City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (19)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB411
Act 1076
· 11 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…MPLOYEES. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB411 G. TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES. Stubblefield R…”
|
TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES. | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB411 is now Act 1076 |
|
HB1875
Act 978
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…D TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL MARKETING GRANTS FUND. HB1875 A. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CITY MANAGER FORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. | A. Davis | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 978 |
|
HB1385
Act 983
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1385 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1385 is now Act 983 |
|
HB1817
Act 1050
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LICIES. Stubblefield REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1817 Capp TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NATIVE WINE INCENTIVE GRANT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NATIVE WINE INCENTIVE GRANTS; TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF … | Capp | Notification that HB1817 is now Act 1050 |
|
SB660
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “REVISED AGENDA (4/3/19 @ 6:45PM) (removed SB660, added SB679, SB510 & SB645 Referred to Interim Study) Sena…”
|
TO MODERNIZE THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING FRAMEWORK; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN. | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB671
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB671 M. Johnson TO REQUIRE APPORTIONMENT OF WARDS BE CONDUCTED B…”
|
TO REQUIRE APPORTIONMENT OF WARDS BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; AND … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB679
Act 1090
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “REVISED AGENDA (4/3/19 @ 6:45PM) (removed SB660, added SB679, SB510 & SB645 Referred to Interim Study) Senate Committee…”
|
TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND ACT OF 1985. | K. Ingram | Notification that SB679 is now Act 1090 |
|
HB1041
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1041 Ladyman TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE AWARD PROCEDURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE AWARD PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC CONTRACTS. | Ladyman | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB455
Act 883
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CHAIR CONCUR IN HOUSE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle SB455 T. Garner TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CATASTROPHIC LEAVE FO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CATASTROPHIC LEAVE FOR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES. | T. Garner | Notification that SB455 is now Act 883 |
|
SB510
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…VISED AGENDA (4/3/19 @ 6:45PM) (removed SB660, added SB679, SB510 & SB645 Referred to Interim Study) Senate Committee on City…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUBURBAN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB516
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A CONCEALED HANDGUN. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB516 Bond TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS. S…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS. | Bond | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB554
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SINESSES REGULATED BY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD. SB554 A. Clark TO REQUIRE WATER PROVIDERS TO EXTEND WATER SERVICE…”
|
TO REQUIRE WATER PROVIDERS TO EXTEND WATER SERVICE TO NONRESIDENT CONSUMERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB588
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND ACT OF 1985. SB588 K. Ingram TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF THE PUBLIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. | K. Ingram | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB614
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…6 Bond TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS. SB614 G. TO ELIMINATE GUN-FREE ZONES; AND TO REPEAL LAWS IN CONFL…”
|
TO ELIMINATE GUN-FREE ZONES; AND TO REPEAL LAWS IN CONFLICT. | G. Stubblefield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB621
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…WATER SERVICE TO NONRESIDENT CONSUMERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS. SB621 G. Leding TO BE KNOWN AS THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND T…”
|
TO BE KNOWN AS THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB631
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF WARDS IN MUNICIPALITIES. SB631 Hester TO PROHIBIT CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM DENYING OR HIND…”
|
TO PROHIBIT CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM DENYING OR HINDERING PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THE RIGHT TO … | Hester | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB636
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…END THE LAW CONCERNING THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. SB636 M. Johnson TO ESTABLISH THE POSITION OF COUNTY ELECTION COO…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE POSITION OF COUNTY ELECTION COORDINATOR. | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB643
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…WNERS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE OR TRIM TREES, BUSHES, OR SHRUBS. SB643 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DUES FOR VOLUNTEER FI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DUES FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS. | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB645
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDA (4/3/19 @ 6:45PM) (removed SB660, added SB679, SB510 & SB645 Referred to Interim Study) Senate Committee on City, County…”
|
CONCERNING SUBURBAN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND REAL PROPERTY. | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
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 9, 2026
Speaker 10
3:00
I'm going to call this meeting to order. city county local. I remind
you once again, we have sign-up sheets for those of you who want
to speak for or against the bill over here next to the wall. And we're going to take up, we had a special order of business this morning, but we have
a bill I don't think is going to take very long. Representative Davis, if you're ready to present
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
3:54
House Bill 1875. Yes, sir. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. State Representative Andy Davis. Members of
the committee, we have a new mayor in Little Rock, and one of the first things he did was appoint a committee of people to look at potential options of Little Rock's form of government,
which is currently a city manager, board, form of government. And through their process, they found that some of the options they were considering were not currently allowed in Arkansas law. So what this bill does is it puts those options in place. It's totally permissive. If the city board would have to make these changes by ordinance, it doesn't require them to make a change, doesn't require any other city to make any changes, just puts options in place. Have to take any questions. All
right. You've heard an explanation of the bill.
Speaker 23
4:39
Any questions from committee members? Senator Clark? What
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
4:46
options does it put in place? Primarily the option of letting the mayor hire the city attorney and the city manager. But in that option, the city board would still have an override authority with two-thirds vote. I have a city council person from the city here for a different bill, but if you want him to nod his head and wave that they're good with this, he'd be happy
Speaker 24
5:09
to. Okay, and how would this form of government be created?
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
5:13
Well, they're already in this form of government in the city manager form. I think there's maybe five cities in the state that use this form. Under that form, there is an option to be exercised to shift authority one way or the other from the board to the mayor. Currently, Little Rock is the only one that has exercised that option. This would be kind of sub-options underneath that. That's why currently it would only affect Little Rock because nobody else has exercised
Speaker 26
5:43
that option. But to exercise that option, I'm assuming, and I know I shouldn't assume, that the city council would have to vote to exercise that option.
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
5:51
City Council, we call it City Board, but they would have
Speaker 26
5:55
to take action. So once they take that action, does it stay that way? Until they undo it, yes. And then they could undo it? With a simple
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
6:05
majority? I think it's a simple majority by ordinance. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from committee members?
There's no one in the audience signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Davis, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you. All right. What's the will of the committee? We have a motion to do pass by Senator Letting and a second by Senator Filippo. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Thank you.
You're recognized to present your bill, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be Senate Bill 411. Senate Bill 411. I'm going to lay out just real briefly
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this part just what the bill does 411 simply prohibits sanctuary policies it defines what a municipal sanctuary policy is in subsection B of the bill lines 1 through 6 it also provides a penalty for the law in subsection C as each of you know I think you're all aware of that sanctuary policies defy federal law, which our cities and counties and state governments' bodies are bound to comply with.
And I can assure you that at this point, by interfering or not assisting or not reporting to the federal government, federal law is being violated. So at this time, Mr. Chair,
I would like to ask a couple of gentlemen to come up that would like to testify. Mr. Ruffin? They would just come
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
8:49
to the table and identify themselves for the record.
