►
From YouTube: Joint Judiciary Meeting, October 26, 2020-PM
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
C
Yep,
mr
chairman,
this
is
6-0-1
on
the
meeting
materials
21
lso
60
working
draft
0.4.
C
The
committee
earlier
this
year
received
an
overview
of
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
and
considered
this
bill
draft
at
the
august
meeting
started
working
the
bill
draft
before
before
the
committee
moved
to
table
the
draft.
Until
this
meeting
there
were
no
amendments
that
were
adopted.
There
was
one
that
was
proposed
and
failed
to
this,
so
this
version
of
the
bill
draft
remains
the
same
as
it
did
in
august
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
as
a
refresher,
I
can
go
through
the
entire
bill
draft.
However,
the
committee
would
like
to
proceed
with
this.
C
Under
the
provisions
of
this
act,
the
bill
draft
also
amends
penalties
and
offenses
and
the
financial
disclosure
requirements
that
are
that
are
under
the
act
so
beginning
on
page
two
lines
10
to
12.
This
amends
the
definition
of
public
employee
to
include
any
employee
or
at
will
contract.
Employee
of
a
state
entity
or
local
office
state
entity
is,
is
defined
in
the
bill
draft.
The
staff
comment
on
page
two:
just
notes
what
the
the
definition
for
local
offices
for
purposes
of
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act.
C
The
remaining
provisions
of
the
staff
comment
on
page
3
just
knows
whether
the
committee
would
wish
to
consider
a
definite
whether
a
definition
of
at
will
contract
employee
is
necessary
for
state
employees.
It's
it's
specified,
it's
one
whose
position
is
created
by
the
governor
exercising
his
authority
under
an
applicable
provision
and
for
which
the
position
is
granted
continued
authorization
through
the
enactment
of
the
state
budget.
C
The
next
part
on
page
3
line,
13
just
notes
whether
a
question
whether
public
member
should
be
amended
to
include
members
of
local
boards
commissions
or
councils
right
now.
That
definition
only
incur
only
includes
members
of
state
boards,
commissions
and
councils
and
then
finally,
the
staff
comment
on
this
has
been
in
this
version.
C
It
was
also
in
last
year's
iteration
of
this
bill
draft,
just
a
a
no
for
the
committee
to
perhaps
consider
the
breadth
of
the
employees
who
who
should
be
covered
under
this
act
and
those
two
cases
regarding
challenges
to
to
that
language
being
constitutionally
overbroad.
C
So
that's
a
for
the
for
the
committee
to
to
consider
then,
mr
chairman,
moving
on
page
three
lines
37
to
40..
This
amends
the
definition
of
state
entity
just
to
insert
state
before
office
to
clarify
that
term
and
then
same
on
line.
39
is
just
clarifying
that
it's
an
office
or
department
or
commission
of
the
state,
including
legislature,
and
then
also
inserts
the
language,
any
court
or
agency
in
the
judicial
branch,
so
that
is
included
in
the
definition
of
state
entity
and
then
on
page
four
lines.
One
to
three.
C
Given
the
provisions
of
the
spill
draft
on
page
four
lines,
five
and
line
8
defines
judicial
branch
and
judicial
officer,
and
the
staff
comment
was
one
I
highlighted
in
august,
and
it's
just
a
note
for
the
committee
to
consider
whether
whether
the
judicial
branch,
in
particular
judicial
officers,
that
is
judges
should
be
subject
to
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act.
C
Page
six
line
two
defines
salaried
employment.
This
definition
was
previously
in
the
disclosures,
the
financial
disclosure
section
and
it's
the
same
definition
here
as
it
was
in
that
section
and
then
line
seven
on
page
six
is
just
renumbering
page
six
line,
twelve,
this
inserts
judicial
officer
into
the
nepotism,
prohibition
and
then
lines
15
through
20
strikes
the
reference
to
state
county
municipality
and
school
district
and
inserts
the
definitions
that
are
used
in
the
act.
C
So
local
office
state
entity
or
the
judicial
branch,
it
also
strikes
the
sentence
regarding
supervising
a
family
member
who
is
not
in
an
office
or
position
of
the
state
page
six
line.
22
just
adds
judicial
officer
into
the
prohibition
of
employing
or
disciplining
a
family
member
and
then
page
seven
line.
Five
is
a
new
subsection
that
prohibits
a
public
official
member,
employee
or
judicial
officer
from
supervising
a
family
member.
C
Two
and
three
inserts
into
the
prohibition
that
a
public
member
or
official
or
officer,
employee
and
judicial
officer
cannot
obtain
or
stand
to
obtain
a
private
benefit
from
the
matter.
So,
in
addition
to
that
personal
or
private
interest,
it
also
includes
the
term
private
benefit,
page
nine
lines.
Eight
and
nine
strikes
the
reference
to
the
definition,
which
is
moved
to
the
definition
section
and
then
same
with
lines.
C
And
then
page
12
line
one
inserted
language
for
the
the
penalty
section
to
to
include
not
only
any
person
but
any
public
official
public
member
judicial
officer
or
public
employee
and
the
staff
comment
that
follows
that
just
noted
that
just
raised
the
question,
whether
in
light
of
the
word
person,
whether
the
specified
terms
that
are
used
in
the
act
needed
to
be
included
there.
C
Page
12
line.
22
just
adds
the
judicial
officer
in
terms
of
being
caused
for
removal
from
office
and
then
just
adds
the
words
in
accordance
with
law.
That
violation
of
the
provision
could
result
in
that
removal
of
the
public,
official
or
judicial
officer
in
accordance
with
the
applicable
law
and
then
section
two
on
line.
25
are
the
repealed
sections
so
and
those
are
reproduced
on
page
13
13..
B
D
D
Do
you
by
any
chance
have
a
a
way
I
mean
of
getting
the
what
the
sequencing
of
each
amendment
since
1917
has
been,
including
the
most
recent
iteration
and
what
the
ballot
question
was
at
least
or
the
explanation
of
it,
at
least
in
the
1995
instance,
because
I
think
it's
going
to
be
important
in
this
discussion
as
we
progress
the
next
hour
and
a
half.
C
Mr
chairman,
representative
gray,
I
can
try
to
throw
something
together
quickly.
You
know
it
may
be
difficult
to
put
all
that
together
on
the
fly,
but
certainly
after
the
meeting
that
can
be
done,
but
to
the
best
I
can
I'll
try
to
get
the
committee
something
soon
yeah
the
1995.
E
C
Mr
chairman,
senator
von
flater,
I
think
that's
certainly
within
the
committee's
wheelhouse
to
decide
whether
that
should
be
added
or
not.
E
I
just
had
this
spin
back
and
I
don't
want
to
take
a
lot
of
divert
time
and
stuff,
but
to
mr
fuller,
I
just
had
this
nagging
thought
a
couple
of
years
ago.
Maybe
maybe
one
of
our
lawyers
could
answer
this.
We
ran
a
bill
where
we
had
doctors
that
wanted
to
volunteer
and
stuff
like
that,
and
we
didn't
want
them
to
be,
and
and
so
we
made
them
and
possibly
even
the
facility,
everybody
except
the
janitor
we've
made
them
a
public
employee.
E
Would
there
be
interaction
from
this
into
that
I
mean
because
now
say
you
got
a
doctor,
who's
volunteering,
but
he's
a
public
employee
is
there
is
there's.
Is
there
some
any
problems
that
you
can
see
there?
Maybe
one
of
our
lawyers,
maybe
the
chairman,
would
answer
that
or
the
vice
chair
would
answer
that
or
something.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
C
Chairman
of
the
bill
yeah,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
this
may
have
been.
I
don't
recall
this
is
my
first
or
second
year,
but
but
I
do
believe
that
bill
concerned
specifically
the
governmental
claims
act,
and
I,
if
I
recall
correctly,
that
definition
only
applied
in
that
section.
C
So
so
I'm
not
sure
that
would
translate
to
to
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act.
I
think
that
definition
for
those
doctors
acting
under
you
know
specified
circumstances
and
conditions
fit
under
the
definition
of
the
governmental
claims
act
for
those
limited
purposes.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Up
on
page
two,
we
had
local
office
meetings,
so
everybody's
elected,
except
the
joint
powers
boards
at
least
they're
appointed
here,
so
I
assume
they
were
so
are.
Are
they
ever
elected.
B
B
G
B
G
G
So
chairman
kirk
bride,
chairman
nethercott
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
wendy
soto.
I'm
the
executive
director
of
wyoming's
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics
with
me
today,
via
zoom,
is
chairman,
jay
gilberts,
who
you'll
hear
from
in
a
few
minutes
and
judge
catherine
wilking,
who
is
also
a
commissioner,
is
also
on
the
meeting.
G
G
I'll
start
with
just
a
little
bit
about
the
commission's
history,
the
judicial
supervisory
committee
was
created
by
constitutional
amendment.
It
operated
as
a
committee
of
the
supreme
court
until
the
cod
institution
was
amended
again
and
that
amendment
created
the
12
member
independent
commission,
which
you,
which
is
how
the
commission
operates
today.
G
G
There
are
three
attorneys
who
are
appointed
by
the
wyoming
state
bar
and
there
are
six
wyoming
citizens
who
are
appointed
by
the
governor
and
confirmed
by
the
senate.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
commission
is
quite
diverse
and
commissioners
come
from
a
number
of
different
walks
of
life
and
occupations
and
from
across
the
state.
G
G
The
commission
has
authority
over
all
judicial
officer
officers
in
wyoming
from
municipal
court
judges
to
supreme
court.
Justices
commission
receives
verified,
written
complaints
about
judicial
misconduct,
criminal
misconduct,
civil
misconduct
or
disability
and
investigatory
panel.
We
call
that
that
the
I
panel
of
the
commission
can
also
investigate
on
its
own
motion
when
it
has
information
from
a
reasonably
reliable
source.
G
So
this
is
just
a
brief
summary
of
the
code
of
judicial
conduct.
It
consists
of
four
cannons
and
multiple
much
more
specific
rules.
Under
each
cannon,
the
cannons
require
judges
to
uphold
and
promote
the
independence,
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary
and
to
avoid
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety
to
perform
the
duties
of
judicial
office
impartially,
competently
and
diligently
to
conduct
their
personal
and
extrajudicial
activities
in
a
way
that
minimizes
the
risk
of
conflict
with
the
obligations
of
their
judicial
office
and
the
code
also
prohibits
judges
or
candidates.
G
So,
back
to
the
I
panel,
complaints
are
initially
reviewed
and
investigated
by
the
I
panel,
which
consists
of
three
to
five
commission
members
at
least
one
from
each
discipline.
The
ipanel
can
or
may
re
inquire
make.
An
inquiry
of
a
judge
may
retain
counsel,
to
investigate
complaints
and,
if
necessary,
to
prosecute
alleged
violations
of
the
code
of
judicial
conduct.
G
The
ipanel
can
dismiss
a
complaint.
You
can
issue
letters
of
correction
enter
a
stipulated.
Private
sensor
can
refer
probable,
cause
findings
to
an
adjudicatory
pump,
so
our
next
step
is
the
adjudicatory
panel.
The
a
panel
consists
of
the
same
category
of
commissioners.
G
However,
no
one
on
an
ipanel
who's
been
part
of
the
investigation
can
participate
in
the
a
panel.
The
adjudication
this
is
to
ensure
that
the
adjudicatory
panel
is
not
prejudiced
by
results
of
the
investigation,
and
its
decision
is
based
only
on
the
evidence
presented
at
hearing
the
a
panel
conducts
an
adjudicatory
hearing
and
makes
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
and
the
a
panel
can
dismiss
a
matter
or
submit
its
findings
to
a
disciplinary
panel.
For
determination
of
a
proper
sanction.
G
G
That's
just
a
quick
summary
of
the
commission
and
how
it
operates
to
help
you
better
understand
our
mission
and
our
work.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I'll
stop
screen
sharing
here.
G
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
might
wait
a
little
bit
go
ahead
with
the
next
person.
Thank
you,
representative,
washington,.
B
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
ms
soto.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
found
the
memo
from
you
and
mr
gilbert's
very
interesting
about
the
separation
of
powers
issue
very
interesting.
If
you
could
address
that
as
well,
that
would
be
interesting.
Thank
you.
Desoto.
G
Chairman
kirkbride
representative
stiff,
I
believe
mr
gilbert
gilberts
will
be
addressing
those
questions.
B
J
Thank
you,
chairman
kirk
pride
chairman,
another
caught
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jay
gilberts,
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics.
In
the
role
as
its
chairman,
I
have
been
with
the
commission
now,
I'm
in
my
sixth
and
final
season,
and
hence
my
location
as
chairman.
J
As
further
background,
I
am
a
wyoming
native.
I
grew
up
on
a
cattle
ranch
in
the
middle
of
nowhere,
a
familiar
place
in
wyoming,
attended
the
university
of
wyoming
obtained
a
degree
in
business,
worked
for
a
while
then
returned
to
the
university
for
a
law
degree
again
at
the
university
of
wyoming.
I
was
recruited
out
of
my
law
school
class
to
set
at
this
desk.
I
am
at
today
some
26
years
ago.
J
J
That
will
be
a
two-part
discussion,
because
there
are
two
constitutional
issues
to
address
next,
a
topic
that
would
be
near
and
dear
to
my
father's
heart,
which
is
practical
considerations
and
there
I
will
discuss
why
the
inclusion
of
the
judiciary
is
unnecessary
because
it
is
already
covered
by
a
strict
code
of
ethics
and,
in
many
cases,
more
strict
and
with
more
restrictions
than
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act.
