August 14, 2001
The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia

The Chair of the Committee called the meeting to order at 12:30 P.M. All members of the committee were present. Also present were Fred H. Miller, Executive Director, William J. Pierce, Executive Director Emeritus, William H. Henning, incoming Executive Director, Michael R. Kerr, Interim Chief Administrative Officer and Deputy Legislative Director, J. Elizabeth Cotton, Administrative Manager, and John M. McCabe, Legislative Director/Legal Counsel.

1. Dues Structure

The chair submitted the recommendation of the subcommittee consisting of King Burnett, Oglesby Young and Bion Gregory. At its meeting in August 2000, the Executive Committee had approved a revised dues structure which set a base of $15,000 per state, plus $3 for each 1000 of population. Since this resulted in substantial percentage increase in the dues of many smaller states, the Executive Committee had determined to phase in the increase so that no states’ dues exceeded a 10% increase over the prior year for the year 2001-2002. Since its last meeting, further adjustments in each state’s dues have been calculated in conformity with the now available census figures. The Subcommittee recommended that a cap be added to the dues calculations so that no state would be assessed more than $115,000 over the dues paid by any one of the 50 states. No state’s dues exceed that amount at the present time or in the proposed dues schedule for the year 2002-2003. A motion to adopt the proposed cap was adopted. A schedule showing the dues proposed for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is attached [Attachment A]. The schedule retains the 10% maximum increase per state principle as the new dues base is phased in. After discussion a motion was made and passed to adopt the proposed plan.

2. Budget for FY 2001-2002

The Chair submitted a proposed budget for FY 2001-2002 and after discussion a motion to adopt the proposed budget was made and passed.

3. Personnel Manual

A proposed personnel manual prepared by the Interim Chief Administrative Officer was presented and after review and discussion a motion was made and passed for its adoption.

4. Office Administrative and Management Issues

The Chair discussed proposed staff reassignments relating to the position of Chief Administrative Officer and a newly proposed position of Deputy Executive Director. After discussion, the creation of the position of Deputy Executive Director was approved. The duties of the position consist of assisting the Executive Director in relation to the functions of selection and supervision of Conference staff and the function of coordinating and providing continuity in the activities of the Executive Office as they relate to the activities of the Conference. The position will not involve assistance with the other duties of the Executive Director, unless otherwise directed. The Deputy Executive Director will consult with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Legislative Director/Legal Counsel concerning the operations of the Chicago office and will report directly to the Executive Director. Upon motion made and passed, Elizabeth Cotton was appointed as Chief Administrative Officer, and Michael Kerr was appointed as Deputy Executive Director. Mr. Kerr will retain his duties as Deputy Legislative Counsel and Legal Counsel.

The Executive Committee also approved bonuses for certain administrative staff relating to extraordinary service at the annual meeting.

5. JEB for Uniform Trust and Estate Acts Budget

After discussion, the usual $12,500 contribution of the Conference, of which $5000 is in kind, to the operation of the JEB for Uniform Trust and Estate Acts was approved.

6. Excused Absence

An excused absence from the 2001 annual meeting was approved for Commissioner Willis Sullivan of Idaho.

7. Scope and Program Committee

The Scope and Program Committee submitted recommendations for the creation of three new drafting committees with the charges as indicated on the attached excerpt from the Scope and Program Committee’s minutes [Attachment B]. Upon motion, all three recommendations were approved. The 3 new committees are: Harmonized Wage Code, Environmental Covenants Enforcement, and Revision of Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act. The Executive Committee also approved the attached recommendation [Attachment C] to redefine the charge to the UCC 3, 4 and 4A drafting committee to limit its charge to the designated matters.

The Chair of the Scope and Program Committee reported on the balance of its agenda items and the Executive Committee, at the request of the Chair of the Scope and Program Committee, approved the attached proposals [Attachment D] concerning the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act, the charge to the Study Committee on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, and the recommendation, approved by the Scope and Program Committee, of the Committee on Review of Conference Acts.

8. Millennium Committee

The Millennium Committee and its advisory committee were discharged with the appreciation of the Executive Committee. The Chair indicated he would as President be appointing one or more committees to further consider work begun by the Millennium Committee and other future planning issues.

9. Tort Reform Committee

A motion was made and passed to change the name of the Tort Reform Study Committee to the Tort Law Study Committee.

There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the Executive Committee at 3:15 p.m.