Lance Hines
Unverified
8:59
Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee. I'm Lance Hines. I'm city director for Ward
5 in Little Rock. I'm here in support of Senate Bill 411. Normally, I would be up here opposing an intervention on self-rule of a local municipality. But earlier this year, I attempted to run a resolution that simply recognized what we were already doing as a municipality to comply with federal immigration law under our agreements with Department of Justice for our safety grants.
Also going forward, the Department of Justice also changed that even to apply for a public safety grant from DOJ, you must affirm that you're following those points and policies. I was met with some resistance that withdrew my bill because I could not get a majority support on the LORAC board. I think that the senator's bill really recognizes what we're already doing to comply. The concern for me with our body not passing a resolution to recognize and make it the policy of the city
is that everything that's being done was being done at an administrative level. a police chief, a city attorney, a mayor could direct at a staff level to not comply, and then it would be up to somebody to either have a whistleblow or a citizen to file a complaint. I think this bill lines out. It doesn't change anything that we're already doing, but it does make it that we've got rules to follow at the municipal level.
I think one of the misconceptions is that the term that comes up is undocumented status. This wouldn't affect anybody that is under DACA status because that is a recognized legal status under our federal government right now. So it would not have any impact on anybody here who has received DACA status under federal government. With that being, I would appreciate your support of his legislation. George Pritchett, Hot Springs, Arkansas.
Speaker 47
11:15
I'm here in support of this bill. It's an atrocity that we have so many unauthorized immigrants in Arkansas. We have 41% of the immigrants here are illegals. I believe I said that correctly. But what concerns me most, this is a horrible burden on our entitlement program, our medical services, our education system. It's an atrocity that we would have cities passing laws that break federal laws. We are a nation of laws. If we're not going to bother with them, then why do we enforce any laws?
I think we should cooperate with ICE in every situation. If you've been a victim of an illegal immigrant and you try to chase them down for your car or for your house, or worse, if you had your child molested or killed, you can't find them. They just go get a new set of papers. They just pay a few hundred dollars, and they establish a new business. Maybe they're in the landscaping business. Maybe they want to hang sheetrock in your house, and most of them want to be paid cash. They are illegals. They are criminals.
We need to treat them as such. This body here passes laws in the city and in the county. They pass laws. They should obey the laws of our country, and we should not be establishing any sanctuaries of any kind anywhere in our country. I think it's important that we understand that it's not a discussion about anything but criminals. We do not want to protect criminals.
Please do not allow these people to go unapprehended. We all have a crisis at our border. It's getting worse. Yes, we've had some ups and downs in illegal immigration, but we're on an up cycle right now. The victims of crimes are forgotten victims because you can't find and hold people accountable. You have no recourse. It's hard to even insure yourself against those things in your property and things. And certainly when you have a loved one or a family member or a friend that's been injured, hurt, or even killed,
all you do is watch them and they disappear because if they ever get out on bail they just disappear i think the most tragedy of all is when we talk about passing sanctuary laws that what are we teaching our children laws are not important you know laws don't apply here when you pass a sanctuary law but we want you to obey the laws of our country we want you to obey law enforcement officials. We're teaching when we have sanctuary laws, we're teaching children
that laws don't matter and it's not important. And they're going to grow up not obeying the laws of their country at the federal, state, local level. And they're going to have no respect for law enforcement. Look at our problems we have today. Sanctuary cities should never exist and and they should be severely punished if they do anything to protect criminals. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Let me
give you a few facts that I had pulled up, some of the facts.
And by the way, we had
a committee meeting last fall where it was determined that Arkansas spends about a little over $2 million a year on incarceration of illegal immigrants in the state of Arkansas. But here are the facts as far as undocumented immigrants are concerned. They represent, first of all, only 3.5% of the total population, yet account for 7% of the federal prison system. For sexual abuse, 9% for murders, 12% for assaults, 30% of kidnapping.
By the way, these numbers come from the accounting of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. There's a New York congressman that said it best. And by the way, colleagues, you know as well as I do, we come down here every two years and we make laws. We don't make suggestions. We make laws. And if we're not going to enforce the laws that we make, and if we're not going to enforce the federal laws that are on the books, why don't we just do away with those laws?
Because like he said, what are we teaching our children? New York Congressman Dan Dornovan, I think, said it well when he said, our government's greatest responsibility is to protect the American people and sanctuary policies prevent us from fulfilling that duty. We're a nation of laws, and we're also a state of laws. Without those laws, we have anarchy, and cities and politicians cannot pick and choose which rules to follow. There's no question that sanctuary policies undermine the government's effort
to fulfill its primary responsibility, and that is ensuring public safety by encouraging immigration to states and cities with such policies and allowing criminal unauthorized immigrants to
evade federal custody. This is a good bill. And by the way, I did find an interesting statistic.
The first sanctuary city in the United States was Los Angeles. Guess where the first gang members started the group MS-13?
los angeles after that it was san francisco established herself as a sanctuary city since that time their their murder rate has went up 250 percent uh 55 percent their sexual abuse cases went up 350 percent those are facts those are not just statistics that we're pulling out of the air so uh with that being said uh i'm closed for the bill and we would be glad to answer any questions. Questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none. We do have some people signed
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
17:16
up to speak for and against the bill. First, speaking against the bill, Maria Raeth. Just introduce yourself and you're
Mireya Reith
Unverified
17:31
recognized. And Mr. Vice Chair, with your permission, I'd like to invite Director Adcock, also from the city of Little Rock to join me at this time.
We want to deeply appreciate Director Adcock, who is in a wheelchair and was actually supposed to be at physical therapy today, but due to the importance of this discussion, has agreed to join us this morning. So for the record, my name is Mireya Reith. I'm the founding executive director of Arkansas United and I am from Northwest Arkansas Fayetteville but I run seven immigrant resource centers across the state of Arkansas in every region of the state and we are here to speak out against SB 411. First and foremost I do want to recognize and it was something
that we weren't expecting coming into today but one that we think is merits highlighting, but you essentially have two city directors and all individuals signed up from the City of Little Rock to speak this morning. As many of you may be aware, the City of Little Rock had a resolution and Director Hines made note of that, one that was pulled down and actually never debated. And I do think that that is probably the best format by which the level of interest here that has been expressed in the city. The City of Little Rock stood ready to come out
on both sides and have this conversation. Again that opportunity did not come to fruition because the bill itself was pulled and I think that this is not the appropriate format or setting in which that conversation should be decided. Now that said and I do want to lift up some fallacies and some elements here that I hope will be a benefit to the committee in considering whether whether to proceed and take this up. But again, with all due respect to this
committee, we do have a federal government that determines our immigration policies. And again, some of the things that are referenced in this bill and notes actually don't just encroach on local control, but also are encroaching on the federal government's responsibility here to handle immigration policies. On that note as well, I do want to lift up, and this point came up at the time when we were discussing this as a community here in Little Rock, but there is no city in Arkansas that at this time is trying to
establish sanctuary or has even brought up the topic of sanctuary. As was stated quite readily in the press at the time of this discussion, this is a solution looking for a problem and not a problem that currently exists in Arkansas. Instead, what concerns us as immigration activists is broad references in this bill to things like policies. So not just ordinances or orders but policies which are very vague at all levels of law and concern us that would very much
undermine important conversations that need to be had in our communities and are happening in every corner across the state. We've been privileged as members of the immigrant community to be asked to participate in forums with law enforcement where we can lift up concerns and try and find pathways forward that really focus on the identification of criminals as Senator Stubblefield referenced and find ways to keep all of our communities safe. Unfortunately by impeding these conversations or putting them under broad blankets like policies
instead you impede the possibility of building community trust and relations one that we know is sorely need from all levels of public safety because just as As you, Senator Stubblefield, have talked about your statistics, we also will reference that over 95% of our immigrant community does not feel comfortable reporting crimes. And those are individuals that are well positioned to be able to identify who are the gang members, who are the individuals that are really committing crimes, the abusers of domestic violence. And we need to be able to establish trust.