J
So,
let's
begin
with
the
issues
of
the
constitution,
I
believe
that
the
lso
has
properly
warned
you
that
trying
to
include
the
judiciary
could
be
contrary
to
the
constitution,
but
I
believe
those
warnings
were
not
quite
detailed
enough,
so
topic,
one.
The
proposed
amendment
attempts
to
exercise
authority
over
matters
which
are
vested
by
the
wyoming
constitution.
J
They
are
vested
by
the
wyoming
constitution
elsewhere.
And
what
do
I
mean
by
that?
Well,
the
constitution
of
wyoming
established
and
created
the
commission
on
judicial
ethics.
That's
in
article
five
section
section
six
and
the
constitution
states
that
there
is
hereby
created,
the
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics.
It
goes
on
to
say
that
the
commission,
or
a
panel
thereof,
shall
consider
complaints
of
judicial
misconduct,
translation,
ethical
violations
against
a
a
judicial
officer
and
to
the
extent
permitted
and
is
provided
by
the
code
of
judicial
conduct.
J
So
health
and
impairment
concerns
so
a
little
bit
more
analysis
on
this.
If
we
might,
we
know
that
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
is
undoubtedly
an
ethics
bill.
It
was
enacted
in
1998
to
provide
ethical
restrictions
for
certain
members
of
the
government,
which
importantly
had
not
already
been
subject
to
an
unethical
code.
J
J
Now
the
amendments
that
are
proposed
to
add
the
judiciary
to
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
will
render
the
statute
constitutionally
invalid,
because
the
matter
of
an
ethical
code
and
the
enforcement
of
that
code
is
vested
with
the
wyoming
by
the
wyoming
constitution,
with
the
cjce
and
the
wyoming
supreme
court.
J
J
Again,
I
believe
those
warnings
were
not
quite
detailed
enough,
so
separation
of
powers,
we
talk
a
lot
about
that.
We
banter
the
term
around,
but
we
don't
spend
much
time
thinking
about
it.
It
is
the
concept
that
each
branch
of
government
is
separate
and
independent
from
the
other
branches
and
that
the
branches
shall
not
attempt
to
steer
into
the
lane
of
the
other
branches.
J
The
late
and
very
conservative
justice
scalia
said
this.
He
said
the
framers
of
our
constitution
lived
among
the
ruins
of
a
system
of
intermingled
legislative
and
judicial
powers.
The
framers
created
separated
powers
as
a
strong
structural
safeguard
against
such
abuses,
establishing
high
walls
and
clear
distinctions.
J
It
had
been
there
a
number
of
times
the
florida
appellate
court
summarized
the
situation
well
in
reviewing
a
similar
set
of
legislation
and
in
reviewing
actions
and
trying
to
hold
judges
criminally
responsible
for
ethical
violations.
J
This
is
the
authority
for
which
each
bran
for
each
branch
to
adopt
rules
to
govern
itself.
This
is
also
the
reason
the
executive
power
cannot
prosecute
as
a
crime
under
statutes.
Adopting
the
common
law
of
england,
a
judge
for
failing
to
follow
court
rules
and
judicial
ethics
enforcement
of
court
adopted
procedural
and
administrative
rules,
as
well
as
judicial
ethics,
is
for
the
judicial
branch
of
government,
just
as
the
enforcement
of
congressional
rules
adopted
by
the
legislative
power
to
govern
itself
is
for
that
branch
of
government.
J
Likewise
in
nevada,
when
it
came
up
the
supreme
court
there
visited
about
why
the
judges
and
judiciary
had
not
been
included
in
that
state's
ethics
and
government
law
and
nevada's
supreme
court
said
this.
The
doctrine
of
separation
of
powers
is
fundamental
to
our
system
of
government.
The
judicial
department
may
not
invade
the
legislative
and
executive
province.
J
J
J
So
what
we
are
seeing
is
a
significant
body
of
law.
Holding
that
an
amendment
such
as
the
one
you
are
considering
will
constitute
an
unconstitutional
violation
of
the
separation
of
powers
from
a
constitutional
perspective.
The
legislature
cannot
establish
ethics
and
set
an
enforcement
mechanism
for
the
judiciary
any
more
than
the
wyoming
supreme
court,
no
matter
how
badly
it
might
want
to
can
adopt
a
code
of
ethics
for
the
senators
and
the
legislators
to
follow
and
direct
that
those
senators
and
legislators
will
be
prosecuted
for
crimes
if
they
violate
the
ethics.
J
Now
again,
as
I
said,
my
father
would
love
ethical
con
or
excuse
me,
practical
considerations.
Why
do
we
need
to
do
this?
He
would
say
my
answer
to
you:
is
you
do
not?
J
The
proposed
legislation
is
unnecessary
because
the
code
of
judicial
conduct
already
exists
and
in
many
instances,
is
more
restrictive
than
the
proposed
legislation,
and
I'm
going
to
talk
to
you
about
that
and
the
further
practical
considerations,
but
I
just
have
said
this
a
couple
of
times
more
restrictive
covers
more
items
and
it's
a
little
hard
to
do
over
zoom,
but
I
think
I
can.
J
J
Administrative
appointments,
misuse
of
office
for
a
private
benefit
again
covered
by
rule
1.3
of
uni,
avoiding
the
abuse
of
prestige
of
office,
political
campaign
activity
covered
and
more
much
more
strictly.
In
rule,
4.2
actions
taken,
while
negotiating
for
employment
also
covered
within
areas
of
the
judicial
conduct,
act,
disclosure
of
incomes
and
gifts
covered
by
rule
3.13.
J
J
Well
that
happened
on
the
on
his
days
off.
It
was
a
saturday
he
was
not
on
the
job.
J
J
J
Would
that
be
an
ethical
violation
under
the
act?
No
is
that
an
ethical
violation
for
the
judge
likely
so
abuse
of
the
prestige
of
office
1.3
over
and
over
again,
this
has
been
a
topic.
One
of
the
things
that
I
get
to
do
as
the
chairman
is
I
get
to
read
every
single
public
censure
or
punishment
of
a
judge
anywhere
in
the
united
states.
J
Over
and
over
again
in
other
jurisdictions.
I
have
seen
judges
punished
for
in
their
interactions
during
traffic
stops
saying
that
they're,
the
judge-
or
I
am
a
judge
or
do
you
know
who
I
am.
Why,
because
commissions
like
ours,
consider
that
an
abuse
of
the
prestige
of
office?
It
is
an
effort
to
influence
the
outcome
of
the
action,
and
so
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
one
that
stood
out
to
me.
In
my
time
on
the
commission,
there
was
a
judge
in
another
jurisdiction,
a
different
state.
J
As
the
saying
goes,
the
judge
turned
out
to
be
sober
as
a
judge
and
in
the
process.
The
police
officer
asked
the
judge:
where
are
you
going
and
he
said
I'm
going
home,
the
police
officer
said:
where
are
you
coming
from
and
the
judge
said
work
and
the
officer
said:
where
do
you
work
and
the
judge
said?
J
J
I'm
sorry,
I
cannot
answer
those
questions
and
the
judge
was
arrested
for
interference
with
a
police
officer
and
the
commission
in
his
state
took
up
the
fact
that
he
had
been
arrested
for
interference
with
a
police
officer
because
guess
what
remember
the
rule,
a
judge
shall
comply
with
the
law.
They
were
interested
in
knowing
the
story.
J
This
is
how
strict
these
rules
are
and
how
seriously
the
judges
take
them.
Let
me
do
just
a
little
more
and
then
I'll
stop.
Is
it
an
ethical
violation
for
a
state
employee
to
be
bad
at
their
job
or
how
about
just
being
bloody,
slow
at
getting
it
done?
They're
good,
but
it
takes
them
an
unreasonable
amount
of
time
to
get
the
job
done.
Certainly
not
an
ethical
violation
under
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
for
a
judge
could
be
rule.
J
2.5
says
a
judge
shall
perform
their
duties
competently
promptly,
efficiently
and
diligently
commissions
like
ours,
have
taken
up
many
cases
of
complaints
about
judges
not
being
diligent
in
getting
their
work
done
and
have
looked
into
those
matters
and
have
acted
when
appropriate.
If
a
judge
is
not
competent
at
their
job,
they
will
look
into
those
matters.
J
J
And
I
mentioned
this
earlier:
is
it
an
ethical
violation
under
the
statute
for
a
state
employee
to
develop
a
mental
disability
or
a
medical
condition
that
keeps
them
from
competently
performing
their
job
in
a
diligent
manner?
No,
can
that
be
reasons
for
removal
of
a
judge
under
the
code?
Yes-
and
I
could
go
on
and
on
the
purpose
of
this
was
to
demonstrate
to
you
that
the
existing
code
is
far
more
extensive,
covers
more
topics
and
is
far
more
restrictive
than
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act.
J
Attempting
to
add
the
judiciary
in
this
ethics
act
is
not
just
unconstitutional,
it's
entirely
unnecessary,
all
right,
so
I'm
on
to
the
third
place
on
our
third
way
station,
and
that
is
the
comments
that
were
made
before
this
committee
by
mr
barron,
a
prosecuting
attorney
from
sundance.
I
believe
now,
mr
barron
did
not
lie
to
you
or
mislead
you.
It's
only
that
he
did
not
know
all
the
facts
of
the
case
and
that's
because
he
was
not
a
member
of
the
commission
on
judicial
ethics
and
conduct.
Thankfully,
that
I
can
talk
about
that
matter.
J
J
J
J
J
What
mr
barron
told
you
about
happened
22
years
ago
now,
judge
wall
was
indeed
charged
with
a
dui
and
also
charged
with
possession
of
marijuana
as
a
result,
and
that
happened
again
in
1998
in
march
of
that
year,
the
cjce,
my
commission
became
aware
of
the
situation
when
it
became
public
knowledge,
and
you
heard
ms
soto
talk
about
how
the
commission
can
initiate
an
investigation
on
its
own
motion
that
happened
in
this
case
in
early
march
of
1998,
so
that
had
happened
well
before
mr
barron
filed
his
complaint.
J
There
was
already
action
in
motion,
and
indeed
there
were
three
other
complaints
filed
about
this
series
of
events
before
mr
barron
ever
submitted
his
and
after
mr
barron.
There
were
several
more
important
to
note
that
sum:
total
there
were
nine
complaints
filed
with
the
commission
about
the
judge
receiving
a
citation
for
a
dui.
J
So
I
say
this
to
you:
the
matter
that
was
discussed
with
you
and
before
you
about
a
case
that
happened
22
years
ago
was
not
the
poster
child
for
something
wrong.
Indeed,
it
is,
and
it
exemplifies
the
way
this
system
works
exactly
as
it
is
supposed
to
one.
When
that
happened,
the
commission
opened
an
investigation
on
its
own.
J
Now
the
commission
relies
on
folks
to
tell
us
about
that,
and
those
nine
folks
didn't
know
that
the
other
nine
had
told
us
about
it,
but
americans
said
or
wyoming
citizenry
and
lawyers
came
forward
nine
times
to
make
sure
that
we
knew
about
it
and
ultimately,
what
happened
in
that
case
well,
judge
wahl
was
suspended
from
the
bench
by
the
wyoming
supreme
court
and
he
never
served
another
day
on
the
bench.
Ever
again,
he
was
suspended
in
the
fall
in
1998
and
he
never
served
again
as
a
judge
in
the
state
of
wyoming.
J
In
addition,
the
system
has
a
robust
set
of
ethics
and
a
group
of
folks
who
take
this
very
seriously
about
enforcing
those
ethics
and
if
a
judge
violates
those
ethical
rules
that
will
be
taken
up
by
the
commission
on
judicial
ethics.
Termination
will
be
made
whether
a
violation
has
occurred
and
just
like
in
the
situation
mr
barron
told
you
about
when
punishment
or
removal
from
office
is
necessary,
it
will
happen.
J
J
I
urge
you
to
respect
those
high
walls
and
clear
distinctions
remove
from
the
amendments
the
addition
of
the
judiciary
to
this
bill.
There
are
any
questions
I
would
be
happy
to
answer.
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
gilbert.
Thank
you
for
that
explanation
of
how
the
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics
works.
I
appreciate
that.
I
I
don't
think
you're
saying
that,
although
what
you've
said
sounds
a
lot
like
that,
so
to
use
an
example
from
this
specific
bill,
we
have
on
page
seven
of
our
bill
lines
16
through
19
by
adding
judicial
officer
under
misuse
of
office,
section
9
9-13-105.
I
Okay,
so
the
the
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics
has
the
right
to
remove
a
judge,
has
the
right
to
suspend
them
from
the
practice
of
law.
But
what
does
not
have
authority
to
do
is
to
put
them
in
jail
right,
whereas
I
take
it.
There's
existing
criminal
statutes,
for
example,
wyoming
statute
6-5-117
that
prohibits
a
public
officer
from
demanding
kickbacks
from
their
deputies.
I
Do
you
think
that's
unconstitutional
and
if
it's
not
unconstitutional,
if
it's
okay,
to
criminalize
the
conduct
of
a
judge
from
demanding
that
his
or
her
law
clerk
give
them
half
their
salary
as
a
condition
of
their
employment?
If
that
is
constitutional,
then
why
would
page
seven
of
our
current
bill
line
16
through
19?
Why
would
they
be
unconstitutional.
