Independent Citizens Commission Meeting
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 35
0:00
put or make comments and remarks. I do want to remind anyone that is going to make remarks to please sign in so that we will know you'd like to make a remark. Okay? And we are called to order at this time. I would like to say that we are, we meet most every fall, and this is our first meeting of the 2024 year. And we have two new commissioners. But I'd like each
one of us, um, to go around and, uh, introduce ourselves and with any pertinent information you think is appropriate, um, in this setting, uh, about your background. And I'll start with you,
Frank Gwynn
Unverified
1:03
is Frank Gwynn I'm from Paragool Arkansas probably oldest one on this commission so I'm semi-retired and besides that I still work
Speaker 10
1:21
Dorado, Arkansas, and I'm a little bit jealous that Jan hasn't invited me dear. She's bragging on her trip down there is
Speaker 13
1:32
more of you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Larry McCready. I am a new commissioner on this commission, and so I'm excited to be here and to try and help out a little bit. I am from northwest Arkansas. I I live in Goshen, just outside of Fayetteville.
By trade, I'm a lawyer. I have a practice in private practice. Our office is in Springdale at RMP Law Firm, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Jan
Speaker 16
1:59
Zimmerman, and I live in both Little Rock and a little community called Clover Bend, where we have a duck lodge there. And I would invite you all up to hunt, especially you, Commissioner Smith. Sounds like you have some interest. And I'm thrilled to be on this commission and also welcome our new members.
Speaker 20
2:18
Thank you. And I want to go ahead and introduce our, go around our staff, if you don't mind. I'm
Speaker 22
2:26
Donna Kerr. I'm with the Auditor of State's Office. I'm
Speaker 23
2:33
Wendy Spadoni, and I'm with the Auditor of State's Office. Thank you. My
Speaker 25
2:38
name's Aaron Lowery, and I'm with the Attorney General's Office. I'm T.J. Fowler, and I'm also with the Auditor of the State's Office.
Speaker 27
2:50
I'm Rob Cusong. I'm one of the new commissioners. I've been north of St. Arkansas. I live in Bentonville. I've been a banker for 28 years and currently work for First National Bank, NWA, which is a division of First National Bank enforcement. I'm very excited to help everyone. So thank you
Speaker 35
3:12
for letting me be here. Thank you. And I'm Annabelle Ember-Tuck. I'm chair of this commission. I'm a Jurist in Residence and Public Service fellow at the UALR Bowen School of Law at this time,
having served in public office before as a justice and as a trial judge. And I will tender to Tommy May. I'm Tommy
Speaker 31
3:35
May, and I'm vice chair. and I'm a former banker with Simmons Bank. Thank you, and I think I
Speaker 35
3:47
can declare we have a quorum. We have 100%, and I appreciate all of you being able to be here.
I'd like to start with, as you know, we had our last meeting on June the 16th here in this room of 2023, and I'd like to ask if there are any amendments, revisions, or changes to the minutes. If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Second. There has been a motion
and a second any further discussion. If not,
I would ask all of you to
indicate by saying aye or uh yeah let's just
do it vocally so the recording can can reflect you if you approve the minutes please say aye aye if you disapprove please say nay if you abstain please say abstain thank you the minutes are approved now um in
the past we have two new board members and so I want to be sure we're we're um so to speak giving everybody an opportunity
to have a say whether they want a stipend for their work um and in the past we have uh each of us has declined a stipend but I don't want to influence you if you think it's appropriate I want somebody to speak up um because um you have not had your chance to have a say I open the floor thank
Speaker 13
5:30
you madam chair I I would not request a stipend I would turn it down if it was offered so thank you for the opportunity though thank
Speaker 35
5:42
I would decline to offer okay well I think that that will as I understand it everybody else has declined a stipend so
that will be the ruling of the
body. Now, the most, the key thing for today that we must do and handle is because the General Assembly will be coming into session in early 2025, we are required
under Article 19, Section 31, to make a recommendation on per diem and reimbursement for expenses and reimbursement for mileage for the members of the General Assembly. And what I would like is to ask P.J. Fowler to explain what the different options have been in the past.
Speaker 26
6:44
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as far as the options, I think the options are unlimited. You all have the authority to make any recommendation you want to the legislature. Now, in the past, I believe what this board has done is they have looked to federal governmental standards that are set and, at least in the previous resolution, adopted those standards. There are other standards out there. Arkansas has its own set of standards for mileage reimbursements
for state employees that's different from the federal standard. But historically, that is what this body has done, is look to some other standard and adopted it. All that to say, these are solely recommendations unlike the salary salaries that you set the legislature may or may not accept your recommendations does that answer the question
Speaker 35
7:46
that does and and as I understand it the mileage standard for Arkansas is less than the
federal standard at this time and then obviously reimbursement for expenses is a wash and per diem I don't think we've ever really gotten into per diem except obviously the legislature has its authority to set a per diem figure for its members so I'll open this to discussion if there's anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment on that I'd appreciate it
Speaker 13
8:28
Yes, sir. TJ, can I just, what are the current rates? Like, what are we comparing it against compared to the ones that
Speaker 54
8:38
are in place right now, please? Give me a minute and I'll look it up for you.