But trust and trust policies are not sanctuary, and we're afraid that a lot of things are being confused in these conversations in ways that only hurt. And I do want to expose that just as much as it's been lifted up that the need for this bill is tied to the fact that the city of Little Rock could face consequences from the federal government. I want to currently report that we have been approached by national attorneys that are looking to bring a lawsuit against the city of Little Rock for actually ICE falsifying warrants in the Little Rock Police
Department. The Little Rock Police Department, where maybe not directly entailed, did have a responsibility of oversight of that process. And again, these are conversations that we can't have if a policy like this, if a bill like this moves forward. And again, we are not talking about sanctuary. Nobody is talking about doing anything to undermine federal laws here. Instead, our commitment to those federal laws, we also engage regularly with our congressmen so we can fix this broken system that we all agree is there. But in the interim, we
have to come up with local solutions. We have to have the ability to have conversations about local policies that work. And this language here is broad. It's exposing Arkansas to lawsuits. It's exposing our cities to lawsuits. And we're concerned that in the interim as well, you're encouraging things like racial profiling and building wedges within our communities. Because there are direct references in this bill about impeding asking people about their status, but I would ask to which criteria are you asking about people's status? And if we're only asking people because
of their accents or because of their heritage about their status, then indeed we are putting ourselves in a position of being a state that says we're endorsing racial profiling. And then finally just to say once, and my final comment here as I pass it over to Director Adcock, several of the comments that were made just now really insinuate that somebody's status has anything to do with their likelihood of committing a crime. There is absolutely no connection between somebody's status in this country or circumstances and the likelihood that they are going to be somebody that
is presenting any sort of threat to our communities. And actually, on the contrary, every single study we've seen here in Arkansas, including the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, showed that for every dollar we've invested in our immigrants, they're returning $8 to our state, and the economic benefit is greater. Let Congress debate immigration. Let the city of Little Rock have their day and debate what's best for their city, but we ask that this committee not entertain this bill at this time. Thank you. Director Adcock, if you
Speaker 40
24:18
would introduce yourself. Thank you. My name
Joan Adcock
Unverified
24:21
is Joan Adcock. I'm a Little Rock city director. I have been a director
I'm on my 28th year, so I have enjoyed serving the city of Little Rock and the people of Little Rock, and I've enjoyed having you visit our city, and we always want to make everyone welcome in Little Rock. I do apologize for my chair this morning. I hope it's temporary, but I want to come and tell you to please do not pass this bill. The resolution that was presented to the city board, there's 10 members on the city board,
and I do not believe it even got a second. It was presented twice, and we have not debated it because this is not a problem in Little Rock. We have a police chief, we have a city attorney, and we have a mayor that are very aware of the federal laws. And Little Rock depends upon the federal dollars as we depend upon your state dollars, And we certainly are not going to do anything that's going to put those in harm's way. So I would ask you, like you've heard, this is a solution, but there's no problem.
Please let Little Rock take care of this if there is a problem. But please do not pass this today. Thank you. Thank
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
25:37
you. Questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Next, speaking for the bill, Mr. Dennis Bosch. Come to the table and please introduce yourself. Thank you.
Dennis Bosch
Unverified
26:01
My name is Dennis Bosch, and I'm a resident of Garland County and a former election commissioner. And I am for this bill. I believe that there's been a lot of conversation from the young lady who preceded me about conversations. and I don't believe that this bill will in any way impede any of the organizations in the cities or counties if this were passed. And may I say that what is a criminal, I think that's a point that was made, is when you cross the boundaries of this country from Mexico,
which is barely where most of our people are coming from, you commit a violation of our immigration laws. That's a crime. It may be considered a misdemeanor, and if you use false documents, which my compadre alluded to in terms of his rental clients, I would say that that's also a crime. So the fact that people come here and disregard our immigration laws is, in fact, a crime,
both in terms of falsifying their identity and also in the fact that they are taking advantage of our hospitality. So I contend that while this has not happened, I have read in the papers that there are several communities that have discussed this. And I can't attest to the city of Little Rock, but I believe some of the cities in the Northwest, which are where a lot of these folks reside, that in fact this has been discussed. And one more last thing before I turn it over, and that is I am also an officer of a small corporation that has in the past employed contractors.
And the last time that we had a contractor, I happened to be there when he paid off some of his employees. And I was amazed to discover how many of these employees were paid in cash. And so I asked one of them, who spoke only Spanish, why he was paid in cash. And he told me because he was not a green card holder. I contend that that is a problem in our country community today, that we have far too many people who are coming across our borders. And while it's true that it's the federal government's responsibility to pass immigration laws,
I think small committees are probably not going to be sued, whereas Little Rock might. And that's all I have to say, and I appreciate
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
28:16
your time. And thank you. Thank you. Questions from the committee? Seeing none. Next, to speak
Rosa Velasquez
Unverified
28:27
against the bill, Rosa Velasquez. Introduce yourself, and you're recognized. Hi, good morning. My name
Speaker 66
28:31
is Rosa Velasquez. I am the advocacy director for Arkansas United. As you heard earlier, we are a non-profit that operates seven regional immigrant resource centers across the state of Arkansas. We have 800 active members, including immigrants and native-born Kansans who believe in immigrant integration.
Today, I'm speaking against SB 411. In SB 411, sanctuary is also defined as law enforcement policy. This statement is problematic. It is very vague and we fear could be manipulated to discourage the successful bridge building that we have been a part of. between municipal agencies like mayor's offices, local and state law enforcement agencies, and the immigrant community. The city of Little Rock just last month removed from its agenda the same proposal before its city directors and has flagged its own concerns for SB 411.