J
All
right,
so,
mr
gilbert,
thank
you,
chairman
kirkbride,
and
allow
me
to
address
that
matter
directly,
so
the
section
that
you
cited
to
me
started
with
a
six,
because
it
comes
from
title
vi
that
is
wyoming's
criminal
law
statutes
and
so
absolutely
not
is
a
judge
immune
from
being
prosecuted
for
violating
a
underlying
criminal
statute.
Okay,
those
that's
criminal
law
and
it
says
that
they
will
they.
J
They
can't
violate
the
law
any
more
than
anyone
else,
and
so,
as
we
saw
in
the
discussion
of
the
judge,
who
had
a
dui,
he
was
prosecuted
for
that.
He
was
punished
for
that
by
the
criminal
law
system.
So
absolutely
not
they're,
not
above
the
law.
They
have
to
comply
with
it
and
all
the
statute,
all
the
criminal
statutes
they
must
comply,
as
all
others
do.
J
So
if
a
sitting
judge
commits
any
crime
covered
by
title
vi,
then
they're
subject
to
being
prosecuted
for
it.
That
does
not
violate
separations
of
powers.
Now,
when
we
move
on
now
into
this
ethics
bill,
this
is
remember
the
discussion
from
the
other
cases
that
establishing
a
rule
of
ethics
and
that's
what
this
is.
J
J
I
want
to
do
an
ethical
rule
for
another
branch
of
government
and
because
I
know
I'm
not
allowed
to
do
the
ethical
rule
for
them,
I'm
going
to
call
it
an
ethical
rule
and
make
a
criminal
penalty
for
it,
and
therefore
it's
a
crime
that
that's
wherein
lies
the
problem
as
much
as
it
would
lie
for
the
supreme
court
if
they
decided
to
say
here's
an
ethical
rule
for
the
for
the
representatives
and
the
senators
and
if
they
violate
it,
we
declare
that's
going
to
be
a
crime
and
somebody
can
prosecute
it
too,
and
they'll
be
brought
before
our
judicial
officers
and
held
to
account.
J
J
It
a
mystery
over.
Thank
you.
Pardon
me,
chairman,
chairman
kirkbride,
no,
that
the
criminal
statutes
apply
to
us
all
right.
This
is
a
special
species
that
is
being
applied
to
a
special
group
of
people.
So,
for
example,
none
of
us
can
commit
murder,
none
of
us
can
commit
rape,
and
so
those
the
title
vi
is
the
law
criminal
laws
as
it
applies
to
all
members
of
society,.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
gilbert's,
so
the
executive
branch
is
also
included
in
this,
in
your
opinion,
is
that
is
that
unconstitutional?
D
E
J
Thank
you,
chairman
kirkbride,
so,
representative
gray,
I
think
not,
and
here
is
why?
J
Because
there
is
a
uniqueness
here-
and
let
me
tell
you
what
that
uniqueness
is-
the
legislature
has
prepared
and
adopted
this
set
of
ethical
guidelines
to
apply,
but,
let's
be
honest
about
it,
it
can't
ever
be
applied
to
the
executive
unless
the
executive
consents
in
it
doing
so.
How
do
I
say
that?
Because
prosecutors
are
part
of
the
executive
branch,
so
if
they
choose
not
to
bring
those
charges
against
members
of
their
branch,
they
can
they
have
a
choice
in
the
matter.
J
So
I
don't
think
it
is
because
the
it
is
in
a
sense
duel
here,
one
the
law
to
the
enforcement
of
it,
and
so
all
is
only
enforced
against
the
executive
with
the
executive's
own
consent.
D
If
there
was
a
prosecution
on
this
criminal
act.
Well,
that
would
go
before
the
judicial
branch
brought
before
another
judge
or
a
jury.
With
the
judge
presiding
I
mean
so
then,
wouldn't
wouldn't
that
be
okay,
then
I
mean
I
by
that
extension.
I
think
I
think
I
think
the
judicial
branch
is
covered.
Don't
you
think.
J
Thank
you,
chairman
kirkbride.
I
know,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
about
my
comment
on
separation
of
powers.
I
think
it
may
be
all
right
and
not
a
violation
of
the
separation
of
powers,
because
prosecution
of
or
bringing
charges
of,
a
violation
of
the
ethics
act.
It
falls
within
the
power
of
the
executive
itself,
and
so
should
it
choose
not
to
enforce
that
those
laws
against
itself
it
can.
J
The
enforcement
is
done
by
another
branch
of
government.
Now
you
say
to
me,
but
that
enforcement
will
happen
within
the
judiciary.
It
will
but
the
judiciary
remember
our
discussion.
A
judge
shall
uphold
the
law
that
the
judiciary
does
not
have
a
option.
It
can't
choose
to
enforce
or
not
enforce
as
the
executive
can.
It
must
enforce
if
it
were
constitutional.
K
Thank
you,
mr
co-chairman,
so
committee
just
to
share
with
you
some
of
my
thoughts
in
response
to
representative
gray
and
where
I
think
mr
gilberts
might
have
come
up
with
the
source
of
information
for
his
answer
concerning
why
the
constitutional,
why
the
executive
branch
being
included
in
this
is
not
unconstitutional,
and
that
goes
to
that
memo
that
he
provided
us,
which
has
caused
me
great
pause,
because
this
is
not
there's
nothing
new
under
the
sun
concerning
the
same
type
of
issue
brought
in
other
states
with
very
similar
constitutions
where
it
has
been
struck
down
as
a
result
of
being
unconstitutional,
and
I
find
that
persuasive-
and
I
don't
want
to
waste
everyone's
time
on
that
result.
K
But
it
looks
like
that
particular
issue
was
addressed,
and
this
is
where
mr
gilbert's
likely
in
a
wisconsin
case,
where
they
did
not
find
that
the
judicial
branch
through
the
court
system
was
the
appropriate
separation
of
powers
issue.
If
you
look
at
the
matter
of
ecarno,
which
is
the
case
that
decided
in
here
that
actually
squares,
I
think
that
issue
up
pretty
well
just
saying
that
mr
gilbert,
so
so
for
me
committee.
K
This
memo
was
pretty
persuasive.
I
don't
feel
confident
about
our
decision
in
this
case,
and
although
I
I
am
compelled
by
representatives
position
too,
that
the
judiciary
is
not
above
the
law
and
they
are
subject
to
title
vi
and
that
is
not
unconstitutional.
K
I
mean
other
supreme
courts
with
very
similar
proposals
in
front
of
them
have
found
it
to
be,
and
that's
compelling,
but
mr
gilbert's
free
for
you.
J
I
don't
know
if
I
am
privy
to
what
certain
judicial
branch
members
may
have
said
to
you,
but
I
think
I
can
speak
with
absolute
certainty
about
certain
matters,
and
that
is
this.
It
is
without
a
doubt
that,
in
conjunction
with
the
wyoming
supreme
court,
the
commission
on
judicial
ethics
has
the
authority
to
remove
judges
permanently
from
office
for
sufficient
violations
of
criminal
law
and
also
for
sufficient
violations
of
the
code
of
judicial
conduct.
J
That
is
just
without
question
that
that
power
exists,
and
you
heard
the
discussion
about
a
special
supreme
court
and
the
reason
that
language
is
there
is
in
the
event
that
there
would
be
need
for
the
commission
to
take
action
against
the
sitting
supreme
court
justice.
Then
a
separate
special
supreme
court
would
be
appointed
to
deal
with
those
problems.
L
Good
afternoon,
chairman
kirkbride
and
chairman
another
caught
in
the
rest
of
the
decembers,
can
you
hear
me?
Okay,.
L
L
I'm
in
I
think
my
fifth
year
of
serving
on
the
commission-
and
I
will
share
with
you
that
it
may
not
surprise
you,
but
it
is
not
a
coveted
job
within
the
discord
conference
to
be
a
member
of
the
commission
of
judicial
conduct
and
ethics,
and
actually,
when
I
was
supposed
to
replace
someone,
I
actually
had
to
be
talked
into
it,
because
these
are
very,
very
difficult
things
that
the
commission
undertakes.
L
L
They
are
suggested
by
the
governor.
They
are
confirmed
by
the
senate
and
when
my
two
colleagues
were
kind
of
recruiting
me
to
be
on
the
commission,
they
told
me
that
the
citizen
members
commission
were
the
salt
of
the
earth
and
that
in
their
suggestions
to
me
you
should
just
not
say
anything
and
let
the
citizen
members
come
to
their
decisions
because
almost
99
percent
of
the
time
they
get
it
right
and
while
a
judge
may
have
to
answer
some
sort
of
a
procedural
question
or
provide
some
context
for
discussion
by
committee
members.
L
They
do
their
level
best
to
get
it
right
to
hold
judges
accountable,
and
I
think
they
do
that
and
they
do
very
important
work
as
members
of
the
commission,
and
so
you
know
to
the
extent
there's
this
idea
that
somehow
we
don't
have
citizen
input
in
the
discipline
of
judges.
I
just
want
to
ensure
or
reassure
the
committee
members
that
I
think
the
citizen
members
of
the
commission
do
most
of
the
heavy
lifting.
L
I
want
to
assure
you
that
there
is
no
one
within
the
wyoming
judiciary
who
thinks
that
they
are
somehow
above
the
law
who
would
think
that
they
are
not
subject
to
the
criminal
code
in
the
state
of
wyoming.
We
are
absolutely
subject
to
the
law,
just
as
any
other
citizen
of
wyoming,
but
we
also
are
beholden
to
the
code
of
judicial
conduct
and
ethics,
and
we
take
that
very
very
seriously.
L
I
will
just
share
with
you.
As
a
member
of
the
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics,
we
review
complaints
regularly
that
are
filed
against
judicial
officers
and
as
unfortunate
as
it
is.
It
is
not
uncommon
at
all
for
one
party
to
a
conflict
or
one
party
to
a
litigation
to
file
what
they
believe
is
a
valid
ethical
complaint
against
a
judge
who
is
presiding
over
their
case,
and
so
you
know,
I
think,
for
the
lawyers
on
your
committee.
L
The
way
that
the
commission
is
set
up
until
unless
and
until
they
decide
to
take
action
on
that
complaint,
I
would
never
know
that
a
complaint
like
that
had
been
made,
because
if
I
did
know
that
a
complaint
like
that
had
been
made,
I
personally
would
then
say
I
can
no
longer
preside
over
this
litigation
and
I
would
have
to
assign
that
divorce
trial
to
someone
else,
and
it
is
very
likely
that
the
commission
would
find
there's
been
no
violation
of
one
of
the
codes
of
ethics
and
they
would
tell
the
litigant.
L
We
don't
find,
there's
a
violation
and
we're
not
taking
any
action
against
judge
wilkie
it's
unfortunate,
but
those
sorts
of
complaints
are
used
as
tools
to
try
to
get
a
judge
off
of
a
case.
Mr
gilbert's
referenced
the
peremptory
challenge
rule,
and
I
saw
the
lawyer
members
on
your
committee
nodding
their
heads.
They
remember
when
that
rule
was
abolished
or
suspended,
and
then
it
was
reinstated
and
had
to
be
abolished
again
because
of
misuse
of
the
rule.
L
I
I
would
just
invite
you
to
think
about
what
would
happen
if
they,
a
county
attorney
within
my
jurisdiction,
decided
that
they
believed
I
had
violated
this
ethics
and
disclosure
law.
If
the
judiciary
is
included
in
that
and
they
decide
to
start
an
investigation
of
me,
I
think
that
personally
I
would
have
to
say
I
can't
hear
any
cases
whatsoever
that
involve
that
person's
office
until
that
matter
is
resolved
and
then
just
think
about
how
many
times
that
could
happen
over
the
course
of
a
year.
E
B
Let's
move
to
mr
merrill
and
hear
what
he
has
for
us.
Welcome,
sir.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
chris
merrill
executive
director
of
the
equality
state
policy
center.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
articulate
my
support
for
removing
the
judiciary
from
this
act.
Removing
that
amendment,
you
know,
you've
heard
the
legal
arguments
and
just
you
know
also
as
a
practical
matter.
I
think
it
to
use
the
old
cliche.
I
think
it
would
be
a
poison
pill
if
it
remained
in
the
bill
and
it
would
be
a
huge
distraction
if
the
legislature
were
to
continue
were
to
consider
this
bill
in
session.
M
So
my
two
cents
on
that
piece
of
it
and
then,
as
always,
my
main
concerns
and
interest
have
to
do
with
section
913
106.,
the
section
that
covers
official
decisions
and
votes,
and
it
starts
on
that
section-
starts
on
page
eight,
the
bottom
of
page
eight
and
continues
on
to
page
nine.
M
In
my
in
my
original
proposal
to
this
committee,
I
suggested
the
following
language
and
I'll:
read
it
again,
just
just
to
kind
of
resuggest
it
and
see
if
we
can
have
another
conversation
about
it.
M
And
then
again
the
the
point
of
suggesting
that
was
to
try
to
get
at
what.
What
appears
to
be
a
comp
can
be
a
conflict
of
interest
that
legislators
sometimes
face
when
they're,
considering
legislation
that
could
directly
affect
the
financial
outlook
of
their
of
a
business
that
they
own
and
so
that
that's
the
concept
behind
that
language
and-
and
so
that's
why
I
suggested
it
in
my
original
proposal
and
why
I'm
suggesting
that
again
to
be
included
in
this
section,
if
you,
if
you
think,
that's
a
good
way
to
go.
M
My
other
observations
about
this
section
I'll
I'll
start
on
page
nine
line
two
in
line
two.