Speaker 58
8:58
So the rates are set by the GSA, which is a federal body, and
Speaker 60
9:14
the per diem rates vary by state. It might be easier to start with the
Speaker 60
9:29
is a flat rate. So, for privately owned vehicle mileage reimbursement in 2024, where no government furnished automobile
is available, the current mileage rate is 67 cents per mile. Comparatively, I'll look up the Arkansas mileage
Speaker 26
9:46
rate. I believe it may be 56, but I'm sorry. I didn't know that
Speaker 60
10:00
y'all would want these today. Sorry. I should have told you. Yeah.
And just this might be a good opportunity for me to say, the reason everyone from the auditor state is here for the new members is the Constitution states that the auditor states shall staff this commission. Part of that staffing is getting the meeting ready, doing the communications, but if there is any research that Joe would like that's within our power to offer, always feel free to make that request, and I'll do my best to get it. I probably need some lead time to do
Speaker 35
10:37
some of this research. But we know that it's less than 67 cents per mile.
Speaker 35
10:45
back with you in a moment. And as for per diem, that particular recommendation, I believe, has always been left to the legislature. The
Speaker 60
10:55
Arkansas mileage rate right now is $0.52
Speaker 35
11:05
per mile. Any discussion, comments, remarks?
Speaker 72
11:08
Doesn't the federal rate change annually? Yes.
So by the time the session resumes,
Speaker 78
11:22
this number is probably more. I mean, that's a pretty big spread between 52 and 67. Is it normally that big of a spread? I'm not asking you, Ms. Terrell. I don't know. I know you don't. TJ, do you know? No. Okay, well, it would be interesting, you know, to know that.
Speaker 69
11:47
Well, of course, mileage is not only for
Speaker 35
11:50
gas expense, it's for wear and tear on the car, too. And I'm not going to make a recommendation. I'm going to leave it to a member of the commission. And as you know, gas prices go up and down as they will. So we don't have a lot of control over that.
Speaker 31
12:13
So my question is, on the issue of the mileage rate, are we setting that?
Speaker 35
12:25
No, we are recommending. We are making a recommendation to the legislature,
Speaker 86
12:34
you know, like last year, did we address this? Yeah, we do
Speaker 90
12:40
it every year, and last year we adopted the federal rate. If I
Speaker 60
12:46
may, it's done every two years before every general session. The Constitution requires that we meet so many days beforehand,
and I was just looking at last year's resolution. there was a request sent from the legislature that it be set to match the GSA standards, and that's what this body did at
Speaker 94
13:12
that time. To clarify, so it's the $0.52 a mile for Arkansas, that is the GSA
Speaker 60
13:20
standard? No, sir. Okay. Arkansas state employees have their own standard that is set by this legislature and by DF&A, Office of Personnel Management.
So it is currently $0.52 per mile. The GSA standard for federal employees is higher than that. Okay. I don't know what all factors go into that, but I have to assume that it's because federal employees are in other states that
Speaker 26
13:42
have higher gas prices and higher taxes on automobiles and things of that nature.
Speaker 99
13:49
But the last time the legislature asked for the GSA. Correct.
Speaker 93
13:53
Last time there was a letter sent by the heads of the legislature requesting that the GSA standards be the setting.
Speaker 13
14:02
So if I can just historically, the last time that this body considered it, the recommendation was to match the federal standard and then the legislature lowered it? Is that? Okay. My understanding is it is set at the
Speaker 26
14:18
GSA standard currently for legislative per diem and mileage. Okay. I'm sorry, and I know I'm
Speaker 13
14:26
missing something, but there's a 15 cent spread in those two numbers now. And how did we end up with a difference in the number if the recommendation was at the federal level?
Speaker 93
14:40
There is no difference for legislators, only for other state employees. Okay. Thank you. That was the
Speaker 107
14:46
piece that wasn't landing for me. Thank you. Yes. Madam
Speaker 27
14:57
Chair, I do have a question. What would be the consideration for the legislators to have a higher rate of mileage than the rest of the state employees? Or does anybody have, not directly to you, but to the group, does anybody know what that rationale was for the
Speaker 35
15:12
decision before other than the request by the legislature no i
don't thank you so what are we doing next well we need we need to decide if we uh want to
Speaker 89
15:35
recommend remember this is merely a recommendation right this
Speaker 35
15:39
is not oh this is merely a recommendation so we can make a recommendation and then they can decide otherwise so um what i'd like to do
is entertain a motion to um recommend a particular mileage amount and then they can make their own decision, and I will leave it to other commissioners to make that motion. Yes. Rather
Speaker 10
16:04
than recommend an amount, can we recommend a standard? Yeah. Because I think two years ago, we recommended to follow the GSA standard.
Speaker 89
16:13
Yeah. You can say GSA. You can say state employees, whatever you want to say.
Speaker 78
16:20
Well, I would move that unless there's some compelling reason, otherwise, I don't know why there is a difference in those. And I would move
Speaker 35
16:42
the same level. You're talking about the state employees level? Yeah. Okay, the motion is, as stated, that the recommendation of this commission be that the standard mileage rate be consistent with other Arkansas employees.