We are deeply concerned about the references in this bill to what could be inferred as racial profiling of immigrants, thus opening the door to assume that all immigrants do not have status, which is simply not true. This is incredibly concerning because it's opening the door to major racial profiling lawsuits against the state, as we have seen happen in other states already, and could be detrimental to the relationships being built. There has never been a claim that any of our police departments and sheriffs are not communicating with ICE. On the contrary, we are actually concerned that in some communities, ICE is being over-notified.
In fact, Arkansas United has documented cases where U.S. citizens have been detained with ice holds because local law enforcement contacted them based solely on their appearance. In other words, they were racially profiled, arrested, and detained for minor infractions such as no work in taillights, and again, these are opportunities asking for lawsuits against the state. As such, we feel SB 411 poses a greater threat to public safety by discouraging community trust because we need all members of our community to trust law enforcement and local law enforcement needs to be able to look at its practices of interaction with immigrants to build just that.
We feel that even considering of proposals like SB 411 undermine ongoing efforts by local and state law enforcement, organizations that are working so hard to build trust and collaboration within our communities. In southwest Arkansas, D. Queen, to be more specific where I am from, the local sheriff, Sheriff Gentry, Chief of Police, Simmons, and Jail Administrator, Mr. Wolcott, all held a public forum where they invited the Latinx and immigrant community to come and express concerns, provide ideas on collaboration, and intentional bridge building within our communities and local law enforcement.
During the meeting, tons of concerns were brought up and addressed by both the community leaders and local law enforcement. After the meeting, there was so much progress made, and we were incredibly grateful to the local sheriff and police department of V-Queen because they not only clarified their policies in place, but they also upheld them. And their word of serving and protecting the community is what we were looking for. We are proud of Arkansas' strong history on local control on so many policy matters so that every community can establish practices and work best for them.
But this bill undermines finding those best practices as related to immigrants in Arkansas. Arkansas United has been an important stakeholder when it comes to bridging gaps between local, state, and federal conversations and trying to resolve the same anti-immigrant and unnecessary efforts like SB 411. This bill is already beginning to cause fear and confusion in our community. And as a community-based organization, we are seeing this fear and confusion escalate on a daily basis. We are constantly receiving phone calls, texts, and emails wanting to clarify what this bill means and where they need to go from here. Causing widespread panic
when it comes to the safety of our community is once again detrimental to our collective communication efforts between the community and local law enforcement. Finally, instead of having policies that divide, create gaps, and unnecessary fear in our communities, we respectfully ask you to be strong and courageous and create policies that build collaboration and trust in our our communities. Arkansas is better than this. We need to continue to be a welcoming and equitable state for everyone. I respectfully request that this committee vote note for SB 411. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
32:30
committee? Seeing none, thank you. Next, to speak for the bill,
Kenny Wallace
Unverified
32:54
Mr. Kenny Wallace. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the committee for inviting us to speak today. My name is Kenny Wallace. I'm basically a local activist here in the state.
I have a YouTube account called Keep Arkansas Legal where I've dealt with this issue among many others for several years. I first want to mention that I passed out a letter from Donald Trump's office regarding the issue of sanctuary cities. I believe that letter is available to all the senators. And it basically states some of the problems regarding sanctuary policies and how they are a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Sanctuary policies, for those who don't know, and to clarify again, is that an act where an illegal alien is arrested for a crime, they are detained. And instead of being turned over to immigration to be deported, they are instead released to cause more harm to the public. And we actually have seen instances such as the Kate Stanley case and others where innocent people have been harmed and killed because of this very policy. It is regarding the issue, and I'm going to go over several aspects of the issue.
Regarding the issue of this being a federal issue, the federal government has dropped the ball on this. They were supposed to have secured the border during the 8680s in amnesty, and obviously they did not do that. We have what's known as the deep state in Washington, D.C., and they have not built the wall. They have not secured the border. We're still trading with what's essentially a narco state of Mexico, which is where the politicians are bought off by the cartels. And that's how my opinion, that's actually during the trial of El Chapo, who said he has bought off president, the president of Mexico.
They've spread the crack, heroin, and fentanyl epidemics. We don't need more of that here than we already have. The federal government has failed in regards to the Internal Revenue Service. They recently paid nearly $46 million to one address in Atlanta, and it turns out that was, of course, going to illegal aliens. So we hear that one of the excuses for illegal immigration supporting is that they pay taxes. Well, in fact, they receive refunds, and oftentimes with fraud. Illegal immigration, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, focused more on Arkansas.
and as of 2010, K-12 education, our money was invested in $129 million. Now, I use the term loosely invested because I know that's an excuse to support in-state tuition for illegal aliens, but in fact, our money was not invested. Arkansas did not invest money into undocumented or DACA or illegal aliens. our money was taken by educators and illegally basically funding the schools that are now in
fiscal distress. We can't afford this. We can't afford illegal immigration now, and we certainly don't need to with sanctuary cities. And yeah, I want to kind of focus this a little more on some more local issues that have recently happened. On YouTube, there's a famous video of Luis Cobos Senobillo, 29, who was pulled over in Tawny Town in Washington County and nearly killed a deputy by pulling out his gun and shooting at him. He drives off and eventually is later on captured.
In the documentary Meth Storm USA, at the beginning of that, which I urge everybody to watch, it shows a little red hatchback being chased by police and crashing. And later on in that documentary, it shows that that person is also an illegal alien smuggling meth. I believe in Clinton, Arkansas. It's an HBO documentary called Meth Storm USA. I urge everybody to watch that. And to make this even more personal for me, within my own house, this is a story by KETV that came out and
mention of arrest February 8th, 2018. At the address of 2100 Osage Drive, as I mentioned there, They had four different meth busts that have occurred over the course of several years at this address. This address is less than a mile from my house. It's within walking distance of Indian Hills Elementary School. It's almost right near the playground. The story said that there was another neighbor who said he had to stop people from stopping at his house
who thought it was a drug house. And then I remember the story when they started talking about Little Rock and all this community and involvement and communication, the Troy's nightclub was raided by ICE in, I believe, July of last year, for 12 illegals were detained there for selling liquor to minors. And I don't know what other charges were pending from that story because I just kind of glanced
by it. I do remember the Arkansas United Community Coalition when they made a statement about and they were more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of those that have been detained. And so this idea that somehow we have to have these sanctuary policies or allow the possibility of sanctuary policies so that we can have communication with a community. Well, I'm sorry, but if that's the price for your communication with your community, then that price is just too high. We can't afford this. We can't have another Kate Steinle, we can't have another Molly Tibbetts, not in this state.
