Judiciary Committee- Senate and House

Members, if you'll start getting to your seats, we'll get started here in just a moment. House, Senate, and, uh, House and Senate Judiciary Committees will now come to order. Um, I want to welcome everybody here today. We're kind of getting to the end of this study, and we're going to be fairly informal. I want to hear from people as to their thoughts, uh, what we're going to be doing is, uh, formulating the recommendations that we want in this report, and I've told several members and I'll say it here on the record, it's my. Uh, envision that this report will encompass a lot of ideas. It's not going to have specific legislation in it that I think the more things that we can get into the report, the better. will be, we'll have a better road map as to what we want to do in the future with our district courts and our court system. I want to thank each member who has diligently showed up over the past year to work on this. I know everybody has some ideas we've sent out all the different things that you've had to look at and that's kind of how we're going to work this meeting this morning, Senator Stubenfield, do you have any comments you wish to make? I'm ready to go. We got some ready to go before we get down to the nitty gritty of the business, Kobe, for anybody who has not been here with the new system, Kobe's going to give us just a real quick little tutorial, so you'll feel comfortable with our new electronic system. Kobe, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, once again, so I understand that there are, uh, some members who just in case they have not been uh in the Mac building since we have put in the new AV system, uh, so for seating charts, if you are a member of the committee, you assigned seat is designated by your name on your nameplate, um, any name plates that read Bureau of Legislative Research are unassigned and any non-committee member is welcome to take those seats, uh, to access the microphone system, each member must input their four digit pin on the screen. For senators, your pen will start with a 01, and then your district number and for house members, it'll be 1010, then your digit number. Um, if your district is a single digit, you will add a zero before your district number. So for example, if you're a senator and you're a district one, your number is 0101. If you're a House member, your number is 1001. Uh, If your seat is assigned to a committee member, another member will not be able to sit in that seat and sign in. You must select one of the seats not already designated to a member of the committee. Uh, so to join the queue, if you would like to ask a question and be recognized, you would then press the, uh, button on the base of your mic stand, uh, before it was green to be recognized and red and then you are hot, it's backwards this time. If you press your button, it'll be red, and then once it's green, your mic is hot and you're recognized to speak. Uh, once you have signed in, uh, there will be some tabs for voting and documents and agenda, those aren't available just yet, so. So going with the old school method, um, and then finally, so signing into your screen at your seat does not take the place of signing in uh on the per diem sheets. So be sure that if you are here and you have not signed in, uh, you'll need to do that in the back break room uh because signing in on your seats does not take place that, that, Madam Chair, that is all for me. Members, are there any questions of Kobe? And we'll all kind of learn this together, so just, uh, we'll all have patience each and every way. The first item on our agenda is consideration to approve the August 1, 2024 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second any discussion on those minutes? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it, the motion carries. Next order is item D discussion adoption of recommendation for the legislative study of financial matters related to the court system as required by Act 38 of 2023. Members, you have, of course, that act in front of you and none of us are, um, In the dark as to why we're here because we've been working on this now for a year, and you have several exhibits. That, uh, We're on the website and should be at your desk to talk about. I don't know the best way we're not, uh, we don't have anybody just really lined up. We have a number of people out in the audience who are here at our request to answer any specific questions that you may have as we come across these topics and I want to thank everybody out here. Everybody's been very good about, uh, offering their suggestions have been very good about coming to the table and telling us, uh, expressing what has been the issues in the district court system in the counties and cities. And so with that, I'll kick it off and we'll just kind of go this way and like I said, we're, we're going to take whatever everybody wants to say, we're just gonna have a discussion on it, uh, the first. Item that I think that has bubbled to the top is the discussion on this cost sharing of judges salaries in cities and counties and as you are all aware of the act or the amendment that was passed by the voters back in. What, 2006, somewhere along that time made the missable judges state district judges and that system has finally we've gotten everybody transitioned over to that a couple of sessions ago we moved those salaries into the state constitutional officers fund, but there's a $40 million shortfall of which our cities and counties have been having to make up. And we have heard a lot of discussion on that, so kind of what everybody has turned in. Uh, to talk about and that's been one of the main topics that, uh, people seem to agree to that the state should be. Paying all of the salary of the district court judges and that that should not be something that cities and counties contribute to. And as you're well aware from our discussion this past year, cities and counties do pick up the cost of The clerks, whether it's the district, the chief district clerk or their associate clerks, and they pick up those kinds of costs, but as far as the judge's salaries, some of them are still having to pick that up or portions of it, they're not picking it all up, but they're having to pick up portions of it and so the one of the recommendations that I would like to discuss this morning to see if he has any heartburn is that the state pick up that difference which right now is I. and somebody from the city, uh, municipal association or the county association will have to remind me, but I think it's like 3.9 million, and so we just roll it over to $400. Do we have any discussion on that? Any thoughts? Anyone from the municipal league or the county association would like to come to the table and. Correct me if I misspoke in that regard. I'm seeing nothing anybody? Uh Senator, love, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair and I've been To a couple of meetings where we have discussed this. So the $4 million if Of course we'll have to get it through budget and appropriation and everything. Hm But really it comes down to RSA and where we're going to where we're going to place that um And so we're gonna really need to buckle down and see if that's going to be an agreement that it's gonna fall in Category A because if not, then we, you know, even though we had the appropriation, it'll still go unfunded. You, you are correct in that, but once again, I think this is a recommendation that needs to be in the report because they are state employees. But, but you're right, the devil is always in the details. OK. And, and so. I, I guess my, my concern is with, with, with us kind of. I mean, I, I, I do agree that we should pick it up. That's not, that's not my question, but. I guess I just, I'm, I'm concerned at the fact that if we do not pick it up, um, The city where the cities in the county still, uh, be in that position where they can't pick it up. I, I'm just, cause I just don't know, you know. I think, and once again, we're all, who knows in the future, but if the state doesn't pick it up as we, in my opinion, should pick it up because they are state employees and the voters voted that they would be state employees, it would Still be handled just like it has been in the past. So with the, uh, salary commission raises their salaries, then a portion of that gets. put over onto the cities and counties and they would have to pick it up just like they are doing now. And then number 2, remind me, did, did we go through a study where we looked at the number of district judges that we have. Yes, and if you'll recall, there is a board that's called, we refer to it as D crab district court. Allocation reassessment board or something I think is how it goes. De crab. Went through all of that study. As these were transitioning to state district court judges, and