We
have
the
phrase
personal
or
private
interest,
and
in
line
three
we
have
private
benefit.
Now
these
are
defined
and
in
the
definitions
they
do
not
include
an
immediate
family
member,
and
you
might
consider
including
that
language
to
that
effect
in
this
section
of
the
law,
where
you
include
immediate
family
members
in
line
seven
on
page
nine,
we
have
the
phrase
clear
cases
so
shall
abstain
from
voting
only
in
clear
cases
of
a
personal
or
private
interest.
M
That's
vague
language,
and
maybe
that
just
lies
upon
maybe
that
just
relies
upon
the
definition
of
a
private
benefit,
but
again,
if,
if
we're
not
relying
on
that
the
definition
of
a
private
benefit,
you
might
consider,
including
immediate
family
members
there,
and
with
that,
I
think
I'll
you've
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
on
this.
I
think
I'll.
Stop
there,
mr
chairman,
and
stand
for
any
questions.
If
you
have
any.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
merrill,
I
appreciate
you
being
here
today.
After
our
last
meeting
you
and
I
exchanged
some
text
messages
back
and
forth
about
a
question
that
I
asked
with
regards
to
the
level
of
the
state
employees
who
would
be
covered
by
this
act,
and
I
remember
correctly,
you
had
no
opposition
to
seeing
the
impact
of
the
act
more
limited
to
the
higher
level,
public
employees
and
elected
officials
as
opposed
to
line
level
employees
who
really
don't
have
the
power
to
influence
a
lot
of
these
kinds
of
decisions.
M
M
I
I
M
Mr
merrill,
mr
chairman,
I
guess
you
could
approach
this
in
a
couple
different
ways.
One
way
is,
you
could
include
immediate
family
member
in
the
definition
of
private
benefit,
which
is
earlier
in
the
bill
or
if
you
did
not
want
to
include
it
in
the
definition
of
private
benefit,
then
in
this
section
I
think
you
would
need
to
amend
this
section
to
say
public.
M
You
know,
for
example,
online
line,
one
page,
nine,
a
public
member
or
public,
employee
or
immediate
family
member
has
a
personal
or
private
interest
and
then
again
add
similar
language
in
on
line
nine,
a
public,
official
or
public
member
shall
not
vote
to
give
any
money
or
any
direct
financial
benefit
to
himself
or
immediate
family
member.
B
N
N
N
The
so
I
want
to
address
that
dealing
with
judicial
officers
and
and
there's
been
a
lot
made
about
separation
of
powers
and
constitutional
provisions,
and
so
the
first
thing
one
looks
at
with
the
constitution
is
what
do
the
words
say
and
in
this
day
and
age,
where
we
look
literally
at
the
words
what
we
talked
about
here
in
the
commission
other
than
in
the
name
of
the
commission.
N
The
word
ethics
is
not
involved
in
the
entire
article
5
section
6..
It
just
says
it's
a
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics
and
it
never
again
uses
the
word
ethics,
and
so
then
what
we
go
down
to
and
it
talks
about,
is
in
subsection
e
they're
going
to
adopt
a
code
of
judicial
conduct
applicable
to
judicial
officers.
N
N
It
goes
on
to
say
that
the
commission
can
suspend
a
judicial
officer
if
they're
charged
with
a
felony
charged
with
or
is
convicted
of,
a
felony
of
the
united
states
or
one
involving
more
turpitude
under
wyoming
federal
law,
and
they
can
remove
and
they
do
that
so
the,
but
they
don't
get
to
decide
what
the
law
is.
N
The
legislature
gets
to
decide
what
the
law
is
and
whether
it's
in
title
six
or
whether
it's
in
title
ix
or
title
41
or
42,
the
legislative
body
has
instituted
criminal
actions
throughout
the
green
books
from
one
end
of
them
to
the
other
they're.
Not
all
criminal
laws
are
set
forth
in
title
vi,
so
I'd
like
to
address
then
the
other
thing
the
commission
does
a
great
job.
N
I
I
have
to
say,
and
I
believe
that
the
judges
of
this
state
are
ethical,
and
I
believe
that
the
judges
that
I
have
dealt
with
over
the
last
34
years.
I've
had
one
issue
with
one
judge,
one
time
that
I
referred
to
previously
and
to
go
back
22
years
to
this,
I'm
going
to
recollection
because
the
file
was
in
archives,
but
whether
the
commission
did
anything
or
not.
N
I
know
this
is
the
judge
was
hearing
cases
in
front
of
me
and
I
had
set
aside
and
asked
a
special
prosecutor
to
be
appointed
in
that
particular
matter,
because
the
commissioner
or
anyone
else,
removed
him
from
the
bench
on
a
suspension
matter.
Well,
I
was,
and
we
were
prosecuting
criminal
cases
in
front
of
that
particular
judge.
N
It
wasn't
until
I
further
deemed
that
he
was
inappropriate
when
we
had
a
special
prosecutor
appointed
that
I
called
chief
justice
lehman
and
told
him.
There
was
a
problem,
and
that
was
my
complaint
that
I
referred
to
prior
to
that.
But
until
that
call
was
made,
that
judge
was
not
removed
from
the
bench
and
continued
to
practice
in
front
of
that
and
he
was
a
jp
and
generally
my
experience
with
the
judge
is
a
good
judge
until
that
time.
N
N
There's
concern
that
there's
expressed
that
the
judge
would
have
to
be
removed
when
they're
investigated.
Well,
our
process
isn't
any
any
different
than
that.
If
somebody
made
a
complaint
against
a
judge
like
any
other
citizen,
that
complaint
would
be
investigated
and
we're
not
going
to
go,
tell
the
particular
judge
or
person
that
being
investigated,
that
that
is
going
on.
So
the
concerns
that
are
there
are
not
any
more
founded
than
they
are.
If
that
those
violations
are
reported
to
the
judicial
commission
on
conduct
and
ethics.
N
Obviously,
the
prosecutor
would
do
that.
The
attorney
general
doesn't
have
the
power
to
do
that
unless
the
local
county
prosecutor
or
the
district
attorney
has
failed
to
refuse
to
act
and,
as
in
my
case,
what
I
would
do
was
ask
another
attorney
outside
the
jurisdiction
that
doesn't
practice
in
front
of
that
judge
to
act
as
a
special
prosecutor,
which
is
what
I
did
in
this
particular
case.
N
N
You
know
any
other
crime
that
they
have
and
the
fact
that
they
might
be
represented
by
a
public
defender
is
absurd.
All
judges
make
that
are
there
above
make
their
circuit
district
and
supreme
court
judges
make
well
over
120
thousand
dollars.
N
I
suspect
there
might
be
a
municipal
court
judge
that
doesn't
make
enough
to
pay
for
their
own
attorney,
but
obviously
the
public
defender
would
not
do
that
when
I
heard
the
other
day
that
the
judges
are
cutting
them
off
at
210
percent
of
the
poverty
rate,
which
is
about
26,
27
000,
so
yeah
they
would
have
to
hire
their
own
attorney
if
they
would
do
that.
N
N
You
have
that
power,
that
is
in
the
constitution,
that's
there
that
gives
you
that
was
there
when
the
judicial
commission
was
established,
and
it's
still
there.
After
that
point,
you
can
do
that
for
high
crimes,
misdemeanors
or
malfeasance
in
office,
and
what
the
commission
can
do.
N
Actually
what
it
appears
is
that
they
can
do
things
for
something
less
than
removal
impeachment
allows
for
removal
of
judges.
It
doesn't
seem
to
allow
for
something
less
than
that,
so
the
commission
can
deal
with
things
on
that.
N
The
other
thing
that
the
legislature
does
is
enact
criminal
laws
and
these
both
of
the
the
commission's
constitutional
authority
talks
about
criminal
laws,
but
they
don't
get
to
decide
what
that
is.
N
It
allows
for
a
criminal
conviction
and
prosecution
if
the
facts
warrant
it-
and
this
is
no
different
than
the
process
of
removing.
If
I
commit
some
kind
of
criminal
act
or
do
something
wrong
ethically,
I
can
be
suspended.
Have
my
license
bar
license
suspended
similar
to
having
a
driver's
license?
If
I
do
things
wrong,
with
a
driver's
license,
get
too
many
tickets
get
a
dui
can
be
suspended,
I
can
be
revoked.
I
can
do
that.
N
That's
an
administrative
process
similar
to
this
now
granted
it's
dealing
with
a
different
group
of
people
and
people
that
are
held
to
a
higher
standard
than
most,
but
the
fact
remains
it's
very
similar
on
that.
N
So,
with
regard
to
the
separation
of
powers,
adding
the
judiciary
subject
to
criminal
prosecution
doesn't
violate
the
separate
separation
of
powers.
No
one
is
above.
The
law
should
be
excluded
from
the
law.
The
commission
is
not
the
exclusive
being
set
forth
in
the
constitution
to
discipline
or
remove
a
judge
from
office.
N
N
All
this
statutory
change
does
is
define
additional
misdemeanor
crimes
that,
if
committed
by
judges
as
well
as
other
elected
officials
and
government
employees,
is
cause
for
criminal
prosecution
and
possible
removal
from
office
if
the
commission,
through
their
due
process
or
the
legislature
through
impeachment
process,
so
desires,
that's
all
this
does,
and
so
I
just
stand
for
any
questions
that
exists
on
my
comments
on
that,
but
generally
I'm
in
favor,
in
support
of
the
bill.
As
stated
before,.
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
barron.
Doesn't
mr
gilberts
have
a
fair
point
that,
to
the
extent
that
this
working
draft
21
lso
60
to
the
extent
that
it
purports
to
manage
the
affairs
of
the
judiciary,
that
it
might
be
unconstitutional
and
specifically
in
this
bill,
draft,
I'm
thinking
of
two
things?
One
is
at
the
very
end
of
the
bill
draft,
where
it's
on
page
12
lines
19
through
23.
I
That
violation
of
this
act
would
provide
for
removal
of
a
judicial
officer
from
office,
and
it
seems
wouldn't
couldn't
that
be
problematic
for
two
reasons.
One
is
we're
trying
to
regulate
their
affairs
of
how
they
can
be
removed
from
office
when
we've
got
a
commission
on
judicial
conduct
and
ethics.
That
actually
does
that,
and
what
you
just
mentioned
is
article
3,
section,
17
and
18
provides
for
a
constitutional
process
for
impeachment,
and
it
seems
like
this
bill
might
run.
I
Afoul
of
you
know
both
the
separation
of
powers
and
the
impeachment
power,
and
then,
in
the
same
vein,
on
pages
six
and
seven,
to
the
extent
that
we're
talking
about
when
what
kind
of
nepotism
rules
apply
to
judges,
is
that
potentially
subject
to
a
separation
of
parish
challenge?
Thank
you.
N
Well,
aaron
co-chairman,
kirkbride
and
co-chairman
nethercott
representative
stiff
in
subpart
b
on
page
12,
as
I
read
that
it
says,
violation
of
provision
constitutes
sufficient
cause
for
termination
or
removal
of
a
judicial
officer
in
accordance
with
law.
All
that
means
is
that
there's
facts
there
that
can
do
that.
It
does
not
require
any
other
agency
or
commission
or
anybody
to
actually
do
that.
That's
up
to
them.
I
think
the
statute
is
broadly
written
enough,
where
it
indicates
in
accordance
with
law
that
that
would
allow
for
that.
If
there's
a.
N
Additional
wording
that
would
make
that
clearer
that
it's
not
required,
however,
that
I
mean
that
could
be
there.
I
would
just
think
that
it
should
be
there
that
it
is
it's
sufficient
if
the
other
commission
or
the
legislature
deems
it's
appropriate,
but
when
we
get
into
these
things
on
what
constitutes
you
know,
removal
for
cause,
what
constitutes
misconduct
in
office?
What
constitutes
the
crime
of
moral
turpitude?
N
We're
always
looking
what
does
that
mean?
So,
let's
look
at
something
this
here,
just
makes
it
clear
that
this
is
sufficient
cause
right
here,
that's
enough!
You
do
this
and
that
that
could
be
a
constant
consequence
of
that,
rather
than
leaving
it
to
something
to
argue
about
whether
or
not
it's
sufficient
cause
or
not
to
remove
there
and
then
on
page
six,
you
indicated
the
nepotism
law
on
that.
N
N
The
commission
can
also
determine
that
that
conduct
is
a
cause
for
removal
or
discipline
or
something
else
as
well,
and
they
have-
and
they
do
have
more
rules
than
are
set
forth
in
this
thing,
but
that
doesn't
make
it
any
less
inhibit
your
power
to
determine
what
is
the
criminal
law
and
what
is
not
the
criminal.
H
B
And
I
don't
see
any
names
of
folks
we
haven't
heard
from
so
I
believe
I'll
close
public
comment
and
bring
the
bill
before
the
committee
committee.
What
is
your
pleasure.
L
B
I
Mr
chairman,
I
would
make
a
motion
to
on
page
12
line,
21
and
22
to
delete
the
phrase
judicial
officer.
I
Explain,
mr
chairman,
just
because
it
seems
that
it's
one
thing
for
us
to
create
a
crime
of
misuse
of
office.
It
seems
the
legislature
has
the
power
to
do
that.
But
I'm
concerned
that
if
we
create
causes
for
removing
to
judges
from
office
that
that
might
run
afoul
of
the
separation
of
powers
or
might
violate
the
impeachment
clause
or
at
least
not
be
consistent
with
it.
So
I'm
just
a
little
concerned
that
that's
the
constitutionally
weakest
part
of
this
bill.