We can't have another Sabine Durdin, and also I do want to clarify one other thing. There is a difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. The Winthrop Rockefeller study is a fraud in that it doesn't bother to do that. Unlike Federation for Immigration Reform and Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies, a lot of these studies that indicate that they deliberately mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens, okay? My mom is an immigrant. Sabine Durden, whose son was killed by an illegal alien from Guatemala and currently resides in Arkansas,
is an immigrant. Illegal aliens, those who overstayed their visas or just crossed the border or who were given DACA status and haven't even bothered to apply for citizenship as some that testified for the in-state tuition for illegals bill, those are illegal aliens. There's a difference between the two. And we the people are tired of it. We were tired of this notion of having open borders and chaos during the time of our independence. In the Declaration of Independence, it mentions the Indians that one of the things the British were doing in addition to taking away our guns and overtaxing us is they were leaving the borders open
and allowing chaos mainly by Native Americans to attack the colonists. And that's why it's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that Savage's statement there. So we don't want this. There's no nation that does this. I mean, to simply allow just rank crime to just go unfettered over and over again. It's not American, it's not even civilized. And again, there's no nation where you can sneak into the country, commit multiple crimes,
and then not be deported, and then be released to commit more crimes. And so I urge the support for SB 411. Pass this out of committee, get it to the Senate, and let's get something done to at least do some part in dealing with illegal immigration. I will entertain any questions BESSA CAN ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
40:27
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL, NORA VINEAS.
Nora Vineas
Unverified
40:44
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY NAME IS NORA VINEAS AND I AM an advocate with Arkansas United and I would like to speak against. There is no city in Arkansas that has attempted or plans to attempt to become a sanctuary. In 2017 when SB 411 was originally introduced, it did not advance out of committee. Even without becoming a law, these proposals are creating confusion and panic and fear amongst our immigrant community. As a result, the
consideration of these proposals pose the following risk. They undermine ongoing efforts by local law enforcement and government in Arkansas to build bridges and and destroy trust that for so long the police has tried to foster with the community. The federal government cannot place conditions on grants to state to states and localities unless the conditions are unambiguously stated in the law. The federal government cannot commandeer state and local officials to help them enforce
federal law. For example, the government forcing the police to hold immigrants for ICE agents. The only federal law on this issue is Title 8 United States Code Section 1373, which states that cities and counties cannot prohibit communication with the federal government regarding a person's citizenship or immigration status. There is no requirement that cities or counties actually take specific actions as related to immigration enforcement. There is no definition of sanctuary city in federal law.
It is a political term, not a legal one. As such, there exists a risk that a variety of policies could fall under the umbrella of what some may want to call a sanctuary, even though a city, county, or state may not declare themselves a sanctuary city. For these reasons, there is always inherent confusion around laws that attempt to legislate sanctuary cities. I would also like to emphasize that research repeatedly shows that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than native-born U.S. citizens.
And as a citizen myself, who had undocumented status, I would like to say that I am no way, shape, or form, consider myself an alien because I'm not from space. I came from a country in South
America, and I'm human, just like everybody else in this room. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
43:12
the committee? Seeing none. Thank you. Next, to speak against the bill, Wayne—oh, sorry, for the bill, Wayne Beach.
Lori Evans
Unverified
43:21
Yes, Senator Clark. How many more? We have Mr. Beach
Speaker 85
43:37
and then Lori Evans and that's it. Thank you. Pardon me? Yeah, sorry, if you'd introduce yourself, you're
Speaker 86
43:42
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, I'm speaking for the bill. I have a couple things here that I want to talk about. If
Speaker 80
43:50
you could just introduce yourself, tell us who you are first and then you're-
Speaker 86
43:54
I'm sorry, I'm William Beach. I'm a citizen here in Arkansas, I've been here a citizen all my
Speaker 88
44:15
life. What I have is that there's nine states that have at least 40% of overall immigrant population estimated to be here illegally. Arkansas is ranked first, with 45% of its immigrants being undocumented.
The Constitution, I understood, I heard here that they must issue a warrant for this. It says, Constitution and federal statutes allow for ICE to detain illegal aliens for local police to do so at ICE's request, relying on ICE's determination of probable cause. Detainers themselves establish probable cause of an alien's removability, and it would be absurd to require ICE to obtain a judicial warrant every time it detained an illegal
alien. Indeed, Congress authorized immigration officers, rather than federal judges, to issue administrative warrants to arrest aliens based on probable cause to believe they are in violation of the immigration laws. One of the things I want to point out to understand that we We had some problems with the Medicaid expansion thing, funding it. You may want to consider this, because if you don't stop these, you're encouraging
Eli Agans to come here to this state. And I understand we had about 30 to 40,000 people that came here just right when we started that Medicaid expansion. They're taking advantage of it, and then they leave. They go somewhere else. DHS was supposed to have software to track that and prevent that. Apparently, that software still hasn't launched in the last year. The other thing I'd like to say is communities shouldn't be involved in
supporting illegal activities. In fact, there were 15 drug dealers recently convicted in northwest Arkansas. The kingpins of that bust were mainly from Mexico. Illegals do not contribute any tax revenue so we use our social services. That's one of the other things I want to bring out. Sanctuary cities only encourage disobedience of our immigration laws. Says we should not undermine President Trump's efforts to address illegal immigration crisis that we have in this country now.
And we do have a crisis in this country. We are the majority here as Republicans, says we have a set of principles and platform to follow, let's follow them. And this particular bill, I understand passed, last time it was brought through, is that correct? It's not this one? Okay, there's another one similar to it. Says I just, and I think that because we really need
We need to look at the way President Trump is trying, his efforts trying to stem the illegal immigration in this country. We need to support everything we can, including preventing sanctuary cities from being established here in the state. And that's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. Questions
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
47:32
from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you. Last to speak against the bill, Lori Evans. Introduce yourself and you're recognized.
Speaker 91
47:43
My name is Lori Evans. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today, Mr. Chairman, and to the senators. I represent Indivisible, Little Rock, and Central Arkansas. We are a grassroots activist group here in Central Arkansas. We have about 600 members here in the Central Arkansas area
Speaker 92
48:08
and communities in the area. And I'd like to speak out against SB 411 this morning.
One thing that, excuse me, my notes have gotten, as I've been taking notes, as folks have been speaking, I've kind of mixed them up a little bit. But one thing that I would like to say is that I'd like to counter some of the statements that I've been hearing this morning. For example, the statement where we were putting the blame on the immigrants themselves and criminalizing them. We do have a broken immigration system, as I think many of us have recognized here today,
and there are multiple actors involved with our broken system, not just immigrants. So So we'd like to acknowledge that this is the system that we need to be addressing and not just targeting immigrants as the fault here, as the problem. One thing I'd also like to mention is that many of our members were very interested
and wanted to raise their voice when the opportunity came up when a resolution in Little Rock was initiated about is this a conversation we wanted to have in the Little Rock area about sanctuary policy. They would like to continue to have the opportunity to have a say here locally and do not want to have their voice silenced by the state interfering or inserting itself in a local decision
in terms of the sanctuary city policies. One thing I'd also like to, this criminalization of immigrants is frightening to me personally and to many of our friends here in the community and our neighbors. So some of the language that we're using I think is something we want to think about, um, and what impacts that that has on, on our
communities and the safety of our communities. So for example, um, let's acknowledge that we, I have littered, um, uh, not intentionally, but, um, I've, I do any of us speed, um, do any of us exceed the speed limit? We are criminals then. Does that make us more likely to commit, um, violent acts, because we have, most of us in this room, broken the law. I submit to you that crossing a border is not the same as a violent act against another human being.