they went through that study and they looked at, uh, the judicial districts for the circuit courts. Figured out how many district judges for each of those circuit areas, um, and They have done all that work to get all that transitioned. Now D crabs DCcrab exists and will continue to exist because you have, um. Population shifts and maybe there needs to be a shift at some point in time as to how many district judges are in a particular area. Maybe you have departments within a district judge's district that need to be consolidated because they're small towns and there's not a need there to have a court there every time and maybe somebody could drive the 10 miles to the next court, that kind of thing. That's what DCrab does. And I'm glad you brought up DCrab. They're going. To be meeting September 18th or 19th, I'm not sure. They're required every year to go through all of that and bring recommendations to the legislature for our legislative session. So De Crab will start down that process as to whether or not there needs to be, uh, a shift in judges. I don't anticipate that there will be anything asking for more judges, but there may be recommendations that some of the smaller departments be consolidated, but that falls upon DCrab and Bring the recommendations to us and then we go forward with legislation if that's what needs to be done. Does that answer your question answer my question and thank you, Madam Chair. You bet anytime. Senator Clark, you're recognized. Yes, Madam Chair, could you remind us who the members of DCRA are? No, um. And they are. Two that are appointed from the Senate. Two that are appointed from the house and then there are various district judges been, come on up and help us. This is Ben Barham for AOC and he is the staff person that works with DCrab, but it's district judges. I'm not sure if they're clerks or county judges, but then there are appointees from the 2. Groups, Ben, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ben Barham, staff attorney, uh, administrative office of the courts. Uh, Senator Clark, the members of DCRA, uh, are, uh, there are two senators on that committee, 2 representatives on that committee, presently, uh, I believe it's Cinder Caldwell and Cinder Hickey, uh, the two representatives on that committee are Senator Clowney and uh or I'm sorry, Representative Clowney and Representative Maddox. Those are the legislative members. They're also, there's one circuit judge. Uh, there are, um, representatives from the, uh, Association of Arkansas Counties, uh, representative from the Arkansas Municipal League, uh, and, uh, a Supreme Court justice and a district judge. Those are the statutory members. They're also the chair of, um, The Senate Judiciary Committee and the chair of the House Judiciary Committee are ex officio on that board. So there are 9 voting members. Uh, I'm sorry, sorry, I didn't do the math as I did it in my head, but uh if I can, I can add it up real quick. Yes, sir. 9 members. OK, thank you. Any other questions, Senator? Are you good? Do have another comment, uh, the. The opposite side of. Funding from the state. Is that the more the funding comes from. How central level, the less responsive and the uh that you are going to be locally and the less efficient that you are called to be, uh, if the funding's coming from up on high, so there's uh there's always been a dilemma there about how we do it, but there's, there are good and bad things for both. Members, any other questions in regard to Uh, this particular recommendation as to Uh, cost sharing requirements of state district judges with the cities. Are we all Good, I tell you what, if, if so, can I have a motion that we include this entire our report? I see, I have a motion. Is there a second? I have a second. Any further discussion on including Um, the item. The first recommendation as to Uh moving. District court judges salaries to all be funded in the constitutional office or salary fund. That's the short way of saying it. Any other, any discussion, seeing no further discussion, all. Representing Springer, you, you're not a member of the committee, so I, I really, you can't really want to say it's 5 you said is it D5? OK, thank you. uh. Any other discussion from committee members? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the recommendation, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes carry it. The motion passes. Kobe's reminded me we do have a sign-in sheet. Um, So They try to Behind the witness chairs, so if you do have something that you want to make sure that we, um, Recognize you on please sign up otherwise we'll just, I'll see you out there and. If you don't hide from me, I may Another item that we have discussed at length in here is to the $10 installment fee that's charged to defendants to make installment payments on their fines and fees. There's been discussion about eliminating that. $10 a month fee and for those who might be listening, who are not or who haven't been here, have been you're, you're free to go. I'm sorry. Um. As you know, Just for example, if I come to district court and I have a speeding ticket and several other fines assessed to me and maybe the total of my fines might be $300 and there's court cost and everything else that get added to it so maybe I owe $500 but I can't pay that $500 so I'll ask the court. If I can pay it out, maybe I only have. 25 $30 of disposable income that I can pay toward that the court says fine, but then what happens is a $10 a month installment fee. So suddenly, my $25 becomes $35 or my $50 becomes $60 and that gets tagged on every month. And we have had a long discussion about that, but that $10 fee. It is very useful to the courts and they need it. It is used for courtroom automation funds. And because. That's a bird in the cities and counties shouldn't have to be paying, but we're funding that off of people who may not be able to pay it so we've had a long discussion as to what happens with that money and as you recall, you get the $10 fee, Part of it will go to a city, part of it will go to a county, part of it goes to the Supreme Court or to the. AOC I guess is a better way of saying it, but it goes and then it's used for all the automation it's used for, uh, the different ways of communicating in this day and time. It's used by courts to send people to training because there's a lot of training involved and so they use those funds. So we're talking about eliminating. Yeah. Mark, you may need to come up here and help us with this. You're kind of Mark Whitmore, if you'll come forward if you don't mind from the Association of counties, Mark has been heavily involved in kind of the background of. This fee But basically we. We can't eliminate, we can eliminate the fee, but we've got to come up with another funding source because what happens and Mark and I'll need you to. Uh, help me as to the number. I want to say something like. $16 million or $11 million there's a big number. So if you'll recognize yourself and kind of give us that background. Sure, if I can, it's Mark Whitmore Association, Arkansas counties, and I have with me. Uh Uh, Taylor Hanford with Association of Arkansas Counties. Uh, in essence, what I recall, uh, Madam Chair, is the, uh, For every $2.50. The amount of revenue is about $3.3 million. The district courts. retain $2.50 of the $10 fee. The other 750. Goes to the state. Uh, to the AOC. I think it's in support of technology. And so they are uh. Using those funds for operations of the administrative office of the courts. They're Data, their computer system, their software. And so The thought process was that rather than A defendant, uh, becoming obligated for a 10 month. $10 a month fee whether or not they could make payment or not. was more injurious to them over time because it's like they bought something on credit. And so these fees mount up. From the standpoint of revenue if the defendants that were allowed to do installment payments. We're obligated to make a one time $50 fee, and I believe that's what the AOC came up with, uh, uh, we trust that that number, uh, we didn't crunch the numbers, but I think ARC has. That that would be equivalent. With a number of cases. To this $3.3 million. For every 250. So From a defendant standpoint, they won't get. To where they're in bad shape, they basically put up front. It's like he went out and bought furniture and you said, hey, I'm gonna pay the finance charge upfront. And then the rest of it's gonna be principal and we'll start paying on my fine court costs restitution. So it's better for the defense, defendant, uh, but also it should be the same amount of revenue. AAC, the municipal League. Uh, I know we signed on the county judges. Uh, are agreeable to that. That funding would go to the county and city that operates the, uh, District court. And they would use that within the budget system to appropriate