B
B
I
am
getting
near
unanimous,
I
think
there's
12
votes
in
favor.
All
those
opposed
raise
your
hand.
Okay,
I
see
two
opposed
so
the
amendment
passes
are
there
other
suggestions
for
amendments
representative.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
page
7
line,
13
I'd
like
to
propose
an
amendment
to
insert
a
new
subsection
d
that
reads:
nothing
in
this
section
shall
preclude
a
public
official
and
all
the
rest
from
responding
to
or
participating
in
a
pre-employment
inquiry
concerning
a
family
member.
When
that
inc.
H
H
E
B
H
H
So,
on
page
7
line
13,
a
new
subsection
d
will
read
nothing
in
this
section,
shall
preclude
a
public
official
and
all
the
rest
from
responding
to
or
participating
in
a
pre-employ
employment
inquiry
concerning
a
family
member.
When
that
inquiry.
C
B
B
E
It's
on
page
four,
twelve
one,
two
page
twelve
line
one.
I
would
strike
any
person
so
to
start
that
a
little
a
off
with
public
official
public
member
so
strike
any
person.
B
Zero
second,
second
and
by
washington,
any
explanation:
senator
von
feiner.
E
No,
I
just
think
that
any
person
is
superfluous
to
the
reasoning.
For
that
whole
paragraph.
B
Let's
vote
on
the
amendment
all
those
in
favor
of
the
amendment
on
page
12,
for
eliminating
eliminating
the
words
any
purse
on
line.
One
raise
your
hand,
one
two:
three
four
5
6
7
8
9,
10,
11
12..
I
see
12
in
favor.
All
those
opposed,
please
say,
raise
your
hand,
no
okay,
one
in
opposition,
so
that
amendment
passes.
K
B
C
Mr
chairman,
representative,
washington,
there
actually
is
a
definition
of
gift
for
the
ethics
and
and
disclosure
act.
It's
anything
of
value
to
the
extent
that
consideration
of
equal
or
greater
value
is
not
received,
and
then
there's
a
long
list
of
exclusions,
anything
from
printed
material
to
a
gift.
That's
not
used
or
later
returned
an
inheritance,
a
certificate,
commemorative
commemorative,
token
or
item
with
a
value
less
than
250
dollars,
food
and
beverage
per
diem,
travel
to
conferences
and
and
any
loan
with
a
gift
or
gratuity
with
a
value
of
less
than
250.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
following
up
on
my
discussion
with
mr
merrill
earlier
about
you
know:
what's
the
intent
of
this
law,
it
seems
that
the
intent
is
to
restrict,
for
the
most
part,
the
the
higher
level
employees
and
elected
officials
and
those
folks
from
using
their
power
and
influence
to
affect
hiring
decisions
and
so
forth,
and
I'm
wondering
you
know:
do
we
really
want
to
include
all
public
employees
in
the
discussion
on
page
six
lines?
H
I
don't
want
to
expect
that
all
the
public
employees
out
there
you
know
working
in
the
sanitation
department
or
the
street
department
or
whatever
won't
advocate
for
a
friend
or
family
member
when
they
see
somebody
in
the
hallway
and
say
boy,
you
know
mary's
applying
for
this
job.
I
sure
hope
she
gets
it.
They
don't
have
the
power
nor
the
influence.
H
The
same
way
that
elected
officials
or
higher
ranking
folks
would
have,
and
I
think
it
might
occur.
You
know
over
the
coffee
pot
or
the
water
fountain,
where
those
employees
would
would
in
fact
advocate
for
their
family
members,
and-
and
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
have
this
bill-
reach-
that
level
of
discussion.
B
Anybody
have
help
for
representative
washit
on
that
feedback
for.
B
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
you
know
I
have
concerns
of
this
bill.
O
I
mean
it's
got
some
good
things
in
it
and
I
remember
why
what
why
we
brought
it
to
start
with
was
over
a
the
conviction
that
was
thrown
out
here
a
few
years
back,
but
I
think
we've
added
quite
a
bit
to
it.
I
think
the
current
laws
that
we
do
have,
for
the
most
part
deals
with
a
lot
of
the
unethical
things
that
are
out
there.
O
We
haven't,
you
know,
result
and
I'll
admit,
there's
times
where
I've
disagreed
with
judges
in
the
past
over
different
things,
and
and
but
I
do
believe
that
for
the
most
part
they
they
deal
with
the
issues
within
within
their
own
organization.
So
you
know
we
haven't
alleviated
that
and
I'm
not
sure
what
what
problems
we're
going
to
create
when
we
pass
this
bill.
O
So
I
personally,
I
think
that
we
need
to
adhere
to
some
of
the
comments
we
heard
today
and
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
the
bill
and
would
ask
the
rest
of
the
colleagues
here
to
also
know.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
too
have
real
concerns
with
this,
and
I
just
I
feel
like.
E
Some
serious
considering,
but
of
some
of
it
it
might
be
a
good
bill,
but
right
now
I
have
to
be
a
no.
I
just
don't
think
it's
ready.
B
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
going
to
be
voting
I
on
this
bill
and
I'm
not
clear
on
the
last
two
speakers
exactly
what
it
was
kind
of
a
little
bit
vague,
and
so
I
I
assume
they're
they're
talking
about
the
the
comments
we
heard
this
afternoon
on
the
judiciary
on
the
ethics
commission.
So
I
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
to
that.
You
know
if
this.
The
bottom
line
is
the
argument
that
the
judiciary
that
they
seem
to
be
bringing
can't
be
prosecuted
for
ethical
violations.
D
I
mean
that
to
me
is
just
the
implications
of
that
are
very
troubling
and
again,
I
think,
nobody's
above
the
law.
I
think
these
are
very
serious
violations
in
the
statute,
very
serious
and-
and-
and
the
other
comment
too,
is
that
nobody
is
is
saying
that
the
judicial
commission's
rulebook
are
less
restrictive
than
the
statute,
but,
as
mr
baron
pointed
out,
those
are
civil
remedies.
Those
are
not
criminal
remedies
and
it
is
two
separate
things
and
in
no
way
I
mean
I
can
say
this.
D
Assurely
in
no
way
was
the
intention
of
the
people
of
the
state
of
wyoming
when
they
vested
that
power
in
in
whatever
year
it
was
against
1917.
Originally
it's
been
revised
twice
in
no
way
was
the
intention
of
the
people
of
wyoming
to
exempt
the
judiciary
from
being
prosecuted
from
ethical
violation.
I
mean
I
can
say
that
assuredly
and
so
so
to
say
that
constitutionally
that
that
power
was
taken
away
with
the
creation
of
the
judicial
commission.
D
It's
it's
nowhere
there
that
that
that
there's
that
exemption-
and
so
again
this
is
this-
is
criminal,
not
civil
and-
and
I
I
think
that's
that's
the
distinction
here
and
it
doesn't
about
the
judicial
commission.
We
can
talk
about
them.
I
think
that
is
an
interesting
topic
for
this
committee.
It
was
interesting
to
have
them
come
in
and
talk
about
their
action.
I
mean
it
isn't
about
their
the
way
they've
been
acting
though,
and
their
rule
book.
It
is
civil.
D
This
is
criminal
and
it's
it's
two
separate
things
and
zombie
voting
eye
on
this.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
don't
see
at
any
time
that
a
judge
can't
be
prosecuted
currently
for
a
criminal
act.
It's
it's
pretty
well
documented.
You
have
to
have
the
prosecutor
bring
the
case
forward,
though
you
have
to
have
people
that
are
involved
in
the
investigation,
bring
the
case
forward.
O
Nothing
in
this
bill
to
me
would
change
that
if
they
commit
a
criminal
act.
Currently
judges
will
be
prosecuted
simple,
as
that
there
are
statutes
that
cover
that
all
we're
doing
is
is
adding
more
things
here
that
at
the
time,
I
just
don't
think
are
needed.
So
as
far
as
people
being
prosecuted,
that
that
will
happen.
If
you
have
the
investigative
team,
the
prosecution
bring
it
forward.
Thank
you,
representative.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
lawyers
might
be
able
to
help
here,
but
it
seems
like
a
number
of
statutes
over
the
years,
have
had
a
kind
of
a
preservation
clause
that
allowed
for
the
remainder
of
the
statute
to
be
kept
in
place.
Should
parts
of
it
be
ruled
unconstitutional,
and
I
think,
with
the
questions
that
that
might
be
really
appropriate
to
add
such
a
clause
to
the
end
of
this
bill,
so
that
if
there
are
some
separation
of
power
issues
identified
that
the
rest
of
the
bill
doesn't
go
down
with
it.
O
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
get
I
gotta
get
back
to
the
more
general
point,
pivoting
away
from
the
separation
of
powers,
issues
and
going
back
this
concept,
where
you
know
it's.
Okay,
if
you
advocate
for
a
family
member,
even
if
you're
a
you
know
low-level
employee,
I
just
like
to
I
mean
I
guess
it
brings
me
back
to
a
previous
occupation.
O
I
had
an
impression
was
that
if
you
want
to
transfer
to
a
state
agency,
you
weren't
going
to
be
able
to
do
it
or
if
you
want
a
a
job
working
for
a
particular
stage,
so
you
won't
be
able
to
get
the
job
that
you
want,
because
you
have
to
kind
of
know
somebody
on
the
inside
to
gain
employment.
So
I
I
think
that's
we
need
to
be
wary
from
any
perception
of
anybody
getting
a
hand
up
because
they
happen
to
know
somebody
in
a
public
agency
from
a
management
perspective.
O
I
think
it's
best
to
maintain
the
appearance
of
being
as
even-handed
and
fair
as
possible.
That's
going
to
get
the
best
people
applying
for
public
positions
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
I
think
that
you
know
the
provisions
that
prohibit
any
conflict
of
interest
from
anybody
and
public
service
should
be
a
basic
requirement,
no
matter
what
position
they're
holding
so
on
in
favor
of
the
bill.
O
I
certainly
don't
want
to
evoke
any
separations
of
powers
issues,
but
hopefully
we've
taken
care
of
those,
but
I
just
like
to
point
out
push
back
a
little
bit
on
that
notion
that
you
know
a
certain
amount
of
insight.
Influence
is
okay
in
any
public
agency.
I
just
don't
think
that
it
has
any
place
in
public
service,
so
just
like
to
offer
that
perspective.
B
Thank
you,
okay
committee
we've
had
some
questions
logged
out
there
that
didn't
necessarily
get
answered.
We've
had
amendments
we've
passed
some
anything
else,
representative
gray,
thanks
chairman.
D
Kirk
bride,
a
couple
quick
points,
someone
I
mean
I
want
to
agree
with
senator
boner
100
and
appreciate
what
he
said.
I
agree
I
I
I
don't
think
there
should
be
any
influence
in
that
process
and
there
shouldn't
be
any
perception
either,
and
I
want
to
respond
to
the
point
earlier
that
there's
already
statutes
on
the
book
for
this.
D
Well,
there
are
for
other
criminal
violations
and
they
admitted
that
for
dui
and
you
can
fill
in
the
blank
with
other
things,
but
right
now
the
judiciary
is
exempt
right
now
from
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act,
and-
and
that
to
me,
is
it's
surprising
and
it's
actually
it's
shocking,
I
mean,
and
so
anyway,
I'll
be
voting
eye
on
this.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
mr
co-chairman,
I'm
going
to
vote
I
as
well,
but
I
do
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
message
is
received.
You
know
it's
shocking
that
they
were
exempt,
but
I
I
think
that
they
were
exempt
as
a
result
of
those
constitutional
concerns
that
we've
more
than
exhausted
and
as
well
as
the
constitutional
creation
of
the
commission,
whose
purpose
it
was
to
ensure
that
the
judges
fulfilled
their
judicial
cannons,
which
we've
heard
a
significant
amount
about.
K
D
B
M
E
H
E
N
B
Right,
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
bill
passes
remaining
this
afternoon.
We
have
the
discussion
of
the
theft
revision
bill.
Then
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
district
attorneys
about
their
finances
before
the
day
is
over,
but
before
we
do
that,
why
don't
we
take
a
10
minute
break?
I
have
3
38,
so
let's
come
back
and
3
48
and
see
you.
B
I
N
E
B
C
Mr
chairman
21
lso
132
draft
1.0
at
7-0,
one
of
the
meeting
materials.
C
B
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
in
talking
to
to
our
county
attorney
like
she's
liking,
this
or
but
she's
wondering.
If
and
having
had
some
problems
with
what
we
passed
a
year
ago,
she's
wondering
if
we
wouldn't
be
better
off
to
put
that
or
all
through
this
after
the
a
and
and
the
other
one
so
that
it
could
be
one
or
the
other,
and
I'd
like
to
just
hear
a
little
more
discussion
about
that.
Because
all
we're
doing
is
adding
one
ore.
E
C
Mr
chairman,
representative,
jennings
generally,
in
terms
of
statutory
construction,
if
the
ore
is
included
as
a
in
the
penultimate
item
of
a
list,
that's
generally
interpreted
to
mean
that
you
need
only
one
of
those,
in
this
case
paragraphs
to
establish
the
the
crime
of
theft,
along
with
the
language.
Of
course,
that's
in
the
an
a
intro.
K
Thank
you,
mr
co-chairman,
the
group
of
county
attorneys
and
other
members
of
the
bar
that
are
working
on
the
criminal
pattern.
Jury
instructions
are
aware
of
this
and
support
it
and
think
it's
fine
so
just
to
share
that
with
you
and
they
brought
they
were
the
ones
that
brought
it
to
my
attention
before
that
it
was
amended
out.
