Virginia Code CommissionAugust 16, 2000, Richmond The executive director of the Virginia State Bar gave a brief history
of the legal ethics volumes of the Code of Virginia. The Code Commission
was persuaded about 10 years ago to add these volumes as part of the Code
so the opinions would be conveniently available. The opinions are valuable
to judges and lawyers in interpreting rules of conduct that apply to lawyers.
When first authorized, there were 1,500 opinions. A few years later, the
supplement became large enough to add a second volume. The size of the
volume has decreased dramatically because new rules of conduct have been
adopted that are clearer and contain more helpful commentary, and many
of the topics have already been covered. The second volume contains only
a couple of hundred opinions, which averages to about 20 per year. The
information is indexed and cross referenced by rules, which makes it easy
to research legal ethics.
The commission advised the publisher that staff would analyze the proposal
and a decision would be forthcoming at a future meeting.
The commission deferred action on West Group's request for the commission
to reconsider contract language allowing increases in cost of the Virginia
Administrative Code based on the Book Publishing Producer Price Index
as opposed to the Book Printing Producer Price Index.
Staff outlined the development of the compact. The compact is commonly
referred to as being two agreements: the WMATRC, which deals with the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, and the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Compact. In fact, the latter "compact" is Title
III of the WMATR. Staff found that 1988 legislation repealed § 2 of the
compact, consisting of recitals and the first two titles of the compact,
and adopted a new § 2.1 in its place. However, as amendments to the compact
are effective only if all signatories adopt legislation making the same
changes, it had not been clear whether Virginia's 1988 changes were effective.
One codification option is to follow Maryland's and the District of
Columbia's approach and set out the full texts of the commission and the
authority as two sections. Another option is to assign section numbers
to the various provisions in the compact, the benefit being that the individual
sections could be amended without setting out the entire compact. It was
pointed out that if the sections are broken out and assigned individual
numbers, the changes would make Virginia's version inconsistent with the
versions adopted by the other jurisdictions, making it necessary for other
states and Congress to approve the revisions. A suggestion was made to
add provisions that have not been adopted by other states, and, therefore,
not yet part of law, with annotations that the provisions are not yet
in effect. The consensus of the commission was to defer the codification
issue to give staff time to work out any details and deliver findings
at the September meeting.
Concerns were raised about the secured parties language in proposed
§ 33.1-440 A and the removal of the term "public utility" in § 33.1-443,
and staff offered to propose alternate language to address those concerns.
The recommended laws for repeal are Chapter 167 of the 1938 Acts, Chapter
116 of the 1952 Acts, Chapter 144 of the 1958 Acts, Chapter 738 of the
1970 Acts, and Chapter 619 of the 1980 Acts. In addition, it is recommended
that § 5.1-17 of the Code of Virginia be moved to Title 29.1.
Chapter 167 of the 1938 Acts prohibits importation or breeding of German
or Belgian Shepherds in six named counties without first obtaining a special
license for these types of dogs. The interns discovered that this act
directly conflicts with state policy classifying dogs according to their
propensity to attack rather than their breed. There was discussion about
the repeal of Chapter 116 of the 1952 Acts, which makes it a misdemeanor
to hunt game in Buckingham County with a rifle larger than .22 caliber,
and Chapter 144 of the 1958 Acts, which makes it a misdemeanor to hunt
or shoot deer with a rifle larger than .22 caliber in Halifax and Cumberland
Counties. The 1952 Act is duplicated by a Buckingham County ordinance
and is currently not relied upon by the county, and the counties specified
in the 1958 act ban all deer hunting with rifles and do not rely on this
act in prosecuting those who hunt deer with rifles. There was some reservation
about repealing these two acts unless another provision gives authority
for the ordinance.
Section 5.1-17 of the Code of Virginia makes it a misdemeanor to hunt,
pursue, or kill animals by any means while one is in flight in an aircraft
over the lands or waters of the Commonwealth. Since the section deals
with hunting animals, the provision seems better suited for placement
in Title 29.1.
Chapter 738 of the 1970 Acts allows counties of certain size to license
private detectives. The rationale for repeal is because the licensing
of private investigators is regulated by the Criminal Justice Services
Board.
Chapter 619 of the 1980 Acts created the Chesterfield County Toll Road
Authority. The authority has never been active and the area over which
it was intended to govern is now part of the Powhite Parkway extension.
The Chesterfield County transportation director confirmed that the authority
is inactive; however, Chesterfield does not want the authority to be repealed.
The report was adopted as presented, with the stipulation that the repeal
of Chesterfield County Toll Road Authority was contingent upon the outcome
of discussion with the Chesterfield delegation. A bill will be drafted
for introduction into the 2001 General Assembly Session.
There was discussion about whether the legislature plays a large enough
role in the oversight of the regulatory process. Specifically questioned
were whether there should be expanded legislative oversight and a more
active role in determining if the regulations meet the legislative intent.
In Virginia, legislative oversight is limited—the legislature can currently
delay the regulatory process for 21 days. Also, the legislature can suspend
the process with the Governor's concurrence. The first issue is educating
the standing committees on their role in the regulatory process and the
second is to put a procedure in place to help accomplish this role. It
was pointed out that the legislature delegates the power to promulgate
regulations to state agencies because it does not want to micromanage
and that setting forth more procedures would slow down an already slow
process. The General Assembly retains the authority to look into the issue
and act on any issues legislatively.
The next meeting of the Commission is September 27 and 28, 2000, in
Charlottesville.
|