funds for the district court operations, not necessarily just technology. Right now, the 250 goes exclusively into the automation fund, which is for technology, but that's what the county judges voted on. We do trust AOC on the numbers. We don't know what the, it's a $50 fee is equivalent to that amount or not, but that's our impression from what we're understanding. And Mark, let me ask you a question because But We're never going, I don't think in this meeting, get to the point of agreeing on the legislation. I think that's something that will have to be work, but is the county association in Jack Critchen. I see you back there in the municipal league, uh, And other parties that are located in the audience. All in agreement that the $10 a month installment fee. Should be eliminated and another avenue for funding. Be identified at least in legislation, but for purposes of this report that $10 installment fee should be eliminated. We can speak for the county judges association. We voted and we voted on two topics. One of them is the fact that we're still paying for district judges' salaries that are state employees. Uh, starting January 1st next year, all 70 district judges will be state officials, uh, if the legislature saw fit to eliminate that county and city contribution to those salaries, uh. We wanted that as a, uh, objective. And then the second thing was even our own folks. I've come to realize that these fees over time become burdensome. And to us, it makes us no difference if the revenue was equivalent. To make it to where. We came out without being harmed. Uh, that we see the light of not charging somebody $10 a month over a long period of time being adverse to the defendant. So we're, we're good with any kind of equivalency a couple of questions. Senator Clark, you're recognized. Hang on, there you go. OK, uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Mark, if I understood you, 25% of the money. $2.50 of $10 is going to the district courts. And I think you just touched on this but not. how much it is. How much would the state be paying? For district judge salaries, etc. if we change that. From what we ascertained about 6 months ago, it was approximately $4 million the counties and cities are paying. There'll be more district judges after January 1st, but I think, uh, there's 9 counties right now that are about to transition into. What was soon to be 70 district judges statewide, all of them statewide. But it was $4 million for 60. 6 judges, I believe, uh, 1.5 county, 2.5 cities. And that's how much we're paying is about 4 million now. It will go up $58,500 per judge, which is 4 judges, as I recall. 66 judges now, 70. And if I may, Madam Chair, uh. The. You know this is a question that AOC could probably answer, but I'd like to hear it from. The county and the county judge's perspective. Uh, since we've. Had the district judges go full-time. Uh, has it. And have the county judges seen, uh, the backup cleared up, uh. And that we're not nearly as far behind in district courts. I mean I haven't seen that, but I'm, I'm asking if y'all seen that? Well, COVID had an adverse impact. I think there's other issues, uh, but how long we gonna be talking about COVID? I, I, I'm with you there, um, I think there's some issues with, well, I could go a long time about the backup. Um, there's a lot of unserved warrants, about 100,000 unserved warrants. Um, I will say this, when we embarked on this transition for district judges to be state judges to have state county-wide jurisdiction and have more jurisdiction. By large, the district judges have reduced the number of extra circuit judges, and they often do plea and arraignment and first appearances. Which is a good bit of the docket that has to be done every 48 hours, every 72 hours. So the, Addition of district judges becoming state state officials and county-wide over the last 20 years has had a substantial impact. The backup that's happened in the last few years or gotten worse. Um. Maybe it'd be even worse, worse, you know, it could be more calamitous. It's real bad right now, the backup is. But I do know, I've observed over time. That county after county after county, the district judges are shouldering more jurisdictional amounts, litigation at higher jurisdictional civil. And they're also doing, I think, a large amount of the ple arraignment first appearances, which is. Every 48 hours, every 72 hours in the judicial system, so it's help. There's no doubt about that. And as we talk about these costs, if I may ask one more, Madam Chair. You know, I had one prosecutor come to me, uh. And said that their load, which in turn the district court load has increased greatly, uh, from. Large retailers who have uh self checkout that they're getting deluged with. Hundreds of. Uh Case that they're the way this prosecutor put it, dumping on them. Uh, Uh, are y'all hearing that anywhere else? I, I really haven't. I'm sorry. Right, thank you. Thank you, Stubenfield, you're recognized. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Mark, uh, is there a cost associated with, with gathering all these fees from individuals who are having problems, uh, like you say, it creates a burden. It's, it's very complicated to a lot of them. Is there a cost associated with With gathering these thieves. are collecting these fees there is an administrative cost of when you and I were younger, people either paid their fee or. They went to jail. The fact that you're having to administer a system. Which has software and computers and things like that has added an administrative level because people make partial payments. You have to pay restitution first. If somebody comes in with a check, the court cost goes this direction. There's a morass or a complexity about where the money goes and what if there's a hot check written? Our issues like that. There's always some, something that comes up when it comes to payment. True, but you don't know what that, what that cost is. I'm just familiar that when we went, well, I actually put it this way, in 2011 when a lot of this became Computerized That some of these installment fees were in recognition of that for the convenience of making an installment payment. AOC, the district courts, the circuit courts all set up. Computer capacity software that we didn't have before. And people do pay online and they've got they, they got, you know, you can pay using credit cards and stuff like you do your taxes. And so there's been an administrative cost in that regard, as opposed to making a full payment. That's true. Representative Gazaway, Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Mark, I just have a couple of questions that just thinking through this. So currently there's the $10 installment fee if you can't make your. Fine payment that day. I have to go set it up on payments. Because of that, you pay $10 a month. So one of the alternative proposals is $50 upfront. Well, my concern with that, I'd like to hear your opinion is if they can't pay their $50 seatbelt ticket. Or they can't pay their $120 speeding ticket. What makes us think that they're gonna be able to pay $50 up front and not have to also put that on an installment plan. Our way we envision it is that when people, when I The district judges are here and AOC is here. Prosecutors are here. When somebody sets up a time pay, they're convincing the district judge that they don't have the capacity of paying the full fine restitution court costs that time. But they do express an ability to pay an incremental amount. And so on the front end. Rather than your first payment going toward the fine or court cost or restitution on the front end, the installment payment. Convenience fee would be on the front end. So instead of making. A dozen payments over 12 months of a certain incremental amount. That if I can pay $40 a month or $50 a month, just have the first payments go toward the installment convenience fee. So that your convenience fee is on the front. Then after that, the rest of your payments go toward fine court costs restitution, so. What's happening currently and I think we hear it, you know, everybody's heard it, is that folks get To where they can't make payments at certain times. They get charged every month, even if they make a payment. So if you're going to pay over 18 months, those that can't pay shorter. One curve $180. Time 18 times 10. Or if they ever get to where they can't make any payment, they might go 6 months or certain length of time of not making any payment such as if they get, uh, And car. So in our brain, uh, if they're going to make incremental payments in the district judges. Determined that they can. Make an incremental payment. Then our way we think of it is the first payments could be toward the installment fee on the front end rather than Where you ye that much, uh. Because the percentage wise. Over time. It