Not stating the amount, but just whatever of the employees are
allotted for mileage. Okay, Jan Zimmerman seconds. any discussion okay we'll call a vote all in favor of the motion please say aye all against the motion please say nay all abstaining please
Speaker 128
17:34
okay t.j. tell us what we just did As I understand it, sir, y'all have
Speaker 26
17:42
set the mileage only for the state standard, whatever that may be. So
Speaker 93
17:47
if the state standard goes up for other state employees, it would also go
Speaker 60
17:55
up for legislators. That's right. You still have outstanding the expense reimbursements and the per diem. Correct. And again, just to reiterate, last time that was set at the GSA standards.
Speaker 35
18:10
And I guess my question is reimbursement for expenses is employees also have those standards too, right? State
Speaker 70
18:24
employees. I believe the Office of Personnel Management
Speaker 60
18:28
has a guideline for state employees on expense reimbursements. And per diem? Or is there any per diem? I've
Speaker 93
18:39
never actually, as a state employee, received a per diem.
Speaker 60
18:44
Everything I've been has been a straight expense reimbursement, and it
Speaker 26
18:49
just has requirements on the types of hotels
Speaker 35
18:55
you can stay or the airfare you can buy and that sort of thing. So our option is going with GSA standards for both of those or going with
Speaker 135
19:13
state employee standards? any discussion Clark
Speaker 72
19:15
I mean if we're staying consistent and we just made a
Speaker 10
19:21
recommendation to go by state standard for mileage then Stan's reason we should
Speaker 72
19:28
probably do the same thing for this but in my mind I'm trying to think why did the legislatures go the GSA route versus the
Speaker 35
19:40
state route. Well, as the saying goes, at least the lawyers here know, I can't presume what each legislature thought or intended.
Right. I understand. I understand. So, any further discussion?
Speaker 78
20:07
If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'm Mike Clark. If we have already said it based on the state employees, then I think we ought to do the same thing here.
Speaker 31
20:25
But I want T.J. to tell us if, in doing so,
Speaker 93
20:44
we are creating a big issue that we need to talk about. I don't know the full answer to that
Speaker 26
20:51
question. I don't know if there are state guidelines for per diems because, again, I've never received a per diem. So if your motion is to match legislative per diem and expenses to state requirements,
I don't have enough information to tell you whether those exist for a per diem. So you may be setting a standard that doesn't exist.
Speaker 78
21:15
Now, for expenses, I do believe that exists. So I'm not talking on the per
Speaker 90
21:23
diem. I'm talking about on the expense reimbursement. Okay. So are
Speaker 35
21:29
you making a motion to conform the legislators' reimbursement for expenses
to the current state employees' reimbursement? Is that the way it is being
Speaker 35
21:42
passed the last one two years ago, So it was GSA all the way across the board, per diem reimbursement and mileage. I think we ought to
Speaker 88
21:58
stay consistent with what we've already done versus the per diem.
Speaker 35
22:07
Well, if I take that as a motion on only the reimbursement of expenses, is there a second? Second. Clark seconds. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of that motion limited purely to reimbursement for expenses, please say aye. Aye.
All opposed, please say nay. Anybody abstaining? No. So we
have dealt with that. Now we are at the per diem issue,
which we don't have a lot of information about other than we do not know if there is per diem in a state policy. I don't know without that information how we can decide at this point on per diem, and that's the question. Yes. Madam Chair,
Speaker 27
23:10
is it possible that we could make an approval or a suggestion that it's to a state guideline?
And if there is not a state guideline, then
Speaker 74
23:21
the GSA does not. Yes, that would be easier. So
Speaker 35
23:31
are you making that a motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So the motion has been made by Robert that the per diem be recommended to be whatever the state employee's policy is, and if there is no such policy for per diem, that it be the GSA policy, GSA standard.
Speaker 13
23:52
Yes. Can we discuss this at all? The only question I would have is, do we know the per diem rate right now, and do we know how that compares to the GSA rate? I mean, Rob, I'm fine with that logic. I think it makes a lot of sense. But without a little context of what the actual number is, I think it's at least
Speaker 27
24:19
for me difficult to assess that. My assumption was that the current is the GSA.
Speaker 107
24:24
I thought was what was explained to us. And I think it is. I'm just wondering the number. That's all
Speaker 63
24:34
I was trying to figure out. So according to the GSA's website for
Speaker 60
24:40
Arkansas, there are two separate Arkansas per diem rates. Garland County has a separate rate than the rest of the state for some reason. It appears that as of September 2024, the current GSA per diem for Arkansas minus Garland County is $107 per day.
For Garland County, as of September 2024, the rate is $111 per day. So that answers your question. That does, and this
Speaker 163
25:19
may be a little bit of ignorance, but is the per diem, is it, I know generally what
Speaker 13
25:25
it is. Is it if there's a little bit of work done, the full per diem is paid for each day any portion of it is?
Do we know how it's applied? The point that I'm trying to balance here is fiscal responsibility, but also with balancing that against, I think, the legitimate interest we all have to attract people who want to serve in the General Assembly, who want to serve and are not going to suffer a financial penalty for doing so, such that we end up with only those who are independently wealthy or unemployed.
Speaker 60
26:11
sorry. I don't know the intricacies of how the legislature does its per diems, pays their per diems. That would be a
Speaker 35
26:23
question for the legislature or the Bureau of Legislative Research. Well, these are recommendations, remember. These are only recommendations. So I think the motion Robert has made would give the authority to the legislature to pick the right one for their situation,
meaning we are recommending the state policy, but if there is no state policy, then we're recommending the GSA policy. Now, that doesn't mean we're saying if there is a state policy, you can't do the GSA policy. We're saying you can. So
is that? Yeah, that's very
Speaker 13
27:11
helpful. I understand. I think Rod's motion is a good one.