B
E
Mr
chairman,
thank
you:
byron,
yeah,
wyoming,
association,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
of
police
rising
and
support
the
bill.
I
apologize
with
the
feed
delay.
I
was
just
being
queued
up
that
you
started
at
the
golden
moment.
The
camera
came
on,
so
I
missed
the
bill
introduction,
but
I
would
presume
that
the
word
or
is
of
concern
and
or
discussion
since
that's
the
word
of
the
day
for
this
bill.
E
E
B
O
A
B
Senator
cost
will
excuse
he's
away
right
at
the
moment.
A
P
E
Yes,
I
got
bumped
off
and
I
tried
to
hurriedly
get
back
on
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
B
F
A
Mr
chairman,
we
are,
and
we
do
have
a
district
attorney
in
attendance
here.
B
Okay,
this
is
just
comes
under
the
heading
of
public
comment.
I
believe
it's
a
it's
a
chance
for
the
district
attorney's
offices
to
talk
to
the
committee
members
about
the
impact
of
funding
or
lack
thereof,
and
what
it's
meaning
for
their
work.
So
I
have
miss
manlove
first
and
I
don't
know
that
she's
here,
but
perhaps
is
her
representative
here.
B
B
B
A
E
A
G
A
A
When
council's
workload
is
approaching
or
exceeds
professionally
appropriate
levels,
and
of
course
that
is
a
very
squishy
way
of
saying
we're
not
going
to
give
you
a
hard
number,
I
can
tell
you
in
my
office,
we
prosecuted
approximately
5
200
cases.
Last
year
the
vast
majority
of
those
were
misdemeanors
and
the
same
is
true
in
innocence
office.
A
A
Meet
the
criminal
case
load,
the
prosecutor
should
consider
seeking
such
funding
from
all
appropriate
sources
if
workload
exceeds
the
appropriate
professional
capacity
of
the
prosecutor
or
prosecutor's
office.
That
officer
council
should
also
alert
the
court
in
its
jurisdiction
and
seek
judicial
belief.
A
He
and
I
have
both
been
placed
in
a
position
where,
because
of
our
existing
caseload,
which
was
already
excessive,
we
were
at
a
tipping
point
and
when
our
budget
reduction
affected
our
staffing
as
it
has,
then
we
had
to
make
the
hard
decision
about
what
cases
we
could
prosecute
and
those
we
could
not
dan
has
a
list
of
18
offenses
that
he
is
no
longer
prosecuting.
A
I
wasn't
comfortable
putting
out
a
list
I
felt
like
that
was
almost
a
get
out
of
jail
free
card,
but
what
I
have
done
is
set
priorities,
and
that
is
violent,
felonies,
which
you
all
have
already
defined
by
statute.
We're
prosecuting
violent
felonies.
We
are
prosecuting
cases
that
are
felony
drug
cases
in
the.
A
A
E
E
A
A
A
L
A
Can
eventually
reunite
the
parents
and
the
children
so
that
we
can
surround
them
in
a
holistic
way
with
with
what
they
need
to
be
a
successful
family?
It's
not
the
traditional
kind
of
prosecution,
but
that
takes
a
huge
amount
of
work.
There
are
guardian.
A
There
are
appearance
attorneys
who
are
involved.
The
judges
in
the
district
court
play
a
much
more
hands-on
direct
role
than
they
would
in
adult
court
and
because
of
the
advanced
timeline,
that's
also
associated
with
juvenile
cases.
My
attorneys
are
their
own
unit.
I
have
two
attorneys
dedicated
only
to
juvenile
cases,
but
with
the
budget,
because
I've
had
to
identify
priorities
within
the
juvenile
section
as
well
and.
A
Who
we've
worked
very
hard
to
build
a
good
relationship
with
it?
It's
extremely
difficult
to
try
and
explain
to
a
patrol
officer
or
a
deputy
that
we
are
not
honoring
their
word
product.
We're
not
honoring.
The
judgment
call
that
they
made
in
regard
to
public
safety,
and
in
fact
my
office
has
had
to
dismiss
at
this
point
several
hundred
cases,
because
ethically
the
prosecutor
cannot
carry
that
level
of
workload.
L
A
Appropriate
for
me
to
share
with
you,
as
as
I
suggested,
to
you
under
the
aba
standards,
what
efforts
we've
made
to
reach
out
to
other
officials,
to
other
people
within
the
criminal
justice
system,
to
try
and
explain
the
situation
that
we
find
ourselves
in
and
both
district
attorney
vincent,
and
I
understand
that
the
governor's
budget
cuts
were
necessary.
He
has
a
constitutional
requirement
to
present
to
the
legislature
of
malin's
budget.
A
Our
concern,
though,
is
that
any
additional
cuts
will
literally
come
at
the
expense
of
public
safety
already
within
our
communities.
The
people
who
are
committing
the
majority
of
the
misdemeanor
offenses
that
we're
no
longer
able
to
prosecute
are
very
aware
that
we're
not
able
to
prosecute
those
kinds
of
crimes,
and
so
in
a
sense
that
that
only
adds
fuel
to
the
fire.
A
And
one
of
the
concerns
I
have
is
that
here
in
laramie,
county
or
in
toronto
county,
you
can
commit
an
offense
possession
of
marijuana,
which
this
body
has
determined
is
illegal
and
a
crime,
and
you
won't
be
prosecuted
but
outside
of
those
two
counties,
you
will
be
prosecuted
and
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
something
that
everybody
is
aware
of.
When
we
talk
about
the
impact
of
the
budget
cuts
in
our
respective
offices,
and
so
with
that
at
least
initial
information,
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions
from
any
member
of
the.
B
E
I
Still
muted,
ms,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
ms
manlove.
Thank
you
for
that
qualitative
assessment.
Do
you
have
any
quantitative
assessment
of
what
you've
said
so,
for
example,
I'd
be
curious
to
know-
and
maybe
maybe
this
for
in
a
different
form
at
a
different
time,
but
obviously
it's
a
serious
concern.
I
Are
there
other
fewer
number
of
prosecutors
that
you
have
now?
Is
there
in
fact
increased
crime
in
cheyenne
and
casper?
You
know
what
can
we
can
we
quantify
this?
I
mean.
I
That's
that's
my
issue
with
him.
It's
one
thing
to
say
we're
busy
and
we'd
like
to
have
more
money,
and
we
can't
afford
as
many
things
as
we
can
we're
not
prosecuting
or
not
carrying
out
these
cases,
but
it'd
be
interesting
to
know
what
the
actual
impact
on
public
safety
actually
is.
I
mean:
has
there
been
a
spike
in
violent
crime
in
cheyenne
or
casper.
A
A
A
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
ask
about
this
theft
statute.
The
unfortunate
you
know
there
was
an
error
made
and-
and
it
just
you
know,
I
was
talking
with
someone
about
it
the
other
day
it
even
it
made
its
way
through
governor's
review
and
even
initially
when
I
guess
the
prosecutors
looked
at
the
statute,
they
didn't
see
it
either.
D
D
A
O
E
J
A
E
A
But
more
specifically,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
prosecute
essentially
anything
under
a
certain
amount
of
money
or
if,
if
the
victim
of
the
theft
has
any
kind
of
an
ability
to
seek
a
civil
remedy,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
prosecute
those
cases
not
because
they
aren't
important.
Not
because
the
harm
isn't
real.
Not
because
the
victims
don't
matter,
but
because
we're
literally.
E
A
To
decide
between
prosecuting
somebody
who
maybe
had
their
you
know:
25
000
trucks
stolen
from
their
home,
I'm
sure
they
recovered
it
later,
but
it
was
completely
damaged
and
trashed.
That's
unfortunate.
We
hope
that
they
have
insurance,
we're
just
not
going
to
be
able
to
prosecute
that
kind
of
a
case
when
we
have
limited
resources
in
terms
of
people
and
we
have
aggravated
child
abuse
child
sexual
assault.
A
We
have
homicide
cases
aggravated
arson,
aggravated
burglary,
aggravated
robbery.
We
have
direct
conspiracies
we're
just
having
to
focus
our
resources,
unfortunately
literally
the
expense
of
people
in
our
community.
It's
not
something
that
I
ever
would
have
imagined
that
I
would
do
in
my
tenure
as
district
attorney.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
you
know
I
just
want
to
say
this
is
very
troubling
the
the
trend,
and
I
do
think,
though,
we
need
to
see
the
legislature
like
some
kind
of
diagram
on
the
case
loads
and
what
the
thresholds
are.
I
mean,
because
that's
not
totally
clear,
I
think,
representative
stiff
was
getting
into
that
earlier.
D
I
mean
quantitatively,
what
are
the
thresholds
where
it
where
each
thing
is
met
and
and
the
office
can't
do
its
job
anymore,
and-
and
I
guess
also
I
mean-
and
I'm
not
trying
to,
but
but
we
need
to
be
able
to
calculate
that
in
an
objective
way
that
we're
very
confident
that
that
and
and
I'm
not
trying
to
be-
but
you
know
it
might
be
good
to
have
an
outside
person-
take
a
look
at
it.
D
Just
to
you
know,
and
and-
and
so
I
I
but
I'm
very
troubled
by
this
trend,
but
I
want
to
reiterate
that
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
see
some
numbers
as
well,
so
we
understand
what
the
implications
are
and
what
the
thresholds
are
with
each
position
and
what?
What
triggered
certain
things
not
happening.
Certain
prosecutions
not
happening
so
we
understand
and
we
can
communicate
that
to
appropriations
and
the
governor's
office.
B
O
A
O
A
A
Being
dismissed
and
our
inability
to
bring
cases
currently
that
we
normally
would
so,
I
appreciate
very
much
representative,
stiff
and
representative
gray's
questions
regarding
data
and
numbers,
and
we
can
certainly
give
that
to
this
committee
so
that
you
have
an
understanding.
I
do
see
that
my
counterpart
district
attorney
davidson
has
joined
the
conference.
I
would
ask
if
the
committee
has
questions
that
they
could
put
to
dan.
Perhaps
there
are
things
that
he
could
discuss
as
well.
E
Q
Thank
you.
I
was
able
to
catch
most
of
leanne's
presentation.
I
was
currently
getting
ready
for
a
murder
case
and
when
we
talk
about
funding,
I
can
tell
you
in
neutron
county.
Q
Q
E
Q
I've
asked
the
city
attorney's
office
to
pick
up
misdemeanor
cases
that
we
will
no
longer
prosecute.
In
fact,
there's
17
different
crimes
that
my
office
will
no
longer
prosecute,
because
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
do
so.
The
manpower,
if
you
will,
I
was
fortunate
and
able
to
retain
one
attorney
position,
but
when
you're
dealing
with
an
office
as
small
as
mine,
which
is
roughly
20
people
and
you're,
asking
for
10
cuts,
followed
by
another
10
cut
that
that
is
people.
Q
The
constitution
requires
us
to
have
certain
guidelines
that
are
met
with
discovery
and
the
like.
The
legislators
put
a
lot
of
burden
on
the
prosecutors
to
kind
of
keep
things
up,
and
you
can't
do
it
when
you
continue
to
lose
people.
That's
the
bottom
line.
Something
has
to
give
we
handled
north
of
3500
cases
a
year
ago,
and
you
cannot
continue
that
same
volume.
Much
like
leanne
talked
about
and
have
the
same
effectiveness
that
we
do.
Q
I
understand
the
question
of
you
know
data.
However,
that
question
cannot
be
answered
directly
at
this
point.
I
think
that's
going
to
take
a
long,
long
term
view.
Q
I
can
tell
you
the
prosecutor's
office
that
the
city
attorney
in
casper
consists
of
one
prosecutor,
the
county
attorney
and
a
deputy
county
attorney
caseload
that
we've
given
them
frankly
is
going
to
swamp
that
office.
There
will
be
cases
in
the
trona
county
that
don't
get
prosecuted.
Q
Q
It's
not
the
homicide
cases
that
you're
going
to
see
not
prosecuted.
It's
going
to
be
the
property
related
felonies
that
you
see
it's
going
to
be
the
auto
burglaries.
It's
going
to
be
forgeries,
the
embezzlements,
those
type
of
things
in
at
that
point.
You
do
get
into
that
area
of
negative
return
that
I
referenced.
Q
Q
Legal
assistants
frankly
are
just
as
valuable
as
attorneys
and
they're.
The
folks
that
are
kind
of
behind
the
scenes
making
sure
your
case
is
is
going
as
smoothly
as
possible
when
we
start
losing
those
people
you're
going
to
start
seeing
dramatic
changes
in
crime
and
I've
lost
one.
My
next
proposed
10
percent
cut
involves
another
one.
Q
Frankly,
it
involves
a
victim
witness
coordinator
and-
and
I
know
that's-
perhaps
not
a
glamorous
position
but
they're
your
direct
line
to
the
victim
victim
bill
of
rights,
talks
about
a
victim
being
notified
of
offers
and
being
involved
in
a
case.
Q
Q
However,
people
have
to
under
also
understand
there's
only
so
much
one
can
do
when
you're
losing
cases
and
as
leanne
says
we're.
Two-Thirds
of
the
criminal
cases
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
anecdotally
to
representative
gray,
our
numbers
or
in
violent
crimes
are
up,
sir.
I
I
can't
give
you
an
exact
number.
I
can
tell
you
we're
coming
out
of
this
pandemic.
At
least
here
in
the
trona
county.