 

ATTACHMENT A

State	2002-2003 Dues		State	2002-2003 Dues
Alabama	$28,341		Missouri	$31,786
Alaska	$12,342		Montana	$13,673
Arizona	$26,862		Nebraska	$17,424
Arkansas	$21,054		North Dakota	$12,870
California	$122,816		Nevada	$15,246
Colorado	$25,410		New Hampshire	$15,125
Connecticut	$24,750		New Jersey	$40,243
Delaware	$13,068		Ohio	$60,802
Dist. of Col.	$12,650		North Carolina	$39,148
Florida	$62,947		New York	$77,265
Georgia	$39,559		New Mexico	$17,061
Hawaii	$15,367		Oklahoma	$24,684
Idaho	$14,520		Oregon	$23,111
Illinois	$53,227		Pennsylvania	$54,641
Indiana	$33,241		Puerto Rico	$25,168
Iowa	$22,990		Rhode Island	$14,520
Kansas	$21,538		South Carolina	$26,136
Kentucky	$27,104		South Dakota	$12,947
Louisiana	$28,407		Tennessee	$32,068
Maine	$15,609		Texas	$77,555
Maryland	$30,889		US Virgin Islands	$10,285
Massachusetts	$34,047		Utah	$17,787
Michigan	$44,815		Vermont	$12,463
Minnesota	$29,758		Virginia	$36,236
Mississippi	$22,022		Washington	$32,428
			West Virginia	$18,150
			Wisconsin	$31,091
			Wyoming	$11,979

 

Totals $1,587,227

The 10% rule means that no state will have an increase of more than 10% in any given year. However, those states will continue to increase by 10% until they match the dues projection based on the 2000 census information.

After matching the projection the state dues will then increase as determined each year.

 

ATTACHMENT B

Part 1

RESOLVED, the Committee on Scope and Program recommends to the Executive Committee that a drafting committee be appointed to produce an Act to harmonize with current federal law those State laws relating to contributions by employers and withholding laws. The scope of the Act should be limited to the 14 THWC components and wage withholding; however, if, after meeting, the Drafting Committee believes that the scope of the undertaking should be revised, it should be directed to seek approval from the Executive Committee. As part of its charge, the Drafting Committee should be directed to determine possible funding sources.

For detail the report of the Study Committee is appended.

ATTACHMENT B

Part 2

RESOLVED, the Committee on Scope and Program recommends to the Executive Committee that a drafting committee be appointed to produce an Act addressing the creation, validity, enforceability and amendment of recorded environmental covenants as set forth in the appended Summary of Recommendations submitted to this Committee.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations with respect to the proposed Uniform Environmental Covenants Act have the unanimous support of the JEB and of all other persons present at the Washington meeting. The larger group’s opinion was not sought with regard to possible amendments to the Uniform Conservation Easement Act, but the JEB knows of no opposition to its unanimous recommendations in this regard.

At the same time, as discussed below, some sentiment was expressed after the meeting that the Drafting Committee should consider whether it would be feasible in a single Act to abolish generally the common law doctrines that invalidate these environmental covenants - and thus resolve the most vexing concerns common to all ‘public’ covenants. A good outcome would be to accomplish this result and simultaneously limit the enforceability and amendment provisions of the new Act to the environmental covenants.

Scope. - The appropriate scope of the Uniform Act was the subject of considerable discussion. Many other forms of real estate servitudes - affordable housing or public rights of way, for example - present the same threshold issues of enforceability or validity. However, while those subjects may also be appropriate for statutory resolution, the consensus of those present clearly was that this Act should focus solely on environmental land use controls in the field of contaminated property.

 

Subsequent conversations among various members of the real estate Bar and NCCUSL suggested an adjustment to this scope. The specific suggestion is that the Drafting Committee be asked to consider whether the Act might serve the additional purpose of adopting the outcome of §2.6 of the Restatement (3d) of Servitudes as it generally applies to servitudes. If that proved feasible, the Act might then make clear that the balance of the Act might apply only to the kinds of environmental covenants discussed at the meeting.

In addition, it has been suggested that the Drafting Committee be asked to make clear that conservation easements would not be implicated in this Act unless the drafters of the easement intended otherwise.

The unanimous consensus of those present was that any new Act should offer a consistent national approach to a shared problem. The object of the Act should not be to deal with the regulatory aspects of environmental cleanup. Rather, the goal of the group was to provide a clear and certain mechanism for the enforcement of institutional controls which might be put in place following a decision regarding both (1) the future limited use of the partially cleaned-up property and (2) any positive obligations that may exist in connection with that use.

Typical Enforcement Objectives - The group agreed that there appear to be the following common land-use controls present in dealing with contaminated sites:

ATTACHMENT B