I just, and I see we've gotten some correspondence from different groups. Have we gotten any feedback from the General Assembly
Speaker 35
27:24
at all on what they're recommending or what? No, not this year.
Okay. Not this year. I'll entertain a
second a second thank you Tommy any further discussion if not I'll call for a vote which has the motion has already been stated and ask for everyone who approves to say yes
yes yes okay i sorry and all who oppose to say no i went from legalese to regular english anybody who abstains
no so we have done that and that can be recorded um and now that will mean we will set a date to come back and after for
this, right, to approve this.
Speaker 26
28:24
I'm going to look over at our Attorney General Representative, but it's my understanding that only the salary changes require you to come back. These recommendations, that motion is the recommendation. Staff can draft the recommendation
Speaker 35
28:42
and get that sent out. Okay, great.
Now we go to, with the conclusion of that, now we go to our review of salary adjustment requests by circuit court judges, court of appeals judges, state Supreme Court justices, state district court justices, and prosecuting attorneys.
Each of you has been given a copy of the requests, and what I would like to do is, if anybody here is representing an entity that's been called out, if you will come forward and make your presentation and identify yourself. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 173
29:30
Chairman. I'm Ken Coker. I'm a circuit judge from Russellville.
Speaker 35
29:36
Yeah, please turn on the mic. There you go. Have a
Speaker 173
29:46
seat. Thank you. My name is Ken Coker. I'm a circuit judge from
Speaker 176
29:51
Russellville, and I'm the current president of the Arkansas Judicial Council. And I'm here on behalf of the judges in the state of Arkansas. We thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
You should have a letter before you that was sent a while back asking for your consideration for raises for the judiciary. I have with me today some information that might be helpful to you. This is information from the National Center for the State Courts regarding a comparison for judicial salaries around the nation.
Speaker 178
30:33
And I'll hand those to you. If you would, take one, pass them around.
Speaker 176
30:41
There you go, sir. For background purposes, it's been two years since the judiciary received raises. As you may well know, inflation has been an issue since that time. We are always striving to attract qualified candidates to the judiciary, salary, and salary is part of that equation.
One error I need to point out to you, in the letter that you received, there was an error where it was stated that I think nearly all state employees received, I believe, 8.5% to 11% raised. That needs to be qualified. The state trial court assistance, the court reporters received that percentage raise. That did not apply to nearly all state employees. I apologize for that misstatement.
But all state employees have received decent raises since we last came before you. We simply ask for your consideration, and we trust you with making a
Speaker 178
32:03
fair decision for our judges. Does anyone have any questions
Speaker 13
32:19
Yes. Perhaps, Your Honor, it's not specifically for you, but I wonder, historically, has there ever been any – I sort of was thinking about this, but then when we were talking about the per diem and how it varied slightly geographically, I assume that for our circuit judges it's uniform across the state. Yes, sir. Has there ever been any consideration about whether or not there's any sort of geographic adjustments that are necessary within the state?
Speaker 35
32:51
There never has. I could let Judge Coker speak to maybe the reasoning behind that. But, of course, this commission has been setting these salaries, and this is not a recommendation. It is setting the salary for ever since the constitutional amendment. And just from my perspective, having been a judge, these are general jurisdiction judges.
And so they can handle any matter in the trial court level. And so their, so to speak, load is dependent upon, obviously, how many cases are filed in their district. And some districts have a heavier caseload than others, but we've never, that changes. That is a moving target. And so I can, if Judge Coker, if you want to speak to that, please feel free.
Speaker 178
34:04
Well, we all hear the same types of cases. We hear everything that comes
Speaker 176
34:09
before us. So there's really no distinction as far as the work we do between one district and another or one circuit and another. You know, we're all addressing the same problems, the same issues as judges. So it's the same work statewide. Yeah. Your Honor,
Speaker 13
34:29
I recognize that. I was more wondering, just recognizing that the cost of living in different portions of the state is different.
You know, trying to set a uniform rate across the state, it will, you know, perhaps impact different judges differently depending on the counties that they serve. And so I just didn't know if that had ever been done. And, again, my approach to these questions is trying to balance, you know, being responsible with taxpayer funds against the desire to make sure that, and, again, as somebody in the legal profession, I want qualified, competent, talented lawyers to seek the bench because
we all benefit. Lawyers benefit, but the state in general benefits from it. So, anyway, that's the background of that question. and I just didn't know if there was ever any history or any
Speaker 31
35:24
consideration of that in the past. Question. Go ahead. They mentioned they'd gone two years without an increase. What was
Speaker 188
35:34
that consideration last year? Do you remember?
Why there was not an adjustment?
Speaker 173
35:59
sir. I was not here for that discussion, so I can't answer that question. Well, you
Speaker 35
36:11
held the legislative salary increases steady,
and then we increased the constitutional officers by 3%. I did remember
Speaker 78
36:45
we go back to 2021. Just for information purposes, you know, my memory's not really good, but just mentioning that the other increases were in the 8 to 11 percent category, that seems, that's somewhat of a surprise to me based on my recollection.