We
have
a
number
of
homicides.
We've
got
a
number
of
aggravated
assaults.
Q
Q
Q
We're
seeing
that
here
in
the
toronto
county
and
that
there
is
no
indication
that
it
in
fact
it
is
going
to
slow
down
and
we're
coming
out
of
somewhat
of
a
lockdown.
Q
Q
The
timing
of
this
and
budget
cuts
coming
out
of
this
lockdown
where
cases
are
stacked
to
go
to
trial.
Now
we're
normally
stacked,
however,
not
to
this
degree,
not
where
you're
going
to
have
four
or
five
legitimately
going
to
trial
in
a
jury
stack
and
I'll
work.
Representative
gray,
on
trying
to
get
you
some
numbers
and
and
telling
you
what
I
sent
to
the
city
attorney's
office
that
long-term
projection,
sir,
I'm
not
sure
you're
going
to
know
that
exact
number.
Until
perhaps
it's
too
late,
I
can
tell
you
leanne
and
myself.
Q
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you.
This
journey
it's
in
for
coming
in
and-
and
I
want
to
reiterate
that
I'm
I'm
very
troubled
by
this.
I
share
your
concern.
I
I
I
you
know
in
terms
of
the
numbers.
D
What
I
was
trying
to
ask,
I
guess
is:
is
it
sounds
like
it
in
for
district
attorney
manlove
it
was
about
one
to
two
positions
would
be
huge
and-
and
that
seems
to
be
your
case
as
well
as
is-
is
that
that
would
be
huge
in
getting
it
the
office
back
to
where
it
where
it
was.
At
least
I
guess
and-
and
so
I
guess
that's
my
question
and
what
is
the?
What
are
the
thresholds?
D
Reach
position,
we're
not
we're
not
talking
about
10
we're
talking
about
one
to
two
right
or
somewhere
in
that
realm.
That's
where,
when
those
two
one
to
two
positions
were
taken
away,
that's
that
was
that
was
bad
for
the
office.
Is
that
would
you
agree.
Q
With
that,
mr
chairman,
representative
gray,
yes,
I
I've
been
with
this
office
for
20
years
now,
in
in
20
years,
representative
gray,
our
office
attorney-wise
has
grown
by
two
crime
hasn't
slowed
up
any
in
20
years.
Q
I
know
that,
but
when
we
start
losing
positions
that
it
takes
us
20
years
to
get
out
without
a
question
that
that
is
substantial,
we
could
barely
keep
up
before
and
I'll
I'll
say
this,
and
perhaps
it's
somewhat
cute
by
half,
but
in
wyoming
we
we
can
do
a
lot,
there's
always
a
way
around,
and
I
always
joke
you
know
with
bale
and
wire
and
duct
tape.
We
can
fix
about
anything
in
wyoming.
Q
Q
B
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
the
prosecutors,
our
two
da's
coming
on
and
sharing
these
stories
with
us.
I
think
it's
important
as
we
get
ready
for
our
session
coming
up,
that
we
understand
the
impacts
of
for
what
most
agencies
now
is.
Roughly
a
twenty
percent
coffee
go
back
starting
about
five
years
ago.
These
are
serious
reductions
and
since
we
have
missed
the
gentleman
from
detroit
county
on
here,
I
believe
he
might
have
the
only
death
penalty
case
in
the
state.
That's
currently
active.
Q
Through
the
legislative
process,
this
office
was
given
one-time
money
of
forty
thousand
dollars
to
pursue
dale
eaton's
case.
Currently,
mr
eaton
is
getting
evaluated
at
the
state
hospital.
O
B
Q
K
Q
Mr
chairman,
yes,
yes,
co-chairman,
that
is
correct.
However,
as
you,
as
you
know,
the
majority
of
our
aggravators
in
that
case
came
through
the
case
itself.
So,
while
it
is
a
penalty
phase.
I
Stiff,
mr
chairman,
mr
issen,
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
time
out
of
your
day
to
be
here.
I
I
imagine
that
you
are
under
tremendous
workload
crunch
right
now,
since
the
courts
were
effectively
closed
down
in
april
and
may
and
now
you've
got
speedy
trial
concerns
to
get
all
these
trials
done
back
to
back.
So
I
imagine
you're
under
tremendous
pressure
right
now,
and
I
do
appreciate
your
numbers
about
the
staffing
in
your
casper
office
and
and
what
it
was
like
now
what
it
was
20
years
ago,
but
it
it
is.
I
The
case,
though
I
mean
the
long-term
trend
in
society,
is
for
crime
to
go
down
right.
I
mean
we
actually
do
have
less
property
crimes
in
wyoming
today
than
we
did
20
years
ago,
and
we
have
left
property
crime
30
years
ago
and
40
years
ago.
So
are
there
ways
to
squeeze?
You
know
efficiencies
out
of
the
system
to
to
make
it
make
it
work
to
square
the
circle
so
to
speak.
I
B
Q
In
fact-
and
it's
just
a
pure
hunch
and
I
may
be
very
wrong-
I
think
I
would
tend
to
disagree
with
that
with
respect
to
efficiencies
we're
trying
about
to
be
about
as
efficient
as
possible.
That
goes
from
moving
secretaries
up
to
what
we
call
the
front
door.
It's
a
secured
entrance,
so
they
can
open
the
door
rotating
phone
duties.
Q
I
do
have
folks
in
this
office
that
are
really
doing
two
jobs:
three
jobs,
kind
of
a
hybrid
positions
in
an
attempt
to
to
get
things
done.
The
thing
representing
a
staff
that
perhaps
I'm
most
proud
of
is
when
you
come
to
my
office
early
in
the
morning,
there'll
already
be
two
or
three
people
here
working.
Q
You
know
before
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning,
if
you
stay
they'll
be
one
or
two
after
five
o'clock,
also
working
trying
to
get
the
job
done
at
some
point,
you
end
up
burning
your
your
candle
at
both
ends
and
you
see
tremendous
burnout
and
that's
not
productive
in
the
long
haul,
so
we're
trying
sir
to
be
as
efficient
as
as
we
can
and
we
were
efficient
before
I
don't
know
if
there
is
such
a
thing
as
ultra
efficient,
but
we're
sure
trying
to
find
out.
B
Okay,
we
have
four
more
folks
who
want
to
talk
to
us,
maybe
we'll
move
on
to
them.
Thank
you
represent
grace,
burning
question.
D
Yeah
I
do
I
mean
I
support
my
community
and,
and
you
know
I
yeah-
I
want
to
ask
some
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
this
attorney
it's
in
I
you
know
I
want
to
understand
a
little
bit
the
communication
with
the
governor's
office,
because
I'm
been
really
perplexed
by
this
process.
I
mean,
I
think
there
are
areas
in
state
government.
D
You
know
I
give
an
example
with
the
hr,
every
every
agency
having
an
hr
department
and
it
say,
would
save
like
70
positions
to
centralize
this,
and
that
is
been
on
the
back
end
of
the
reductions
and
instead
these
necessary
positions
have
been
on
the
front
end,
and
it's
very
perplexing
to
me.
I
I
don't.
D
Q
Mr
chairman,
yes
represent
representative
gray,
it's
been
spotty,
I
guess
at
best,
there's
been
a
high
level
of
frustration.
From
my
end,
we
were
simply
told
to
implement
or
initially
propose,
10
budget
cuts.
Q
Q
Eventually,
it
took
a
phone
call
to
the
attorney
general's
office
and
pure
frustration
from
me
to
kind
of
understand
that
process
and
then
to
be
perfectly
honest,
representative
grey.
I
was
waiting
on
a
jury
verdict,
one
night
and
I
was
curious
if
the
governor
had
an
email
and,
oddly
enough
he
does
so.
I
sent
him
an
email
kind
of
the
boots
on
the
ground.
Look
at
these
budget
cuts
and
sent
that
off
and
about
two
to
three
weeks
later
I
got.
B
Q
Back
from
the
chief
of
staff
saying
that
they'd
like
to
have
a
another
meeting
and
that's
how
I
was
able
to
save
my
attorney
position,
that
was
kind
of
the
guidance
we
got
to
be
perfectly
honest.
There
were
a
number
of
emails
that
went
unresponded
to
phone
calls,
not
taken
those
type
of
things,
so
that
was
a
great
source
of
frustration
for
me.
Q
And
you
have
to
see
it
to
understand
it.
I
think,
to
some
degree-
and
you
know
last,
I
guess
two
saturdays
ago
now
we
had
a
vehicular
homicide
out
at
the
lake
pathfinder
eight
o'clock
at
night.
On
a
saturday,
there
were
three
people
from
this
office
willing
to
go
to
that
crime
scene,
willing
to
watch
interviews.
They
don't
get
paid
for
that
mind
you
they
do
it
because
they're
trying
to
put
together
a
good,
strong
case
for
the
victims.
Q
They
want
to
be
prosecutors,
they're
very
good
prosecutors,
but
they
can't
put
their
families.
You
know
through
this.
Are
you
going
to
have
a
job
in
two
months
or
three
months,
those
type
of
things,
so
that
was
the
communication,
sir
I've
had
with
the
governor's
office
and
his
staff,
and
we
were
told
in
the
summer
well
just
on
the
off
chance
put
together.
Another
10
plan
is
quote
unquote
as
a
proposal.
Q
D
A
F
A
G
N
Thank
you,
joe
baron,
crook,
county
attorney,
mr
chairman
krook
bride
and
co-chairman
nethercut,
as
I've
stated
before,
I've
been
essentially
doing
this
job
for
34
years,
and
I
tell
you
one
of
the
two
things:
the
things
that
both
the
district's
attorneys
failed
to
mention,
and
that
is
today
it
used
to
be.
I
could
pick
up
a
normal
dui
case
and
I
could
have
go
through
that
case
and
know
pretty
much
everything
that
was
there
between
a
half
an
hour
and
an
hour
now.
N
We
have
been
buried
with
additional
evidence
in
every
case
we're
actually
having
to
change
our
filing
system,
because
there's
just
so
much
more
than
there
ever
used
to
be
for
even
your
run-of-the-mill
cases,
so
cases
take
more
time
than
they
used
to
take,
and
that's
just
in
addition
to
those
other
things.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that,
just
to
kind
of
keep
it
in
perspective
a
little
bit
on
what's
going
on
there.
N
But
that's
just
the
main
thing
and
the
other
thing
is:
is
the
budget
cuts
they
are
coming
down
on
the
county
attorneys
around
the
states
as
well?
We've
already
had
the
10
percent
cut
to
budget
item
160,
and
now
I
just
submitted
the
impact
plan
for
the
step
two,
which
is
the
additional
20
percent,
and
what
we're
looking
at
across
the
state
is
the
potential
of
somewhere
between
a
dozen
attorneys
and
possibly
up
to
13
office
employees
as
potential
impact
to
the
county.
N
Attorneys
offices
around
the
state
that
do
prosecution
with
additional
20
percent
cut,
and
so
just.
N
For
something
that
is
frankly
essential
public
service,
it
doesn't
seem
the
way
that
things
should
go
most
state
agencies
cannot
do
their
jobs
effectively
without
a
county
attorney
or
d.a
to
handle
their
matters
in
court
law
enforcement
can't
keep
criminals
in
jail.
Dfs
can't
continue
to
protect
children.
N
Department
of
health
can't
treat
people
in
involuntary
hospitalizations,
and
the
list
goes
on
and
on
because
we're
the
ones
in
these
offices
of
prosecutors
that
do
all
of
those
things,
and
so
the
effectiveness
of
our
office
and
the
ability
for
us
to
do
is
going
to
have
a
large-term
effect
on
other
agencies,
including
the
department
of
corrections.
E
H
You,
mr
chairman,
mr
barron,
I
take
your
comments
about
the
increased
amount
of
video
evidence
and
so
forth.
To
perhaps
I
think
this
is
accurate
that
we're
able
to
prosecute
more
cases
today
than
we
were
30
years
ago
or
20
years
ago,
because
we
have
better
evidence.
Would
you
say
that's
an
accurate
statement.
So,
even
though
crime
rates
are
down,
prosecutions
are
mr.
N
N
I
don't
know
it's
great
if
you
get
a
confession
on
video.
Excuse
me,
co-chairman,
kirk,
bright
in
front
and
coach
air.
Another
cop
representative,
washington,.
N
I
that's
something
that
I
would
really
have
to
look
at
and
see.
If
that's
the
case,
I
it
we
have
to
many
times
review
in
every
case,
no
matter
what
case
it
is
we
get
the
video
in,
we
look
at
it,
we
watch
it.
We
see
that
now
what
happens
is
when
you
get
too
busy.
You
don't
do
it,
and
so
you
don't
know
what
case
you
have
until
frankly,
sometimes
it's
too
late
and
you
waste
your
time
and
everybody
else's
time
down
the
road,
and
that's
that's
the
problem
with
too
busy
of
prosecutors.
B
F
Chairman
chairman,
kirkbred,
co-chair
nedacot.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
Joe
has
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this
budget
stuff.
Let
me
talk
about
this,
as
county
attorneys
were
situated
differently
than
mr
itzen
and
ms
manlet
were
because
they're
funded
directly
by
the
state
and
we're
only
funded
indirectly,
our
budgets
are
controlled
by
our
county
commissioners.
F
The
160
money
is
one
component
that
the
state
has
provided
some
assistance
to
the
counties
for
a
payment
of
half
of
a
deputy
salary
up
to
half
a
sixty
thousand,
so
thirty
thousand
and
half
of
the
dis
prosecutors,
salary
up
to
a
hundred
thousand
or
fifty
thousand
is
the
state's
contribution
maximum.