becomes almost usurious. Uh Follow up recognized and if I can interject, I've also heard some other proposals representing Gaway, not just the $50 upfront, but maybe. Every ticket that gets written in the state of Arkansas gets a $5 fee to it. So it's spread out among everybody and not. Yeah, uh, just a possibility, and I think that's legislation that we'll have to look at as to if we decide that we shouldn't go this route that there's another route, but I think that's fair, but that's something that I've heard people float. So anyway, you're recognized I didn't mean to take up your time. I just wanted to let you know what else I've been hearing out there. I appreciate that. So I just wanted to make sure, so they can also set up the $50 convenience also. It's just the 1st $50 that they pay will be credited. Toward the convenience fee. That's the way you envision it. That's the way we thought it might work. Anything else representing Gasway you? It Representative Eubanks, you're recognized. Never mind. OK. Well, we've heard that before, but that's OK. Your friends did next recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, I'm trying to kind of wrap my arms around the absolute cost of these fees. So if I am Steve the clerk working in Washington County Courthouse. I get paid a salary if I come in at 9 and I leave at 5, I get paid a salary whether I'm. You know, scrolling on my phone or I'm entering data in a computer. And so the cost associated of doing business for the employees workday. I'm just trying to figure that out because these employees are gonna get paid whether they process this paperwork or not. Am I missing something? Well, first of all, it's district court we're talking about. The, uh, Purpose of these fees back when the legislature created them in 2011. was to shift from a you have to pay your fine court costs for restitution now, or you can end up Going to jail. And so when that happened, and there are still people around that were here then. Uh We had to go in the world from paper and pen, pencil. To having computer software, uh, AOC who gets 3/4 of the money, uh, 750 out of $10 on. They set up software that the district courts use. Um, basically a, a large part of this was to make a technological support to allow this. And so the legislature at the time, doesn't have anything to do with salaries. The 750 that the ALC gets has to do with AOC's budget for technology. The 250 that the district judges retain is for the automation fund. Which is for buying computer software technology, things related to this installment fees, not salaries. At this time. Follow up, ma'am. Certainly, go ahead. I don't know that it's a question, it's just more a statement, um. The state buys the software and it should be bought. And frankly, it just feels punitive for the sake of being punitive. That's all I have. Well they legislature passed it, and I think people are starting to believe it is punitive. And so I think part of y'all's thought process here is to, what do you change it to, but you still have to have the computers and the software and the technology. Uh, it's kind of why what the thought process is. Senator Love, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Whitmore, I, I, I wanted to, to get just a little bit of clarification. So, Uh I believe Cher Dobby asked, Are you all for eliminating the, the fee or not? You have the county judges voted 2 things. One of them was district courts. We, hold on, hold on, because I, I, I heard you, I heard you I heard that what you said, I'm just trying to get clarification. Are they for eliminating the fear or they not? I mean, it's just a yes or no. I, I just want to understand and clearly we don't want to lose the revenue. The district courts currently get 250, which is 3.3 million. If you eliminate the fee and have no substitute. Then you would be deprived in the district courts of 3.3 million. And if you eliminate the 750 with the AOC gets, you'd be driving them 3 times 3.3 million. So we don't, I think most people are the mind, you can't just eliminate it without having. OK, I'm still at the same question. You're saying that you're for eliminating the fee. You just want, you just want to, to get an, an additional stream of revenue, is that, I mean, I just, that's, that's all I wanna hear. I just want to know that's what we've been saying is that you are you are for the fee if the legislature seeks to eliminate the fee that That would be, we would support that. The county judges voted, but at the same time, there's a revenue issue that we need, need to be mindful of, not losing the revenue. So Dobby then, I'm, I'm, I'm listening and saying, this $40 for the, the, the judges, and then that's another what, $16 million dollars so that's $200 million in all. Well, I think, I think, is that, I mean, I'm I'm looking about $1 million on the installment fee, but you are correct, $40 and then an additional 11, so we're talking about 15 million and that it generated $16 million between a. Why was she going with Mark just said 30. In the district courts and then another 3 times that would make 9 and that's 12 million. So I just, I gave a round figure because I couldn't remember and that's why I drug Mark up here to let, let us go after him, but you are exactly right, Senator Love, and that's part of the discussion in a perfect world. In which we had all the money in the world, then we wouldn't be funding the court system off the backs of people who often cannot afford to pay, but it's not a perfect world. So if we eliminate or at least recommend, remember this is just a report in which we're making recommendations. There may not be the votes or the heart. To go forward with it in legislation, but at least there's the recommendation. If we recommend that we don't think a $10 a month installment. The is fair and equitable to the people who come in to the judicial system. We also being good stewards of tax money would have to figure out an alternate funding because this does fund a lot of, of necessary. Programs are necessary expenditures in the district court system. And I, so I keep hearing the automation tossed out. I, I guess I'm hoping it's more than just automation because, I mean, when we, when we buy software, I think people use it for 2 or 3 years and then we we do whatever we need to do with it, but I, I'm, I'm, it's automation, you have a the portion and Mark help me out here, but you have that portion of which the district courts retain often referred. To CAF courtroom automation funds they use that and it's at the district judge's discretion, which is important that they are able to use that because they can fund it might be a system to a message system to notify defendants when court is. It may be to run all those other things that may be computer software, it may be computers, it may be some travel. For that and that's what that portion that the district. Judges have a control over. How best to utilize in their court, then you have portions of it that will come to AOC and their funding various things off of that. A part of that may be when you look at the AOJ fund we're funding part of a state police retirement. We're funding, we're funding a lot of things that are not necessarily judicial oriented. So there it it gets parsed out a lot of different ways. Does that answer your question? In a convoluted way I guess it does. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Gasway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess. I have this. Question about. Do you guys see this as a moral issue that. People are having to pay a $10 a month installment fee and it needs to be eliminated, uh, is there some moral objection here that people who can't make their payment upfront. Because they have to make up payments, have to pay $10 a month. I don't know that it's that. I know that people have come to us, members of the legislature have come to us, and there are instances. Where folks are unable to pay for extended period and that amount. Increases over time and becomes a substantial amount, sometimes as much, um. As you were suggesting, it is part of the system, uh, that somebody owns their fine, they own their restitution on their court cost. It's just. People do contact us and say there was somebody that a $300 fee. They made some payments, they gotten payments, then a few years later, they're capable of making payments, but their installment fees have now exceeded that's the type of situation. It's not that we, uh, the county judges didn't bring this up, brought it up. And we're supportive of the idea that because we do see in instances where it is harmful. Uh, where it impacts some folks. More than the original fine rest. Follow up, Madam Chair. And so I guess that's my point is I'm trying to find out exactly what the objection is here because as you referenced earlier. Uh, you know, if you can't pay for