Speaker 135
37:10
Well, as Judge Coker said, that he would,
Speaker 83
37:15
as Judge Coker corrected the letter, that may have
Speaker 35
37:19
been for two particular categories in the judicial system. But the question is other state employees and whether, in fact, other state employees other than the trial court assistants and court reporters got an 8% to 11% raise.
And I don't know the answer to that. And so what I'm thinking, if you all agree, all of the state employees are in the Office of Personnel Management, right? Their salary checks don't come out of the auditor of state. Right.
Speaker 174
38:04
I'm not sure about that. Marty, can you clarify that? Yes.
Speaker 26
38:12
So most state employees, what I'll call general state employees, are
Speaker 60
38:16
paid from their respective agency.
They are employees of their respective agency. The auditor's state is somewhat unique because we're the payroll officer, not only for our
Speaker 93
38:26
own internal office, but also for the constitutional elected officials, the judges, the prosecutors, and that all falls under this body's purview. Also unique, and maybe more information than you want to know, So because the auditor of state is itself a constitutional office, it is exempt from
Speaker 26
38:44
some of the payroll laws and regulations as well. So you've essentially got three different categories of what I would call state employees.
Speaker 60
38:51
You've got standard state employees that are paid by their agency. You've got the elected officials that are paid by the auditor, but you all determine their salaries. And then
Speaker 26
39:01
you've got constitutional state employees. Those are the employees that fall under a constitutional office. And so those would be employees like me. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but the trial court assistants and the people that actually work under the judiciary are paid by the judiciary, and the judiciary gets to make some unique determinations about their
Speaker 63
39:18
salary that may be different from standard state employees.
Okay. I'm not sure about that. Marty,
Speaker 178
39:24
can you address that, please? Marty Sullivan is here from the administrative office of the courts, and you might be
Speaker 199
39:36
able to clarify that. this is what i just received from my finance director he said he looked at the numbers again and it is correct that the top performing employees in the executive branch did receive an average between 8.7 and 11.4 percent increases over the last two years
um i think there's a couple different things that the there is a a cola that can be awarded right tj and then there is a classification where you get um merit merit and so all of us do employee evaluations and we rank those employees and so the ones that have received you know the uh the top performing uh have received between eight to seven eleven point You know, I would argue that the judges are certainly top-performing employees, especially considering COVID over the last few years.
You look at the current caseload statistics, you know, there's been much talk about the perceived COVID backlog. There's really not. There's not a COVID backlog. I mean, we can—I'm happy to send you those numbers. I mean, the judges of the state of Arkansas dispose of an amazing number of cases each year. Collectively, it's 1.3 million cases a year in Arkansas courts, including the district courts. I assure you the judges of the state of Arkansas are working.
So hopefully that clears that up. I think the top-performing employees in the executive branch did receive this, but we've got the merit system now that's set up. So not all state employees, top-performing ones. Well, it's that
Speaker 78
41:20
merit system that would do that. I do, Madam Chairman, just even though it's not relative to the request at hand from the Judicial Council, but in the past what we have done is we've had this meeting and we've talked about and discussed
and, you know, tried to get ourselves to date. And
Speaker 31
41:54
historically, you know, as much as we could remember, and then we came back a couple of times after that and looked at the data. And I'm hoping that that's what
Speaker 87
42:11
we're going to do also, so that we won't be making a specific request.
We'll be hearing the request, but we won't be making a
Speaker 35
42:24
specific proposal. I understand what you're saying. Just for those who have
not been here before, we can get the information, review it, and request more information and come back and set a new commission hearing date, which we have done in the past on a regular basis. That's not unusual because, obviously, this comparison is new information.
The other thing I would like to do, and because I'm sure it's available under FOI, is the information about exactly, not the specific people, How many people got those 8.7 to 11.4 raises? And that would be, obviously, through the executive branch so that we know.
And was there a COLA given to state employees during this period of time? These were just gathering information. It's not about whether I doubt anything or anything. It's just I want to be sure we have all the stats in front of us. And so what I'd like to do, and I appreciate you, this is actually a much better format than we used to have a pie chart
that I couldn't read and couldn't figure anything out. So I really appreciate this because it gives us a better feel for where Arkansas is seems to be, in terms of the Supreme Court salary, it seems to be, it's number 28, and it's not, it's the second to highest. but it's in the low area there, 203,625 would be on the low side under what I'd call dark blue.
And then on the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals is on the high side of what I'd call the medium blue at 197,596, and then circuit judges for Arkansas are 192,919, and they're, you know, in the light blue, in the darker blue, with the high in that category being 199,999.
So, you know where we rate in terms of the nation. It's good. It's really a much better format. I appreciate that from the National Center on State Courts. Yes, sir. I've got
Speaker 204
45:27
a statement I want to make. Okay. This is very special to me in a lot of areas. Your judges, your prosecutors, we need the top grades that we can get. They can make so much more money in private.
Oh, yeah. There's no doubt about that. Make so much more money in private that we do. That's one area we don't want to underpay on because I think we get the brightest and the best in that field. Now, that's just something maybe being connected with the ASP a long time. That's something that's very special to me that we keep the top people there because they could do so well out in private practice.