Studies do show that communities which do have a high number of immigrants are actually often safer, if for no other reason, and I am actually putting my interpretation here, but, I mean, you don't want to be in contact with local authorities. I mean, if you're, so, I would argue that we do need to look at some of the other studies that are out there and not spread
fallacies about whether immigrants are actually more likely to commit acts of violence that have been described here. And by spreading those myths, we are making our communities more dangerous because people are more willing to profile not just people who may be undocumented, but people who are here documented and who have brown skin. And to me, it harks back to an era civil rights era where, for example, a white woman could say something against a man with black skin
and because there is a culture of fear that we have been instilled in our public conversations where we, quote, expect more animalistic behavior or violent behavior from a black man, then that culture of fear allows us to act against a group of people who, in fact, do not actually deserve to be acted against in such a way.
So I just caution us to watch our language where we are describing immigrants as criminals. If we all ourselves have committed small acts of crime, that doesn't make us criminals in the way that we're speaking of today. So, to thank you very much for listening, I guess I would again urge the committee to please allow us to consider this a local issue
and allow our Little Rock residents or our communities to tailor community policing and community solutions to our own areas. And no one in Arkansas is currently seeking a sanctuary policy, so please say no on SB 411. Thank you. Questions from
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
53:53
Senator Stubblefield? Yes, ma'am. Would you agree
that the United States
has a legal process under federal law
that when you come to this country to become a citizen, you have to
go through that process? Would you agree with that? Absolutely. And if you circumvent that process in any way, have you broken the law? Yes. That's
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
54:17
all I have, Mr. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you. That's all we have signed up to speak on the bill. Senator Stubblefield, would you like to close for your bill?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. First of all, let me just say a couple of things.
Address the profiling issue. In this bill, when they talk about profiling, on line 6 of page 2, or line 11, it says
explicitly it prevents law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship or immigration status. Then you go up to line six. It also talks about requiring United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain a warrant and demonstrate more than probable cause. I think that's pretty obvious.
There's not a person on this committee or in this building that is against legal immigration. I would say that every person here is for legal immigration. But this is not talking about legal immigration. This is talking about illegal immigration. And as far as the AG's
office having a problem, it was brought up. Let me address this point. It was brought up that there might be some conflict with federal law. I ran this through the AG's office.
They found no conflict with any federal law. One of the reasons why states are having to pass laws like this, including Virginia, just last week the state of Virginia passed a sanctuary city law is because the federal government is failing to enforce federal laws. And when they fail to enforce federal laws, states still have the right to protect their own citizens. And like I said, this is not about somebody who comes here
legally. We have a process to do that. The only spanking I ever got, if you want to call it a spanking in high school was because I jumped the line going to the lunchroom. The teacher whipped me. And you know what the teacher told me? She said, by doing that, you made it look like you were better than the people that were in front of you. And people wait years and years and years to become a citizen of this country, not by coming
in illegal. bill. So with that being said, I will add one more thing. The city of Little Rock spent
$180,000 last year handing out IDs to illegal immigrants. So keep that in mind. This is a good bill. It protects the citizens of the state of Arkansas. It's not against people who have come here illegally. And I would close with that and ask for a good vote and motion do pass okay we have a motion
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
57:13
a second from senator flipo all in favor say aye opposed the ayes have it you've passed your bill
This is Senate Bill 679. That would be correct.
Senator Keith Ingram
Unverified
58:05
Are you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill has been vetted by the Friday firm that does so much bond work for the state.
What, and I think the league is comfortable with it, the municipal league is, this is another avenue of being able to, for governmental capital improvement revenue bond acts. And if you've ever, Siemens had a program, to give you an idea of what we're doing here, Siemens had a program that they would come in and, let's just say, there's a hospital, a government building, or a private entity, and they would make your building more energy efficient, and the savings would pay off the loan to do it, and they would finance it
anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and it's been very successful across the state. What this bill attempts to do is to encourage participation and knock down the barriers that legislative proposals have been put in place for the Guaranteed Energy Cost Savings Act. It defines it, and this proposal is the one remaining code cleanup measure with respect to energy efficiency project and qualified provider still outstanding in the state. The industry would be operating
under a single framework if enacted. This legislation was created in 2014, the Arkansas energy performance contracting program and this would greatly enhance our program and I'll take any questions questions from the committee seeing none we don't have anybody signed
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
59:42
up to speak on this bill would you like to close for your bill I'm closed and I'd make a motion do pass we have a motion a second
All those in favor, say aye. Congratulations.
You passed your bill. All right. Senator
Ingram, we have Senate Bill 645?
Speaker 118
1:00:19
455? It's a conference and a Senate amendment. Okay.
Senator Ingram, could you hold up for just a minute? I appreciate it. Senator Garner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:00:49
I'm doing a unique thing, I think. I'm presenting a bill that any committee is already on the floor, but I think it's important after discussion with members and some of the information out there to explain this bill in a little bit more detail
and then probably do a corrective course of action at the end of it. So if you can, pull Senate Bill 660 up, and I'll kind of explain the thing. Tell me when
you're all ready. All right. You're recognized to explain Senate Bill
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:01:13
660. So there was an issue that the hospitality industry had when it came to the alcohol beverage part of it. We're trying to adjust that through the rules process, and frankly, it just came too convoluted, and I understood their concerns and took that out. Let me explain really what this bill does. And this is important for us to understand what's going on.
When we passed the enhanced carry, it passed through both houses and it became the law of the land. And in that, I think it was very blatantly clear that publicly owned buildings, unless they had a specific exemption, would be included in that. And it said it throughout the thing. The discussion we had on the floor, the discussion we had on committee, that was an understood part of that. I don't think it was why the bill itself was controversial. I don't think the language of what a government-owned building should have been. But since then, the cities have put out a memorandum and talked about when you can actually have a concealed carry.
And even though we passed that state law, they said that concealed carry in public buildings is presumed allowed unless specifically prohibited by municipal action. And what they said is pursuant to another part of the code, dealing with private entities or persons who have control of an area, they could actually prohibit people from carrying in these publicly owned buildings, despite the fact that we argued for weeks and months about that specific part of it. Despite the fact that everybody understood, whether you voted yes or no on that bill, that that's what a public building was.