So
it's
those
funds
you're
looking
at
the
problem
that
that
we
always
have
when
we
do
these
cuts,
10
or
it'll-
be
20
total
for
through
the
next
year,
so
10
and
10..
F
The
problem
with
that
is,
is
that
those
those
are
savings
to
the
state,
but
virtually
all
those
costs
get
passed
back
through
to
the
counties.
Good
example
is
the
crime
lab.
Their
funding
is
cut.
F
We
get
a
letter
from
the
crime
lab
saying
if
you
want
certain
dui
cases,
for
example,
to
be
prosecuted,
you're,
gonna
they're
working
on
getting
it
back
up
to
speed,
but
you
have
to
send
it
to
a
lab
out
of
state
which
makes
no
sense
and
pay
them
give
or
take
240
dollars
for
a
confirmation
of
a
drug
test
or
an
alcohol
test.
That's
that's
been
done,
you're
likely
more
more
likely
drugs
than
anything
else,
but
these
are
that's
a
cost
that
gets
passed
through
to
us.
F
F
I
think
you
see
that
in
your
home
counties
where
you
go
to
there
was
questions
a
little
bit
ago
about.
Is
there
any
data
that
supports
increased
case
loads
and
that
sort
of
thing
there
will
be,
but
we're
at
the
front
end
of
this?
Now
we
don't
know
yet.
If
you
look
at
the
the
workload
statistical
stuff
that
the
judges
put
together
and
get
a
pretty
good
measure
for
a
county,
how
much
is
going
on
in
the
criminal
cases
in
the
civil
cases,
county
attorneys
represent
my
job.
F
I
F
Us
to
handle
a
few
more
kind
of
things
I
have
my
deputy
do
mostly
misdemeanors
most
of
the
juvenile
stuff.
We
share
some
felonies.
I
do
all
the
serious
felonies.
Then
I
represent
about
seven
six.
Seven
eight
boards
around
at
the
county
appoints-
and
I
represent
the
county
commissioners
on
anything
that
comes
up
and
that's
a
daily
thing
that
county
clerks
are
down
here
almost
every
day
of
the
week
with
questions
it's
a
regular
office,
it's
what
it
boils
down
to
so
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
goes
on.
F
I
don't
really
want
to
be
in
that
position
and
tell
somebody
well.
I
can't
do
this.
I
can't
do
that
because
I
simply
don't
have
the
money.
I
wouldn't
do
it
I'll
just
I'll
find
a
way
if
I
have
to
get
my
own
pocket
I'll
kind
of
need
to
do
it,
but
I
don't
really
think
that's
what
this
process
ought
to
be
about.
F
This
process
ought
to
be
about,
and,
and
senator
gray
raised,
the
question
I
believe,
senator
agreement
was
representative
raised
the
idea
about
necessary
services,
and
I
think
the
term
we've
seen
nationally
throughout
the
philippine
crisis
is
essential.
Workers,
prosecutors
and
county
attorneys
are
essential
workers
in
our
system
of
government
because
we
keep
our
county
commissioners
on
the
straight
and
narrow,
hopefully
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
be
doing
and
then
in
the
counties.
We
also
turn
around
prosecute
serious
crimes.
There's
no
way
to
predict,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
anywhere
close
to
what
might
happen
tomorrow.
F
Somebody
might
decide
to
go
on
a
shooting
spree
down
in
cheyenne
and
I
hope
not,
but
they
might
decide
to
do
that
tonight.
We
can't
predict
when
that's
going
to
be
there's
no
there's
no
accurate
predictor
of
when
or
how
a
crime
is
going
to
occur.
All
it
takes
is
one
serious
crime
to
wipe
out
most
of
our
budgets
in
terms
of
anything
left
over
for
other
than
to
pay
our
salaries
with
the
key
element.
Is
it
passes?
F
So
when
you're
considering-
and
I
realize
you're-
not
the
appropriations
committee,
but
when
you're
considering
looking
at
these
cuts
for
the
160
money,
consider
that
I
have
one
deputy.
What
am
I
gonna
do
tell
him
he's
either
he's
got
half
a
job
here
in
the
near
future,
or
does
he
just
quit
and
go
where
he
can
find
work?
F
And
I'm
here
on
my
own
again,
I've
done
that
before
I
did
it
for
about
a
year
and
a
half
when
I
first
started
it's
challenging,
but
it's
capable
I'm
kind
of
a
joke
around
here,
because
most
people
don't
see
my
vehicle
leave
the
front
of
the
courthouse
until
seven
o'clock
at
night.
Admittedly,.
F
Done
before
I
go
home,
that's
what
I
got
elected
to
do
that's
different,
though
than
provide
inadequate
funding
to
provide
essential
services
to
these
to
our
counties
in
terms
of
prosecution
in
terms
of
advice
to
our
government.
That's
really
all
I'd
like
to
touch
upon.
If
there's
any
questions
about
anything
like
that,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
the
same.
Thank
you.
B
Anything
all
right,
mr
riemann
you're
back
good
to
see
you.
P
Thanks,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
jeremiah
riemann
here
on
behalf
of
the
wyoming
county
commissioners
association,
mr
chairman,
that
the
attorneys
really
have
gone
over
the
issues
of
personnel
of
budgets,
caseloads
and
prosecution
timelines
and
the
troubles
that
they're
experiencing
there.
P
Mr
chairman,
I
perhaps
the
only
space
that
I
might
be
able
to
provide
the
committee.
Any
insight
would
be
specific
to
county
budgets
and
the
the
shortfalls
that
we're
experiencing
or
expect
to
experience
there.
But
I
also
don't
want
to
treat
this
like
an
appropriations
or
revenue
committee
meeting.
P
B
P
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'll.
Do
that
and
I'll
try
and
be
respectful
of
your
time.
Mr
chairman,
if
you
look
across
the
state
at
all,
the
counties
they've
all
had
to
experience
some
sort
of
budget
decision-making
and
budget
cutting
this
fiscal
year.
P
P
What
I
wanted
to
do,
mr
chairman,
is
perhaps
just
provide
a
little
bit
of
of
an
idea
of
what
the
issues
are
that
commissioners
are
evaluating,
and
I
it
sounds
as
if
you
may
have
a
copy
of
a
few
slides
that
I
put
together
and
I'll
be
happy
to
provide
those.
If
not
but
mr
chairman,
I
wanted
to
start
with
assessed
valuation
and
give
the
committee
some
sense
about
what
that
looks
like
right
now.
P
That
is
roughly
320
million
dollars
in
a
reduction
of
assessed
valuation.
I'll
come
back
to
this
issue
of
assessed
valuation
a
little
bit
later,
but
this
is
an
important
piece
to
the
equation.
P
If
you
look
at
the
next
slide
that
I
provided
in
that
deck
it,
it
shows
more
broadly.
What
assessed
valuation
was
for
2019
by
property
class
and
and
if
you
do
have
the
possibility
of
screen
sharing,
that's
perfectly
fine.
I'm
don't
want
to
be
withholding
information
from
the
public,
I'm
just
trying
to
read
from
mine,
so
I'm
actually
a
couple
slides
further
along.
P
P
P
P
If
you
look
at
residential
and
contrast,
it
went
up
10.85
percent
from
2019.,
so
the
total
impact
of
that
drop
in
assessed
valuation
is
a
reduction
in
the
mineral
category
of
over
750
million
dollars,
and
but
it
also,
you
know,
you
do
see,
increases
in
other
areas
of
assessed
valuation,
so
an
increase
in
ag
land
assessed
valuation
by
4.6
million
dollars,
an
increase
in
residential
assessed
valuation
by
317
million
dollars,
increase
in
commercial
by
23.3
million
and
an
increase
in
industrial
by
83.7
million
dollars
again
an
overall
reduction
of
over
300
million
dollars,
primarily
due
to
the
decrease
that
we
saw
in
minerals
which
again
was
made
up
by
those
other
classes.
P
So,
mr
chairman,
I
wanted
to
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
taxes
levied
between
2019
and
2020.
across
the
state
county
taxes
levied
we're
down
1.9
percent
or
a
total
reduction
of
18.255
million
dollars.
That's
what
is
represented
on
that
slide.
If
we
can
go
to
the
we're
going
to
skip
ahead
a
couple
we're
going
to
look
at
county
revenue
sources.
P
Now,
mr
chairman,
we
put
together
a
revenue
estimating
manual
for
counties
every
year
to
try
and
give
them
some
sense
of
what
the
fiscal
picture
might
look
like
for
the
coming
year
as
they
set
their
budgets.
It's
not
dissimilar,
at
least
in
its
intent
to
craig,
although
the
sophistication
of
it
is
significantly
less
because
we're
doing
that
within
our
association,
but
nonetheless
it's
important.
P
We
typically
put
this
out
in
april
and,
as
you
can
imagine
this
year,
it
was
incredibly
difficult
for
us
to
make
some
judgment
calls
about
what
things
might
look
like,
but
we
asked
craig
to
do
something
extraordinary
and
that
was
to
include
some
some
estimations
about
what
the
reduction
might
be
for
both
sales
and
use
tax,
as
well
as
ad
valorem
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
years,
so
that
we
could
adequately
advise
our
counties
and-
and
we
are
very
thankful
that
craig
did
do
that
in
its
may
report
and
the
information
that's
contained
at
the
bottom
of
the
slide
is
pulled
from
that
report
and
for
fiscal
year
20.
P
The
most
optimistic
figure
was
that
sales
and
use
tax
across
all
counties
in
the
state
and
that's
the
state
collected
portion
of
sales
and
use
tax
would
be
down
just
short
of
9
million
dollars
in
a
pessimistic
scenario
for
fiscal
year
20.
It
would
be
a
reduction
of
16.5
million
dollars
and
if
you
look
out
to
fiscal
year
21
in
an
optimistic
scenario,
they
were
suggesting
a
reduction
of
29.5
million
dollars
over
previous
projections
and
a
pessimistic
reduction
over
fiscal
year.
P
20
of
roughly
40
million
dollars,
so
almost
in
that
pessimistic
scenario,
a
50
reduction
of
sales
and
use
tax
collections
was
possible.
Now
we
know
that
this
hasn't
worn
out
entirely,
but
nonetheless,
it's
informative
in
terms
of
what
counties
are
facing
if
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide
just
quickly
on
this
slide
again,
this
is
pulled
from
the
may
2020
craig,
and
it
shows
both
reductions
that
they
were
projecting
for
sales
and
use
tax,
as
well
as
ad
valorem
taxes.
P
If
you
just
added
up
the
total
reductions
that
they
were
forecasting
in
the
low
end
interval
so
that
middle
column
there
for
sales
and
use
tax,
they
were
projecting
between
fiscal
year
20
and
fiscal
year.
2024
a
reduction
in
sales
use
tax
collections
of
over
449
million
dollars
that
would
otherwise
be
distributed
to
the
counties,
so
pretty
significant
reductions.
P
Mr
chairman,
these
next
two
slides
are,
are
pretty
basic
and
intended
to
just
show
how
complicated
this
revenue
picture
is
and
as
it
relates
to
the
various
taxes
that
are
assessed,
this
first
one
is
intergovernmental
funding
and
what
we
mean
by
that
are
the
property
tax.
The
state
portion
of
sales
and
use
tax
that's
distributed
to
counties
the
gas
and
diesel
tax,
direct
distribution
and
severance
tax.
P
P
This
next
one
is
a
bit
more
striking
and
it's
the
last
slide
that
I
have
for
you
today,
but
it
really
shows
what
the
tiers
look
like
in
terms
of
property
tax.
So
again
we
have
seven
tier
one
counties
and
those
seven
tier
one
counties
collect
73
percent
of
all
property
tax
collected
in
the
state
of
wyoming.
P
So,
mr
chairman,
I
present
all
this
again
to
just
show
a
little
bit
of
the
complexity
of
what
county
commissioners
are
dealing
with
as
they
manage
budgets.
It's
no
different
than
what
the
governor
of
the
appropriations
committee
and
you
all
are
doing,
but
perhaps
the
the
end
note
that
I'll
have
here
is
that
these
things
can't
continue
to
roll
downhill
to
county
budgets.
P
B
B
B
C
Sure
thing,
mr
chairman,
the
committee
voted
to
sponsor
21
lso
213,
which
was
the
public
meetings
executive
session
for
security
planning
and
safety
planning.
C
The
committee
voted
not
to
sponsor
20ls
21
lso
162,
which
dealt
with
duplicate
records,
requests
and
then
the
committee
voted
to
sponsor
the
following
bills:
21
lso
163,
which
dealt
with
the
personnel
file
exemption
for
the
public
records
act,
21
lso
221,
which
is
amendments
to
public
contracting
statutes,
21
lso
60,
which
were
the
amendments
to
the
ethics
and
disclosure
act
and
21
eliso
132.
The
revision
to
the
theft
statute.
B
Okay,
very
good-
I
was
thinking
as
the
last
presenters
were
presenting
how
this
summer,
when
they
closed
the
10
rest
stops
in
the
state,
three
of
which
were
in
my
district
and
how
so
many
people
took
that
hard
and
were
so
concerned.
I
think
it
saved
870
000
and
I
thought
oh
boy.
They
only
knew
this
is
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg,
and
it's
just
in
every
realm
of
state
life.
It's
going
to
crop
up
and
and
call
for
some
real
wisdom
and
some
hard
decisions
in
the
years
to
come.
So
well.