But anyway, that's all. That
Speaker 35
46:22
noticed back in October, Judge, you sent a letter last year, October, about some
information. So we've been given that, about the 2023 performance pay percentage, and that percentage we didn't really have at that point.
For judges, it was to be decided. So it is true that we did not make a recommendation or a decision in 2023. So this is for two years,
to be clear. Okay. Are there any other questions
of Judge Coker? And this is really, Judge Coker is covering all the judiciary except the district judges,
Speaker 44
47:14
right? Or do you want to adopt?
I'll speak in just a moment. Okay. Okay. Well, what's interesting is now, is that
Speaker 35
47:29
correct, we've gotten all district judges? January 1st. January 1st, okay. January 1st. I was going to say I remember when this was all started, and I thought 2025 would be a million years ago, you know, a million years away. So now we've gotten here. Where all the district judges will be state employees, state paid.
So that has been a vast improvement. And I just, as a matter of personal privilege, I want to say I'm real proud of that because so many of our district judges were part-time judges and practiced law. And candidly, that created a lot of conflicts of interest. And they would get in trouble. And it just wasn't
good. So now what we have is district judges, and so you have the three-tier system, the appellate,
the general jurisdiction, and the district judges. So that is a vast improvement. So if there are no other questions of Judge Coker, I'll ask, come forward on the state district judges and then the prosecuting attorneys. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Shane Taylor. I'm
Speaker 217
48:51
district judge in Independence County. I have been for
Speaker 219
48:53
the last 19 years. At the end of this year, it will be my 20th year.
I am currently covering one county, Independence County, but as we talked about, beginning January 1, I believe it's my district and it is one other, Marty, will be the final two areas that all the judges will become state employees, as you said, and some of them will cover multiple counties, And Judge Tuck, I want to emphasize what you said about part-time judges because I started out as a part-time judge, and it did create a lot of conflicts.
It did not just for the judges but for the lawyers and everybody in the system, so this is much better. It's been years in the making, and I'm glad to see it finally come to fruition. I also want to introduce our executive director here, Kay Palmer. She's sitting back there, and one of my fellow district judges, David Bowling from Jonesboro they're also here as well I believe you all have a letter in your packet from our current president Dale Ramsey and that's basically sums up our request of this commission if anybody's got any
Speaker 100
50:03
questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Yeah, this is requesting in the same areas as all state employees. So this
Speaker 219
50:26
was a. Now that the district courts where David and I serve, and this is no reflection on circuit courts, but but where david and i serve is where most people come into contact with the judicial system
so we see a lot of folks every week every day we see folks on traffic offenses we see folks on uh civil and small claims court issues those kinds of things and uh misdemeanor crimes and all that we see
Speaker 99
51:04
a lot of folks every week so i just want to point that out
Speaker 225
51:26
Yes, you might be happy to explain how this works. Everybody has our letter, I guess, that talks about the formula. I'll explain a few terms in there that might not make sense or you haven't heard before. But the Prosecution Coordination Commission, that is my seven-member elected prosecuting attorney board that oversees my office. We also have a nonprofit, Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association, so a lot of you hear about that. I serve as the executive director of that as well. So that's the commission that governs me. Back in 2000, I guess, in 2015, when the prosecutors first were added to the commission's responsibilities for salaries,
we were originally left out of the original legislation. It was every constitutional officer but the prosecutors. So shortly after that, the prosecutors, they realized that, and they added the prosecuting attorneys to that. So back in 2015, we had four prosecutors that came in and did a real extensive presentation, a couple hours, I think. It was Daniel Hsu that's with me here, and Teresa Howe, who's in Sheridan. then Larry Jagley was here in Little Rock at the time, and then Robert Dietrich over in Stuttgart. So they came and did an extensive presentation for the commission to understand all the duties of the prosecutors from the beginning of a case till the very end and everything else in between.
And so after that presentation, the commission decided to set the prosecutor's salaries in the form of a formula that was based on the circuit judge's salaries. And so that's how they did that. They decided that Division A prosecutors, and let me explain that, there are 28 elected prosecutors in Arkansas. Twenty-five of those are considered Division A. And by statute, they're prohibited from having a private practice. That is set by the legislature. That can go back and forth, but it takes legislative action to do that. The other three are what are known as Division B prosecuting attorneys.
That just means they're allowed by law to have a private practice. By no means do I say that they're part-time prosecutors. I can tell you there's a homicide at 2 o'clock in the morning. They're going to the scene just like anybody else. So it's just the difference being allowed to have that private practice or not, and that breakdown is 25 to 3. So obviously, the Division A that are not allowed to have the private practice are 100 percent prosecutors all the time. That is why their salaries are set higher. And the decision was made by the commission to set that at 95 percent of the circuit judges. Then taking into consideration the responsibilities of Division B, they would make 85 percent of what the Division A make.
And that's been the formula followed by the commission since the inception of the prosecutors coming on board. And so whenever there's a request from the circuit judges, we just follow up on that to keep that percentage and that formula in place. I hope that explained everything, or is there anything I left out? Yes,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
54:05
yes, it was. I beg pardon. I'm Daniel Hsu. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County. And I guess I'm here for historical purposes because I've lived through half of history.