But through this O2AG opinions that 2003 and 2013, they're saying they're an entity that can control that public building and prohibit concealed carry. Now, the reason why the individual entity was put in the first place is because we obviously didn't want private businesses or people to prohibit it from stopping people from coming in their home. If I want nobody to come with a weapon inside my personal house, I should not allow that. If I have a business, I should not allow that. And that's why they put it in there.
But the cities are saying that despite what the law has said, we're considered an entity and we can prohibit people from doing that, which I don't think was the intent of the law. I think they're usurping it. So what I tried to do was clarify in the new language what that meant. And if you go through the code, you will see that it simply defines what a publicly owned building is. It means a structure enclosed that is owned, operated, administrated by the government. Blah, blah, blah. If you go down to the bottom part, we made a very obvious statement.
The government isn't a private entity, which they aren't, and it defines that, that a private entity is separate from what the enhanced carry is doing, and that's why the prohibited done. Now, we did some other things in this, which I can explain in more detail, but that is the intent behind this change in that part of this code, is to make sure we follow what the intent of the original law is that is being stopped. This isn't a theory either. I had multiple people, concealed carry instructors, people who spent the time to get an enhanced
carry, trying to carry in a local government building and being denied to do that. When they aren't criminals, they aren't bad people, they're just trying to exercise that right just like we do every single day in the capital. We have a control system to allow people to concealed carry in the Capitol that we have metal detectors. It's happened every single day here and it's been zero problems. So this is just basically clarifying what should have been an obvious part of the law. Now that I've gotten that out, this was a simple change. We came into committee. I did a
quick discussion because I understood members were gone. I understood vote counts. That's the reality of it. I didn't want to put this committee through a long, arduous process whenever I feel like without certain members here, because of legitimate reasons, it probably didn't have the votes to pass. So that's why I did a truncated fashion when I first presented it. Then I went to talk to the members individually about what the bill did, and did the sign-out process like we typically do at the end of every session. But since that time, it's come to my attention that there's been some more controversy, like we're trying to usurp the process, go around it. That's not the intent.
So what I'm going to do today on the floor, as a courtesy to the members in here, who I respect greatly, is take this back to this committee to do an interim study. I shouldn't have to. We're just trying to define what a public building is, which should be obvious. We're just trying to allow people who have this enhanced carry to carry where they can. But since the controversy around this has gotten to that point, and I don't want to put the members through a bad vote, I'm asking them to do that. So I was asked to come explain that in more detail, and that's why I did it.
So if you have any questions, I'll be
more than happy to answer them. Senator Henrin, if you
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
1:06:09
have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Garner, I appreciate the explanation, and I appreciate the willingness to take a look at this and see if we can get it right because I think it is the right course of action. As you said, the confusion comes when we agree I was very involved in the enhanced carry legislation, and what you're stating about the intent for public buildings is accurate. It was intended to include those unless they were exempted. But I also know that when you put language in here, sometimes there's disagreements on how broad that's interpreted, and that's what we're facing right now.
So I think we want to make sure we get it right where we get the ones that we want to get, but we don't get Verizon Arena or some of the ones that we don't want to get. So I appreciate your willingness to do that. And I guess the only thing, I don't have a question, it's more of a statement to the cities and the counties, is this is really kind of a response not too much different from the bill that we just passed when there's sometimes a willingness to find ways around legislative intent brings about some of these issues.
So I hope that the cities will take note of this because it will be being looked at over the next couple years about how we address this definition on what public buildings are because I do think that we've seen over and over again that when the cities intentionally try to avoid legislative intent, they get a worse result. So I hope they'll take a close look at that. And, again, I thank you for sending this to
where we can look at it. Senator Garner, you do not have to bring this bill back to committee. I
think you could take it to the Senate floor, have it withdrawn,
and then send to interim study from there. Yes,
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:07:45
whatever the procedural measure is, I'll talk to our staff attorney and get that worked out. I just want to make sure if that was a process, I said that publicly.
So I would respect the committees who did give me the courtesy of signing it out after we had discussion, which I really appreciate it.
Speaker 115
1:08:01
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Gardner. He has a concurrence. Does he want to do that? You have a concur? Yes, a bit
Speaker 127
1:08:11
more of it. Thank you. Concurrent amendment on gun-free zones, 465.
Speaker 13
1:08:15
Senate Bill 465. 455. Excuse me. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 139
1:08:19
Thank you. Tell me when you're ready, Mr.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:08:32
Chairman. You're recognized. Thank you. So this is a bill we passed out that allowed these catastrophic leave pools to be collected. I know yesterday we discussed the Crump Law and the deep impact that had on us. This is another avenue for cities to kind of basically pull through a legislative measure resources.
So if there is a sick individual and they may need additional time, this allows the city's more flexibility to actually set up the procedural way to have other firefighters or people give their leave to that person. Example I used in the committee is that my mom was a teacher who had cancer, and other teachers gave her their leave time or days off, six days. But once we got to the House in, we realized that there may be already, these plans may already exist, and we want to make sure that if they already exist, they would have a provision to go around that and allow those to continue.
So that's what this amendment does. Any questions from committee members? We need a motion to do pass and concur in House Amendment. Okay, we have a motion and a second in discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Thank
Speaker 145
1:09:46
you. Mr. Conner. Senator Ingram. That was it? Yeah. Okay.
All right. Any other legis... Oh, Senator Johnson,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:10:01
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm bringing along to you today Senate Bill 671. This is a simple bill. I hope it's non-controversial. After the decennial census, different entities reapportion legislative districts.
We, the General Assembly, hopefully, will reapportion the congressional districts. The governor, secretary of state, and the attorney general will reapportion the legislative districts that we will all run in. And the county board of election commissioners will reapportion the quorum court districts. This adds one to that. It adds wards in a city.
And at this point, for example, you know, here in Little Rock, the city directors draw their own ward boundaries. What this would do is allow the Board of Election Commissioners to do that rather than someone getting to draw their own boundaries as nobody else gets to do. It's a fair process, and I think it's time that we include that. We've had some cases where people get to kind of gerrymander their own awards, and this would stop that process.
It would basically make it where a third party, in this case the Election Commission, would do that. Now, certainly input from local officials is encouraged, just like I think all of us are going to have our input in a couple years of where we want our districts to be, and that's okay, but the final decision should be with a third party, and that's what the
bill does. Okay, you heard an explanation. Any questions from members? No one signed up to speak?