your furniture up front, then you have to make installment payments and you pay interest. If you can't pay for your car in cash, you set it up on payments and you have to pay interest. And if you can't pay your speeding ticket. And you have to set it up on payments and you have to pay $10 a month, and I will say. With regard to the, the clerk's duties and obligations, the district court clerks have a lot of obligations outside of collecting people's fine payments. They have warrants to process. They have case files to take care of. They have all the filings, whether it's small claims, civil, criminal, the district court clerks are busy. And they have a lot of responsibilities aside from keeping track of people's money who have to set up. $150 on payments and have to come in and take their. $20 every month and process it and make sure it all goes to the right place. And I mean, I just want to be clear here, is there, what exactly is the objection to someone having to pay $10 a month, which doesn't sound that excessive to me. Now I understand if it's a $50 ticket and you have to pay $10 a month, that that can exceed the value of the ticket after a certain period of time, but after all, you are getting to make your payments in installments as opposed to having to pay it all up front or go to jail. So I, again, if there's a real objection to $10 a month. Uh, that's based on. You know, some strong moral ground I'd like to hear it because right now I'm having a hard time seeing what the big problem is. I don't think that we're We're running into instances where people over a long period of time have amounted substantial amounts as compared to the original amount as the original fine court costs for restitution. It's not so much an issue about the morality. It's the fact that it becomes over burdensome to them. We hear that, but we're not the ones advocating the change it makes from the standpoint from a county judge's standpoint, we're aware of the problem, but if you solve it, we'd, we'd like to have a restitution. To where we're not harmed is what we're Representing Collins, you're. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, you know, in response to Representative Ganzway, I, you know, I can give you my best effort to try to say why I have an issue with the $10 installment fee, um, I think for one thing, it's a little bit different than buying a refrigerator or something in that, you know, this is the state assessing something, a fee on a person. It's not a, you know. Something you budget for, it's not something you plan on doing and what happens is you have a, I mean, as you know, uh, a different amount based on how much you have already, so if you have less money, less ability to pay, you end up paying more because you have to pay on an installment fee. That's one reason I, I have a problem with it. It's an uneven administration of justice. And the second issue I have with it is just the sheer amount. So. You're paying 10% or 20% interest effectively, which is more than you would pay in a lot of other situations. And there's no, you know, way around it because it's set in statute. The third thing is what Mr. Whitmore said, which is just that it ends up practically amounting to so much that you get trapped in a cycle and it's very hard to extricate yourself from it. Um, so I mean, I think for, for those reasons, I, um, I mean, and, and, and they're not Really in the position where they're having moral objections, as he said, it's people coming to him. It's us who have to make that decision. I mean, I think they're concerned about their revenue continuing to exist, which I understand I, for one, do think it's a problematic, um. Fee to put on top of the fees that we already have. Senator Clark, you're recognized? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. The uh. I'm with Representative Collins, the installment fees have to go, uh, been contacted more than any other place from within the court systems, from bailiffs to judges, uh, but also with people who work with uh drug addicts, etc. and people who are turning their lives around and end up with they they can never pay. That's why we have so many people driving without a license. They get so hopeless. Uh, and then we keep adding to it, but Mark, my question for you. Is We'll deal with AOC and the 750. Separately, but the 250. Uh, for district courts. If we Take on the district judge's salaries which you estimated to be about 4 million, so I'm gonna assume it's 5, And Take away the 250. Which according to what you say is generating 3.3 million. Are we not gonna have AAC and And county judges, etc. come back to us and say now we can't buy, uh, even though we've replaced it with more money, but now there's no fund. For software and technology are, are, are we not gonna have. The folks come back to us and then say, well now we don't have any funding even though we're we're giving more money. No, I don't think we'll do that. If, if y'all negate our payment of the state officials, which we don't think we should be paying for their state district judges. If y'all take care of that. As far as we're concerned, the district. Incremental district court, the mouth of district court retains of 250. If you either leave that alone. Uh, seemed like AOC is more interested in their 750. If you leave it alone, there's the 250, we'd be fine with that. Or if you eliminate it and replace it with funding, it would be up to the county or city. That appropriates funding for that district court about what to use that funding for which automation would be a use. Um, The county judges in, if I understand right the misple favor that or supportive of that. So I think that would solve the issue. The issues that we were brought up with, part of which was this uh installment payments, which we're attentive to. We're not putting their head in the sand. They do exist and we think that that would be a viable solution. Like I said, I just want to be sure that we, that we don't fund and then come back. With other problems, at least you'll wait till we're gone and there's a new group of legislators that don't know, right? Right. Thank you, thank you, Mark. Thank you, Madam chair. Uh. Before I get to representing Gasaway, I did want to make sure I cleared up so everybody knows where this $10 goes. 250 goes to the local automation fund account that the district judges oversee 250 goes to AOC. For their automation. of all of that, that's administrative office of courts and the other $5 left goes into that AO AOJ fund administration of justice fund which then gets divvied out to, I think we're up to 24 or 25 different entities, some who have no connection to the judiciary, but that's how we've. Give out those things so that'll give you that gas well you. Come on. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just in response to some of the things that Representative Collins said. We talk about the $10 installment. For example, And it goes on month per month, per month, and as he said in some cases it may build up to be more than what the original fine is. Well, that is, of course, if you take a long period of time to pay out your installments. And the point being is if you know that you're going to be charged $10 every month that you take to pay out your fine or fee, then you have some incentive to pay it off early, would you agree? Yes. OK. And the, so the other point there is is that there's no penalty for prepayment, is that right? So the point is, is if I have a $100 fine. And I want to pay it out in payments. And I paid out in $250 payments. And I paid $10 each time. And I've only paid $20 per my installment fee. Let's think about that in context of the other plan. I have a $50 fee that I have to pay regardless of how quickly I pay it off. I'll actually pay less. If I pay the $10 a month and pay it off more quickly than I would under the $50 upfront payment scheme, is that, wouldn't you agree with that? True. And then let's talk about the other alternative, which would be add $5 to every ticket. So that means for all the Arkansans out there who when they get a speeding ticket, they go to the clerk's office and they pay it. They pay it over the phone, they pay it however, but they pay it in one lump sum and they move on with their life. They're essentially their tickets are now subsidizing those people. Who are going to make their payments in installments. Now everybody else that pays their $5 fee that's added onto their ticket is essentially paying for the people who have to make their payments in installments that would be true. All right, just to be clear, thank you. Representative Collins you recognized? Thank you, and we don't have to go on and on about this, but I just wanna, I do want to clarify one thing that what we are, uh, gonna take a motion on is what is written here on exhibit D12C from you, I believe, Madam Chair, which says to eliminate the monthly fee charges, but backfill it somehow, as opposed to the $50 which is not on the table, I believe, and the $5 which is not on the table, and replacing with general revenue. whatever way we decide to backfill that is not up for, uh, the vote on the motion. Is this correct? That is correct. OK. That's all I wanted to clarify because I, I do tend to agree with Representative Gway and some of the things he said, such as the $50 fee upfront doesn't really seem like a much better outcome for what I care about, um, but that's not really up for discussion, so, um, thank you. Senator Clark, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm gonna belabor this just a little bit more, uh. My esteemed colleague, uh, Representative Gazaway uh pointed out that if you paid $50. Over 2 months, uh, and we had $10 installment fee. Let me point out that that's 20% interest. For 2 months. Now multiply that times 6. Uh, and you, I think 20% is us usurious, uh, 120% certainly is, and that is the point is that in most of these cases, me as a retailer, you'd put me in jail if I did the same thing the state's doing. Thank you. Any other discussion? Just as a sidebar, this is why I love Judiciary. We can strain a net. And, uh, have great discussions. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, do we have a motion in regard to the Adding to our report. The elimination of the monthly fee. Do I have a motion? I have a motion is there a second? You have a motion to this, I mean a second to the motion, I have a second. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you back there. I have a motion to second any further discussion as to what the motion is? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed? Say no. that I have it, this will be included into our report. All right, let's look at. Another discussion point and and several of you brought in things so if you've got a discussion point that you want, just buzz in and I'm just going down through a list we tried to put them up you're free to go. Thank you. Um, I just, I just tried to lump them together, but if you see something that we need to point out, certainly feel free to bring it up. Another recommendation or another topic that we've talked about is this retained share. Um, of the, of what's happening in district courts and as you recall, at some point in time, I think about 1996, but don't hold me to the date, uh, legislation got passed that there are some courts for the retained part of their fees and court costs and all of that, maybe 50% and 50% gets turned into the state. Then you have about 6 courts and remember, we had an audit, uh, audit came to us with some of this. You've got about 6. Jurisdictions in the state who pay nothing to the state of Arkansas. They keep it all, and then you have some who are turning in 80% to the state and only getting to keep 20%. Now that's kind of a broad brush, but we had that in an audit report and so the next point of discussion would be uh. Should there be a recommendation that all courts become what we've kind of colloquially call 50/50 courts, 50% they keep, 50%, they turn into the state which would then equalize those courts across the board, so you don't have one district that's keeping all the money or one district who is turning in. 80% of their money. So that is the discussion point. Uh, is there anyone out in the audience that would like to come and uh visit with us about that before I. Before y'all head out the door, Jack, would you like to come up? Or You'll identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. Blake Garret with Arkansas Municipal League and really here just to answer any questions on it, you know, when we're going through this and I can't thank y'all enough for not only this meeting and the continued discussion on this, but all the discussions we've had over this over the past years and, um, kind of a lot of things we looked at, you know, probably 6 or 7 different items, no, just formal recommendations at this point, but just stuff that we've identified throughout the process of talking to you, talking to AOC. AAC just talking to everybody that has some involvement in here and believe the last couple of meetings we've had. Good discussions on the retained share and what that means, so for uh court fines and filing fees and all that that comes through district court, uh, district courts are able to retain a certain amount. This amount was set via formula based on numbers back in 1993 and what was being funded and then slowly amended to provide some minute increase, so to speak, over the years since then and uh German as German Dalby. Alluded to what we have now are some district courts that retain 100% of their share based off what they collect and what they're spending, again, decades ago. On the other hand, you have some that only retain 10% of what the district court brings in and the rest goes to the state. And so we were just, when we were looking through this, we, we're trying to see, you know, As a piece to a lot of what we've been talking about because this may not be a standalone item that works in its own accord, but to try to find some, um. Equitable solution for all the district courts. So you have some district courts that are obviously a lot more funded than others depending on what that retained share goes to because the retained share, the part that the district court keeps is specifically meant to defray the cost of administration, uh, administration of justice, so dedicated toward, to the court system itself. It doesn't go to City General or County general or anything of that nature. And one of the ideas that was floated around was going to a fifty-fifty court. Um, I think after reviewing the special report, I believe a lot more study needs to go into that to determine, you know, is that a good formula? Is there another formula out there that provides a better basis for the retained cost share besides fifty-fifty. Um, it's kind of hard to say what the impact on going to a fifty-fifty court would retain share would be at this point. The obvious would be that, you know, the cities that are not cities, district courts that keep 100% are losing 500%. those that are keeping 10%, um, so it's very convoluted conversation to have. It's very number heavy, uh, there may just be a need for further study into it and determining a better formula, uh, would love it to be very simple, but I don't know if fifty-fifty is as simple in reality as it is in discussion. Thank you, Blake. I think also wrapped up in that, if you'll stay for just a moment, um, wrapped up in that is that some of the, the fines may be. Not equalized. Across districts, so maybe you, you might get a I don't know, a domestic violence, uh, fine in one county that's $350 but you go to another county and it's $500. And so within this discussion there might need to be some equalization across the board. We, we did that with court cost and that, but finds may be somewhat unequal from district to district and that might play into the fifty-fifty. Uh, we call it fifty-fifty, but I think if nothing else, the study should recognize that we recognize that there's an issue. Is this what basically it boils down to. We recognize there's an issue as to the amount of funds that are being either retained or sent to the state and that there should be some type of equalization and how we get to that. The Devil's always in the details, but is that a correct statement recommendation that is a very fair assessment of it all. It's just identifying that the issue does exist, how bad of an issue it is, how good of an issue is, it's hard to tell. It's a numbers game, but recommendation of continuing to look into it and see if there is a way to make it more equitable cost across the courts, um, and you know, that may impact, I'm sure another discussion that will pop up in regards to court security and, you know, just I keep sayings. uh, district court that has such a low retained cost share, you know, if that they had more of that, they had to be able to afford potentially more officers there and that. So again, there's a lot of these pieces that kind of go hand in hand. It's not so easy just to pinpoint on one and say, here's the fix without it affecting any others. Representing Gasway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Blake, what I'd be interested to know is what are the objections going to be from the courts who currently keep more than their share. That you're absolutely right, there will certainly be an other than the obvious fact that they're gonna lose money, but I'm sure that they, they have some objection. Uh Do you, do you know what their objections are gonna be? I don't know outside of the losing money, um, again, when we're talking about the retained share, it is an old formula, so maybe at the end of the day, it, it's a new formula that. To answer you straight. Now, I don't know what other objections. Um, there may be some that exist, but. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess my point is 50/50 on its face seems fair. I mean that makes perfect sense and it seems fair, but I'm guessing there's a reason why the formula as it is exists by certain courts. Uh, keep more than their share, and I'd like to know what those reasons were and what objections we can expect from the courts who stand to lose a lot of revenue here. I mean, I I can't think of them off the top of my head, but I'm sure they've got them. So yeah, absolutely, and I think you typically see it's. Again, cause. As old as the formula it is, it's going to be a lot of your bigger court systems. It's gonna be your Pulaski County versus, you know, DeShaa County that has such a high retained cost share because that's what they've always expended on the end of that as well, just the size of the cords. And Blake also if If the state takes over. The district judge's salaries in whole that would also offset. Some of Of if they changed over to a fifty-fifty. I mean, there may be some offsets there that we're not aware of, but as far as this is something that we recognize as an issue. Yeah, absolutely, probably not a straight wash. I don't know the exact numbers on that, but certainly offsetting, um, you know what a court may, a district court may lose if they're not paying, you know, 580. Per judge and they have 3 judges, something of that nature, if that makes sense. probably not direct watch. Sarah Stubenfield you recognize are we doing anything currently? Let's say we were challenged in a court of law over the district judge's salaries. Over the way we've been operating for the last few years, would we lose that case? Put me on the spot there, Senator Stubblefield, um, I don't know there's a chance with what the voters voted in with Amendment 80 and then further with Amendment 94, uh, I don't, I. Um, there is certainly a chance that we would lose the case. They could be forced to pay district court the full amount of the district court's salaries we should get back within the constitutional bounds of. Uh, hard to disagree with that, Senator. Thank you. Members, any other discussion? Blake, thank you for coming to the table, being willing to be put on the spot. Any other discussion? Uh, Representative Unger, I'm sorry, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may circle back to paragraph one item F. On prohibit driver's license suspension for nonpayment of fines and fees. I just wanted to go on the record of how much I agree with that. I was a volun, that's, that's, uh, one of the suggestions, uh, Representative Collins put in, just want to make sure that was addressed. Thank you. OK, members, I think we've come to the end of the discussion as to the retained share portion of it? Do we have a, a motion as to whether or not we have a motion to include this in our report. Do I have a second? Have a second. Any further discussion on this particular recommendation. All in favor of the recommendation, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it, the motion carries. Um, another recommendation to look at is What to do about the administration of justice fund. This is a little bit outside of maybe the purview of the district court, but the district court does help fund that and I don't know that. I mean, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions. My idea in that regard is we do recognize that that is an issue that we're funding, as you recall from the audit report, we're funding, I believe, at least 24 different entities through the administration of justice fund and should some of those entities actually be placed. In the budget. And possibly this money that's collected out of the administration of justice fund be put into the general budget. Uh, and so we have had some definite discussion on that and I just need to know what is the committee's thoughts in that regard? Should this be something that we include, uh, that we look at this fund I know over the years representing Gasway if you don't mind if I call you out, I know you've looked at it, Senator Clark Tucker's looked at it. Representative Collins has been looking at number of us who have been involved in the court system have looked at that. Uh, trying to figure out, uh, if these entities that are in there because as you're well aware of what happens, we say, oh, you're funded at this amount, but you're really not. You're only getting a portion of that. Amount because it may not fund. It exactly and so if we move some of those entities into the general budget and we take the money from the AOJ to help. help offset that in the budget, then those entities have a steadier revenue stream than every year hoping and praying that they get the money out of the AOJ fund. So that's my rationale for wanting it in there, but I'm certainly at the will of the committee. Anybody have any other discussion in that regard? If not, uh, representing Gasaway, do you have some discussion or? You're recognized. I knew I could count on you. Well, I was just going to move to to adopt your uh. To make the motion, but I completely agree, as you said, I have looked at this issue for. Several years since I've been here in the legislature, I've had groups approach me, I guess probably going back to 2017 about the funding that out of this particular fund and how it's just been reduced and reduced and more people have, uh, kind of gotten into the fund and they're taking money out of the fund when it wasn't, they weren't originally. To be included in that fund. And there are, I think, some very legitimate, uh. Instances where we can move. Certain groups that are being funded out of that fund into state central services or other, uh, areas of funding that can provide that funding other than this fund so that the people who were originally Supposed to be funded. Through this fund will be more fully funded that that'd be the goal. Cher is absolutely right, completely agree. And so I make a motion that we included. We have a motion and we have a second to include this recommendation into the report. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Um, The next Kind of group of items that we have would be, um, I, I don't know best how to group it together, but we have uh. D crab. The district court. Reallocation assessor, I don't know, DCcrab. We know what the crab is, is the group that looks at, um, the district court and Senator Clark had asked some questions earlier about that as to the uh members DCrab will be meeting in September and again, uh, later in the fall to bring recommendations to the legislature as to whether smaller departments should be combined within a judicial district for a Efficiency and cost saving. They're going to be looking at um. Whether from what I understand, they're also going to be looking at at some recommendations as to some minimum standards, some education. Um, components. That I know that the district judge's council is particularly interested in, uh, they're also going to be. Looking at possible recommendations for courtroom security. And I, I'm, I'm seeing a couple of judges out there and nod their head. Have I missed anything? That are kind of the high points that DCrab is going to be looking at. And with that, I mean, we. I would envision that a recommendation would be to encourage DCrab to meet on those areas and to bring recommendations. The legislature as to how they see for the efficiency of the courts, additional training for, uh, judges. Because once again, they, as we've heard this morning they are kind of where the rubber meets the road and we want to have those minimum standards we want to have, uh, we want to have efficiency. I think the committee's heard me say, if you can drive to Walmart, you can drive. 