Welcome to my world. Are you calling me a whippersnapper? Anyway, historically, our salaries were about 95%. The judges at one point had an expense allowance. That went away, and their salaries started climbing where we were going down to about 90%. And so that historically was presented going back to 1977, and ultimately that's where those figures kind of got settled upon,
for those of you who don't have the benefit of
Speaker 181
54:58
2015. I appreciate that, and I do want to say that, you know, therefore, Thank you.
Speaker 192
55:56
a listing for past years of what state authorities died in terms of performance pay, which is merit pay, and then COLA and performance pay, etc.
And the percentages that were given, and then what was done for judges, 2020, 21, and 22. So I just wanted to give you that because that's
Speaker 119
56:28
some good historical information. Is there anyone else who would like to
Speaker 192
56:39
speak from the audience?
Okay, if not, yes, actually, I'm just at the house, but
Speaker 35
56:57
we're not able to hear you with the microphone. Okay, that's okay. I'm sorry. Well, you know, I tell you, all this IT
Speaker 44
57:07
stuff just, that was the problem, I guess. So what I would like
Speaker 35
57:14
to discuss then, for us to discuss, is taking the information we have,
which we've been given today and that we have and then I would like and I need some advice on who should be asked for this information which is exactly what the 2000 I mean I've we've got here the 2,000 performance pay, 2023. But what I'd like to know is, did state employees get a,
Speaker 42
57:56
are they getting a COLA? Did they get a
Speaker 35
58:06
COLA in 2020 from, yeah. And whether, and those performance pay merit increases, is how, uh, and what was the amount of the COLA, and then the performance, how many employees actually got performance, uh, increases, because obviously that's by each, that's an evaluation
that's made by each, and the only reason I want to know that is to look at, you know, was this general across state employees or was it just a a very small group of people so if you don't if that's what the information i would like now i want to open the floor is there any information you all would like in addition to that
Speaker 78
58:58
i appreciate what you said and that that we like
can we need to really, you know, make a good and fair decision. I'm still a little confused about why we had the one year of no adjustment for the judges. Was that, isn't that what
Speaker 31
59:36
I'm just not sure in my mind why there was no
Speaker 35
59:42
adjustment there. I'll go back to the minutes and see. Candidly, I know we were more concerned about the legislature during the last meetings, as I recall. Okay. Because we deferred them, we deferred them until 2023, when we did the 2022. Yeah, so it's every two years.
And I guess the idea is that there is a fiscal session, which is very different than a legislative session. And so when we have the full legislative session, I guess we were thinking we'd wait until we did this year. But I can't speak to that personally. Does anybody else remember?
I mean, Jan and some of you who were on the commission
Speaker 16
1:00:45
then? I can't, because I'm appalled. Yeah, I am too, because I'm thinking. We didn't make an increase
Speaker 21
1:00:51
for 2023, and there's got to be some reasoning. Right. excuse me there
Speaker 35
1:00:55
must be some reason that we did not address so let me let me review the minutes and what I'll ask is that Donna if once I go through the minutes and look have you send all the commissioners and make public whatever
information is found in the minutes I'm not going to go beyond the minutes that that's public
Speaker 78
1:01:24
information madam chairman in addition what i would like to see i really like this october 23 summary that we that we have here that you know showed in that particular case 2021, 22, and 23, it allows us to look at a little bit of history, and so if we could do that for each class, each category, it would be very beneficial, I think, to me, to understand our thought process.
And I'm not proposing this, but you'll remember last year or the year before that we decided to take a look at, for what it's worth, what some of these positions in other states were both categorized as
and what their levels of compensation was. Well, and that's what this is. Well,
Speaker 249
1:02:34
that's just for the... Judges. Yeah. Well, it doesn't have
Speaker 78
1:02:37
the benefits and everything. That's just the salary compensation. Right, right. But I'm not proposing that we do that. I'm just saying that we want to do it right, and the best way
Speaker 87
1:02:49
to do it right is to start off looking at the history of where we've been
Speaker 78
1:03:05
and then be able to compare that to something, whether it has to do with other states or whatever. But if we could just get that data,
Speaker 87
1:03:20
and, again, that needs to be defined, what data we really want to see, it would, to me, it would be very
Speaker 16
1:03:32
helpful. Well, yes. Madam Chairman, the fact that it's listed in our chart as 2003 to be determined
makes me think that we were waiting for some additional data because I don't think we would have intentionally overlooked our judiciary.
Speaker 35
1:03:51
Like I say, I don't want to speculate until I look at the minutes about what the reasoning
was. um Judge Coker yeah right and and Judge Coker sent a letter in October 2023 um so I guess my what you're asking um Commissioner Mays is if we could have
and I would say this would be from the auditor right the because you all are the payroll folks right for
Speaker 60
1:04:30
i understand the assignment here i've been i've been writing notes so i know thank you so far what the board has asked for is uh y'all want amounts received by state employees for 22 23 and 24 both cola and performance and you'll want some sort of breakdown as to how many employees actually received performance those that would
probably come from opm i can make that request opm and try and get a report that that gives you that information. The other question is a history of the raises that this board has given. So for each of the three branches, both the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary, to see what the raises have looked like and when they have occurred. And that's what I have on my list. Am I missing
Speaker 252
1:05:14
anything? Is that correct? That's correct. He nailed it. Go ahead.