Mark? I want to speak against it, yes, sir. You
Speaker 149
1:12:07
do want to speak against? Come to the table and identify yourself. You're recognizing me. I'm Mark
Speaker 151
1:12:12
Hayes with the Arkansas Municipal League. This bill is brand new. It was just filed in the last couple of days. I believe, and it is a substantial shift in law and in costs, shifting a great deal of work and time and money
to counties that currently cities are set up to do. This is a longstanding policy for cities to create their own wards. There's a variety of federal law through the Voter Rights act about methods in which people can address those ward boundaries directly with their local government, be that local government either the city or the county. This is a broad and massively sweeping change in the law and in the way things have been
done in this state and in the majority of other states, if not all the other states in the United States. I would strongly encourage Senator Johnson, if he's willing to, to pull this down. Let us study it some and see if there's a method to address some of his concerns. But a flat-out change in the law like this would be highly disruptive. It would throw, I think, I can't speak for county government, but I can't imagine that they're really set up to do this very well.
We do this strategically and very well and have for dozens of years. So with that, the league is opposed to the bill as it is currently written. Yes, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:13:48
and all due respect to my friend, Mr. Hayes, he just kind of made my point for me is they've been doing it for a long time, and I think it's time to change
that. It's not that they haven't in many cases done a good job, and I'm sure that any decisions made by any entity that draws boundaries of districts can be critical if y'all want to look at a great example take a look at the shape of my district and you'll understand exactly why that doesn't always make a lot of sense however it is a an arm's length third party organization that's making the decision it's not and pardon the expression it's not an incestuous relationship
with the individuals that are drawing their own boundaries. Certainly, I don't claim that I've got the last word on it, but I think this puts us in a proper position to allow the Election Commission to do the job
they already do for the counties. All right. Any other discussion,
my members? Any questions? No one else in the audience to speak for you? All right.
Are you signed up? No, sir, I did not. I'm sorry. We have a rule. You need to sign up before you can. Sorry. All right. The chair would entertain a motion. Senator
Speaker 155
1:15:27
Johnson, we don't have a motion. I don't believe we do, Senator.
We have a motion. Sorry. We do have a motion to do pass.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:15:33
Senator Clark, we have a second. Sorry, Senator Johnson. Lack of a second. Your bill failed. Thank you, committee. Mr. Chairman, I think we may avail ourselves of the option to do what Senator Garner did on his bill. We look at putting this in interim study, and that will give Mr. Hayes and the municipal league time to weigh in on it, and perhaps we can come up with something that everyone can agree with. Okay. Thank you.
Does anyone else have a bill to run? Okay, Representative Mayberry. She has an
amendment. You do have an amendment? I do. House Bill 1385, correct? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 162
1:16:43
I don't have enough votes now. Will you all
be meeting again at any point? If it's up
again. Ever. I'll tell you, we'll see what bills come out, and Karen will let us know by the end of the day, probably. There's a concurrence
Speaker 118
1:17:10
that's going to be coming back next week.
So, yeah, we probably will be meeting next Tuesday. Okay,
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:17:26
I'll try it again. Just for Senator Ingram. You're recognized to explain the amendment. Sure. Basically, we had some concern, and I understand why we would have concern, because the language is there, that it's kind of vague. We were trying to use as much of the AG opinion as possible. And so we took out on this basically where it says that the definition of a schoolhouse means a school.
It includes that, but it stops at, or a structure at which children gather on a regular schedule for educational purposes, including without limitation. And we took that part out because there was concern that it could be interpreted in different ways. So now we've got it narrowed down to the schoolhouse, meaning a facility owned and operated by a public or private school or an open enrollment charter school and a public or private daycare facility licensed by the state of Arkansas. Currently, there is no definition for schoolhouse. We're trying to give it a definition.
Attorney General's opinion from quite a few years ago gave it this definition. I'm trying to just add it into our law so that it's very clear. All right. That's really an explanation of the amendment
and the bill. So, basically, any questions from the committee? Is there anyone in the audience that
would like to speak for or against the bill? Chair, we're going to entertain a motion. We have a motion to do pass. We have to adopt the amendment. Sorry, we do have to adopt the amendment.
We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Second, all those in discussion? All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Amendment's been adopted. You closed for your bill? Sure. Any discussion? Have a motion to pass? In a second, all those in favor say aye. You've got
to look up a little bit. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 169
1:19:21
All opposed? Nay. Your bill passes. Roll call. Roll call. Senator Flowers, Senator Flowers, Senator Clark. Aye. Senator Ingram, Senator Hendren, Senator Hendren, Senator Flippo, Senator Flippo.
Senator Rice? Aye. Senator Letting? Senator Letting? Sorry, Representative
Mayberry, your bill fails. Okay. Thank you. One
Speaker 105
1:20:25
Letting, you take the chair. It's 1817. This
is House Bill 1817? Yes. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. House Bill 1817 is an act to amend the law regarding native wine incentive grants. It amends the maximum amount of incentive grants awarded to an eligible winery, to amend the law regarding the Arkansas Agriculture Marketing Grant Fund,
and to amend the law regarding the Arkansas Wine Grant Fund. This bill fixes a bill that was passed. Some of you remember it in the last session. It was passed in the last session, and it was Senate Bill 284. There was an Arkansas Wine Grant Fund that had been in effect since 1985, and DF&A had interpreted that there is no funding source for that, and now with the wine permit fees coming in. And so this language now satisfies DF&A as far as that is concerned.
And it also hopefully satisfies the wineries in my district and corrects that problem. That's basically all it
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:21:38
does. Senator Rice. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Ingram. Oh. We don't
have anybody signed up to speak on the bill.
So we've got a motion and a second from Senator Ingram. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, the bill passes.
Committee members, we're done, but we will meet Tuesday because we have a concurrence coming out, so we're adjourned.
Agenda
Call To Order
SB411 G. Stubblefield TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES.
HB1817 Capp TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NATIVE WINE INCENTIVE GRANTS; TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF NATIVE WINE INCENTIVE GRANT FUNDS AWARDED; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL MARKETING GRANTS FUND.
HB1875 A. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
SB671 M. Johnson TO REQUIRE APPORTIONMENT OF WARDS BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF WARDS IN MUNICIPALITIES.
SB679 K. Ingram TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND ACT OF 1985.
HB1385 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED BY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD.
SB660 Garner TO MODERNIZE THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING FRAMEWORK; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN.
Adjourned
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 4, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 8
Speaker 10
Representative Marsh Davis
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 24
Speaker 26
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Lance Hines
Unverified
Speaker 47
Mireya Reith
Unverified
Speaker 40
Joan Adcock
Unverified
Dennis Bosch
Unverified
Rosa Velasquez
Unverified
Speaker 66
Kenny Wallace
Unverified
Nora Vineas
Unverified
Lori Evans
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 86
Speaker 80
Speaker 88
Speaker 91
Speaker 92
Senator Keith Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 118
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 127
Speaker 13
Speaker 139
Speaker 145
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 151
Speaker 155
Speaker 162
Speaker 163
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 175
Speaker 105