10 miles or 15 miles or maybe 20 miles to a court if you can't do it online and that we need to look at courtroom security. I think all of that kind of falls within the crabs. Uh. Uh, Baileywick, so I guess my, my suggestion would be that. There would be a recommendation. The DCrab, um, consider all of those items and any others that they see that would be of of importance that the legislature would need to address in the next session. So I'll keep my mouth shut anybody have some additional thoughts in regard to those. Seeing none do I have a motion. I see a motion. Do I have a second? And I see a 2, we have a motion a second that we, um, recognize that DCRb has those responsibilities and that we will be looking to decrab for, uh, recommendations for the legislative session. Any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, please say no. The ayes have it, the motion carries. Now we've gone through some of the bigger items represented Collins, you've sent in a, a fairly comprehensive list. Some of it I think falls within some of the recommendations that we've adopted this morning, do you? Do you see anything that that needs to be pulled out into a different recommendation in your recognized represented Collins. Thank you. Yeah, I think we addressed it all, um, most of what I had in here, um, in, in somewhat different ways. I mean, I, I do think my ideal would be to be more comprehensive, uh, and, and take fines and fees away from funding the justice system, um, but I, I do recognize that the way that we've proceeded so far would somewhat be in conflict with my, uh, sort of ideal. So I, I'm OK unless else wants to pull one of these out, we can just have these as, as my personal recommendations, but I do want to, uh, pull out for discussion just out of recognition for Representative Unger. Um, the last one, which is to prohibit driver's license suspension for nonpayment of fines and fees. Um, I don't know whether or not it needs to be in the recommendations here, um, but it is related to, um, funding the court system and it is related to fines and fees. So of the state of, of the situation, uh, Senator Clark had a bill, um, 2021, where we added a little bit of due process around suspending a driver's license for failure to pay. Um, that was a, a good change, but we still do have that possibility. Of suspending a driver's license for failure to pay. So, obviously, when we do that, It makes it harder for somebody to get a job to pay off the debts and makes it harder for them to take care of children or family members who maybe need care, um, it, it really is one of the big drivers of this cycle of accumulating debts. There's a lot of opposition to this and sort of the national level. I know Senator Boseman's been one of many of both parties who have been active in sort of trying to get this out of the repertoire of. States where we suspended driver's license because you either don't pay or you don't appear, but because this is a focus on fines and fees, I focus my comment on failure to pay. So, um, you know, I certainly believe that would be a good change if anyone wants to discuss it and we can, you know, take a motion or not, but I did just want to draw that one out to Representative Auger can comment if he'd like. Representative Collins, um, would you be amenable that there be a statement included in. The recommendations and I'm trying to, um, And there maybe possibly the retain shares because we're talking about uniform filing fees and court costs or a statement to the effect that the committee recognizes that, um, Some Finds are an impediment. To an individual returning to work and that. I'm, I'm not being very artful, but what I'm trying to say is we recognize that some of these fines may be an impediment to people returning to work and I mean, I understand what you're trying to get in there, but I that we. Want to endorse specific. Legislate specific recommendations as to something that would. Uh, be that specific, but maybe a. Yeah, it, it makes sense to me. I mean, maybe something if, if people want to do this to say, you know, move away from funding the justice system with fines and fees. Um, I mean, that, that's. I think generally where people seem like they've ended up and then that doesn't lock us into any kind of legislation. In a perfect world, if we had all the money, we could do that, but I don't think we've got that perfect world, but let's see if, let's see if we can, we'll try to craft something in there that we recognize that that uh. We should be cognizant of, of, of the burden that folks. May have over some types of fines and fees, but at the same time recognize that. This particular court is you're coming to court in case you broke a law. I mean, you know, and so there's got to be some type of punishment. But we'll work on crafting some language, and I, I would ask Representative Collins that you, uh, Work, uh, with Kobe over here and we'll see if we can work something out that at least addresses that we all know in a perfect world. This would not be something that we would have to address, but we don't live in a perfect world. nor do we live in a world that we've got a money tree out. That makes sense? Nor do these folks, but yes, ma'am, we can, we can go with that. Representative Ungar, would you like to add anything to that? I know this is an issue that you're interested in. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to say before I came to do this in my volunteer life, I was a volunteer at a halfway house for felons on parole in Springdale. I was there Thursday night guy for a year and a half. I also drove an after school reading program for kids, low-income kids. Poor people move a lot. And sometimes what they're really guilty of is their male not catching up with them. And so there are people who get arrested for suspended driver's license. They had no idea their license was suspended and now there are cars impounded. So they're fired. They can't pay their fines, their fees, their alimony or the child support are the rent. And this is the kind of just debt bondage, which I think, um. We have unintentionally created, but it's, uh, sort of understanding. Of how some people live and the other thing as far as. You know, we don't want to look like we're subsidizing bad behavior, but the truth is we, we ended up supporting a broken court system that is so backed up. I think I heard the figure 100,000 outstanding warrants. This, this all contributes to a part of the problem. And so I realized there's no perfect solution, but I would certainly, I personally would support this is. Thank you, ma'am. And you're certainly welcome to file that piece of legislation come January. How's that? I've had my nose broken before, ma'am. Oh, not by this committee, I know. Um, all right. uh the other items that you had received in your packet, um. Some came from the district judges. I think that we have. Um, address this talking excuse me, district judges to be able to attend. Um, state education programs that, and I think we have wrapped that up into a recommendation and we're good with that. Uh, the other part was, um. And this would go to this installment courtroom automation fund that they should the district judges should have a fund that's at their discretion to pay for technology and other needs of the court. Um, and I think that that is something that we also need to that's wrapped up in that we don't need to forget that. Not all. How can I artfully say this and not tick off every county judge or city official in the state. Not all. County Quorum courts are uh receptive to request for payment from, from the judicial branch, nor are all cities receptive to requests for payment from cities. So I think that there may be a need there and that's wrapped up in that other recommendation. And, uh, we've also addressed the 50/50, the turn back. I thought there was a good to review and and that was kind of tough, touched on that would need to be reviewed every 5 to 10 years and not every 25 to 30 years. So I think I've have we addressed those? Are we good with that? Anybody want to come up and say anything? OK. I wanna give everybody their. Opportunity Center Tucker's not here today, but he had one, we've already talked about the fines and fees of the judicial system. The second part of the judicial branch is encouraged to develop a web-based application that automatically notifies individuals via text message or other automated electronic notification when they have upcoming court appearance in an effort to reduce the number of failures. Uh, I know some courts are doing that. Is this a recommendation we would like to include in the report that we're Encouraging courts to take the head nods and we'll have a motion in that regard. I have a motion and I see a second that we encourage the judicial branch to, uh, move to more electronic notification. Any further discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries. All right, this is kind of like getting married, folks. Got anything else you wanna say? It's kind of like speak now or forever hold your peace. Like It's not like as Senator Stfield said, that's not like getting married. Um, OK, with that, I think we've hit all the topics here is uh kind of the out the plan we're going to look toward hopefully Monday, November 23rd of September, where I don't know where I came up with November September 23rd. Thank you, Kobe. Monday, September 23rd. We'll have the report in hand to finally vote on the final report because as you know, October 1st is when we need to send it to the governor, uh, the Senate pro tem and the Speaker of the House, as well as to the judicial branch and that will be the date. For us to come back and do that. Does anybody else have any other thoughts they would like to have included? I don't want to leave anybody out, have any other business? With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.