Speaker 35
1:05:20
I can attempt to do that. Okay. Thank you. well i realize you know that you know we're giving you more work to do but um i think that with our new members and with having uh you know i i'm the second chair i mean chuck banks was the first chair in setting this all up i got to come on board after it was all set up so i'm fairly new. Myself, I've only, well, I've been here two years, I believe, is the amount of time
I've been here. So I don't have that historical viewpoint either. All I knew was
what was published in the newspaper, and of course, I don't compare. I don't go back
and compare. So with those requests, let me just be sure. Is there anybody else that wants to make a statement who is here. And I want to thank you all for coming and listening and sharing information with us
because that's what we need. And if there's something that you want to share between now and our next meeting, which we will set right now, please
submit it to Donna so that it will be made public um on the website
on the commission's website and um be sure and you know so that all of this can be known by the public of
what's being considered yes if i may this might be a good
Speaker 26
1:07:01
time just so everyone is aware there is an email address for the commission for submissions uh is that info? It's on the website. But physical address is a little bit more complicated. The Independent Citizens Commission does not have a physical address. So if there's any correspondence that you want to send physically to the Independent Citizens Commission at any time during the year, send it to the Auditor of State's Office. You can send it to my attention, you can send it to Donna's attention, or just send it to the Independent Citizens Commission.
will ensure that any correspondence that's sent physically makes it to the Commission.
Speaker 35
1:08:04
In connection with new business, I want to open the floor and have you consider the issue of who should be the chair for the future, at least. I don't think this is something where I'm, you know, have, what is it, destiny, you know,
whatever, um, that this is a her, you know, that this is mine till the day I die, you know, um, it is not, and we have two new commission members, and I would like, uh, to have you think about having at the next meeting, uh, an election on, on the chairmanship of this Commission. I do that on my own motion. This wasn't suggested to me. It's just that I feel
that it's important that those who had not voted on a chair be involved in voting on a chair. And like I say, I've served two years and I've enjoyed it. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm trying to get out of it but i just want to be
i want everybody to uh be involved in that decision so yes
Speaker 31
1:09:31
i think that's a wonderful thing uh but you know and
Speaker 78
1:09:35
i don't need a month to think about it
but i i just think you do a great job and you know you know you know the the history you you are very proactive for the beneficiaries and uh you know i for one am going to think very positive that you're that i would like for you to continue on uh and and i say this and you know uh this is this is not an
Speaker 87
1:10:14
easy job you know getting it right is one of the things you do so well so
i'll just leave it at that well
Speaker 35
1:10:21
thank you very much uh tommy i appreciate that but i just wanted to open it up and whatever y'all whatever is the decision of the commission is fine with me i'll stay on the commission see so it's it's not an issue of of uh let's let's just i i just believe in due process and so that's where i'm coming from i i appreciate it just but as a new member
Speaker 13
1:10:46
I don't know if it's appropriate now, but I would move that we re-nominate you to stay as chairman.
Speaker 69
1:10:52
And I would be happy to second. We'll do that next time. This was not on our
Speaker 44
1:11:00
agenda, and I don't want anybody to say this was a, you know. You can do it next time. Okay, we'll do it next time, okay? Okay, thank you so much. Well, let's set our date, and I'd like to do this before the legislative session.
Speaker 35
1:11:24
I'd like, because this room starts getting used, and so I want us to be able to have a place to meet. So let me throw out, and it would be a Friday at 10. which we always do. And I guess my question is, how much time do you want to gather this information? That would be information that I need to know. Two weeks.
Okay. I'd like to make it October the 18th, and the reason I say that is October the 11th
happens to be the beginning of my religious traditions, High Holy Days, Yom Kippur. And that is pretty full up. Let's put it this
way. I'll be going to services for a full day.
Speaker 86
1:12:51
I'm going to be at an ALS board meeting in Washington. How about October 25?
Speaker 42
1:13:03
I'm good. October 25, TJ? everybody Jan okay we've set the date October 25 10 a.m. that
Speaker 35
1:13:18
should give you plenty of time TJ and and same
place I will assume Donna you can get this this this meeting
room okay and I want to thank our staff at the auditor's office
because needless to say I don't have a staff anymore when you're even when you're a special judge you don't have a staff and so this helps a lot with gathering information and preparing for this meeting so I do appreciate that and I appreciate the Attorney General's office sending a representative to make us stay on within the Constitution within our our boundaries if there's no
other comments I'll call us as adjourned thank you
so much it's 1114 I was 15 minutes over You
Agenda
No agenda available.
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 35
Speaker 2
Frank Gwynn
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 10
Speaker 13
Speaker 16
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Speaker 25
Speaker 27
Speaker 31
Speaker 26
Speaker 54
Speaker 58
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 55
Speaker 72
Speaker 78
Speaker 69
Speaker 89
Speaker 86
Speaker 90
Speaker 94
Speaker 99
Speaker 93
Speaker 107
Speaker 125
Speaker 128
Speaker 70
Speaker 135
Speaker 87
Speaker 88
Speaker 74
Speaker 63
Speaker 163
Speaker 173
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Speaker 181
Speaker 188
Speaker 192
Speaker 83
Speaker 174
Speaker 199
Speaker 204
Speaker 44
Speaker 217
Speaker 219
Speaker 100
Speaker 224
Speaker 225
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 235
Speaker 119
Speaker 42
Speaker 21
Speaker 249
Speaker 252