feed the federal system’s database.
Recommendation 3.7: She stated that a documented goal of the e-warrant project is that all complaint warrants be generated electronically, signed electronically, and stored electronically in a database that will be accessible to all law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors, correctional facilities, and other parties needing access. She said that if it became necessary, the KCJC would address the need for statutory and court rule changes to specify that an electronic complaint warrant is valid and how the warrants should be served.
Recommendation 3.11: She stated that the e-warrants project team is developing a proposal to address the serving and clearing of out-of-county warrants statewide. She said that KCJC would address the financial implications of extradition.
She stated that the UCJIS e-warrant pilot project would be up and running in August or September. She said that the planning of the statewide project would begin in August and run concurrently with the pilot project so enhancements could be built into the statewide system that is scheduled to be implemented by the end of 2006.
Sen. Harris asked if the Criminal Justice Council would be reviewing the recommendations contained in the report.
Ms. Pederson stated that the Criminal Justice Council would review the recommendations.
Sen. Harris asked if AOC would have a legislative agenda for the 2006 General Session addressing and prioritizing the issues discussed in the report.
Ms. Wheeler stated that they would.
Sen. Stine asked if the Criminal Justice Council would be helping to resolve some of the issues raised in the report.
Ms. Pederson stated that UCJIS would be reporting to the council on the implementation and running of the e-warrant pilot project. She said that she was confident that the council would help UCJIS to continue and achieve its vision and provide the guidance necessary to make the projects happen.
Sen. Stine recommended that the Judiciary Committee be encouraged to review the report and the recommendations.
Rep. Hoffman asked how much of a reduction in unserved warrants would occur if defendants were allowed to resolve warrants for failure to pay fines at the clerk’s office.
Ms. Wheeler stated that recalling a warrant would be a judicial function. She said that AOC could not give the clerk the authority to recall a warrant. She said that there might be a process for the clerks to put it all on a docket for a judge to sign to get warrants recalled.
Rep. Hoffman asked if that procedure would help to reduce the number of warrants.
Ms. Wheeler stated that she did not know if it would help the problem. She said that AOC was in the process of implementing an accounts receivable system, which could help to get the warrant out of the system.
Rep. Hoffman asked if AOC would need an agreement from the judges to allow this to happen and if judges would be willing to help reduce the number of warrants.
Ms. Wheeler stated that was correct and that the judges would work with AOC to clear out the warrants.
Sen. Seum stated that he had questions about recalling warrants.
Ms. Wheeler stated that warrants are recalled if businesses have gone out of business, or the prosecutor no longer wanted to prosecute, or the police officer was no longer with the department. She stated that AOC reviews cases that are five years or older.
Sen. Harris asked Ms. Daniel if she had any further comments.
Ms. Daniel stated that staff interviewed officials and personnel in several jurisdictions and did not encounter any evidence where there was a routine review and recall of unserved warrants every five years. She said that some jurisdictions reviewed outstanding warrants occasionally, but there was no regular schedule for review and recall. She asked Ms. Wheeler if there was reason to believe that unserved warrants were routinely being purged after five years.
Ms. Wheeler stated after the audit of a clerk’s office, the AOC goes in and destroys the records after five years.
Ms. Daniel stated that staff found that some of the pending warrants were for cases that were still open.
Ms. Wheeler stated that it may not be exactly five years because AOC had to audit the bookkeeping before the warrants were destroyed.
Ms. Daniel asked if Ms. Wheeler was saying that the files are not retained in the clerk’s office after that point.
Ms. Wheeler stated that was correct.
Ms. Daniel stated that was not consistent with what staff was told by the clerk’s offices regarding cases that remain open. She said that they were told that warrants were still in the offices, and that there was not any sort of review.
Mr. Crockett stated that under today’s standards, cases were not typically destroyed if they had an active bench warrant or outstanding fine. However, that is a new constraint, and the estimated number of warrants is based on analysis of extrapolation back to 1980, and those standards were in place and the case files were routinely destroyed prior to the implementation of those new standards.
Ms. Daniel stated the report shows that there is a 1987 bench warrant in Jefferson County that is still active and still in the system.
Mr. Crockett stated that staff would find aberrations, but it is not common.
Sen. Harris asked if the staff’s report and AOC were saying the same thing in different ways about the one percent increase in the number of warrants being issued.
Ms. Wheeler stated that the AOC disagrees that there are 280,000 to 300,000 active outstanding warrants in the system. She stated that the AOC is in the process now of trying to find out how many warrants are in the system. She stated that over a million cases a year come through the court system, and if 40,000 warrants are issued, then there should be a one percent increase.
Sen. Harris stated that AOC may disagree with the number of warrants but they could agree that there were too many warrants in the system, and that too many of them go unserved. He stated that the issue is the prioritization of warrants and the fact that there are too many warrants in the system.
Sen. Harris asked if there was a representative from the Sheriff’s Association present who would like to respond.
There was no representative from the Sheriff’s Association in the audience.
Sen. Stine asked if the committee would like to amend any recommendations in the report.
Sen. Harris stated that he and Co-chair Thompson were inclined to accept the report as written, and future discussions could sort out any discrepancies that may exist.
The report Improved Coordination and Information Could Reduce the Backlog of Unserved Warrants was adopted, without objection, by roll call vote upon motion made by Rep. Baugh and seconded by Rep. Palumbo.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:55.