City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB411
Act 1076
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…S OF OFFICE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. SB411 G. TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES. Stubblefield D…”
|
TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES. | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB411 is now Act 1076 |
|
HB1025
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1025 Rye TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF VOTING CENTER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF VOTING CENTERS IN A CITY OF THE … | Rye | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CHAIR RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1614 Hawks TO CREATE A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR MUNICIPAL FIREFIGHTERS…”
|
TO CREATE A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR MUNICIPAL FIREFIGHTERS. | Hawks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1735
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…on CONCERNING NOMINATING PETITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. HB1735 A. Collins TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND; TO AMEND THE DI…”
|
TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND; TO AMEND THE DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES IN THE MUNICIPAL … | A. Collins | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1766
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ACCOUNT IN DISTRIBUTING REVENUES IN THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND. HB1766 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYST…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS. | A. Collins | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1926
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ollins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS. HB1926 Richey TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO AFFIX A SECURITY CAMERA T…”
|
TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO AFFIX A SECURITY CAMERA TO A UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN … | Richey | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB179
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB179 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. | M. Johnson | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB180
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB180 M. Johnson CONCERNING NOMINATING PETITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL EL…”
|
CONCERNING NOMINATING PETITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. | M. Johnson | [No text provided] |
|
SB481
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (REVISED 4/8/19 @2:55PM) ADDED SB 481 House Committee on City, County, and Local Affairs Monday,…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RETAIL WATER PROVIDERS AND RELATED SERVICE. | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
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
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
0:00
Bill 411, a bill to prohibit municipal sanctuary policies within the state of Arkansas. By way of background, the first sanctuary city was Los Angeles, California, when the police chief enacted Special Order No. 40 on November 27, 1979. Not by coincidence, I suspect Mara Salvatrucha, you might better recognize them as MS-13 originated in Los Angeles. Later in San Francisco, California, followed with a City of
Refuge resolution in 1985 and then a City of Refuge ordinance in 1989. This ordinance ordered all city employees to stop immigration policing. Following those two cities, we now have approximately 49 cities and 115 counties and eight states in the United States of America with some sort of sanctuary policy. And to me, somewhat amazingly, all New Mexico County jails and the entire Rhode
Island Department of Corrections system are considered sanctuary entities. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, as I said, are considered sanctuary entities. In presenting Senate Bill 411, I seek to address what I believe are the three overarching issues related to sanctuary policies. Number one, simply put, sanctuary policies have the direct effect
of preventing our local and state police officers, even those here protecting us at the state capitol from doing their jobs. When sanctuary policies are in place, police officers cannot investigate, question, or arrest someone who has broken federal immigration laws. If you look at the list of cities and counties with sanctuary policies in place, these are the same cities and counties with some of the worst crime rates, major crimes to that point, in the United States.
Second, sadly, sanctuary policies and communities where they are in place harbor criminals and the direct result of this creation of a dangerous and documented environment for U.S. citizens. Most likely, though you may not remember her name right away, all of us have heard of Kate Steinle. She was murdered by a five-time deported, seven-felony convicted, undocumented immigrant.
In fact, according to public documents, during a single eight-month stretch in 2014 of 8,145 undocumented immigrants released from detention, 63 percent or over 5,100 of them had previous criminal convictions and close to 4,000 of these were for crimes such as assault sexual abuse weapons drug distribution and even rape and
sexual assault this is a single this all in a single eight-month period over and over 5,100 of them have been known convictions upon their release. Third, sanctuary policies defy federal laws, which our city, county, and state governmental bodies are bound to comply with. And let us be clear on this point, by interfering and not assisting or not reporting to the federal
government federal law is being violated all right when each of us began our service as a legislator and each time we have been re-elected or were elected to other positions we gave the following oath of office in my case i brant smith do solemnly swear or affirm that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of arkansas and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Arkansas State Representative upon which
I am now about to enter. SB 411 is designed to ensure that I, each of us, do what we have solemnly sworn to do. At the core of this, the situation is really black and white. Your vote in support of SB 411 will ensure that every man and woman on the line protecting us here in Arkansas today are allowed to do their job in a manner consistent with the oath they solemnly swore. The oath you
and I solemnly swore to. Your vote in support of SB 411 will ensure you are consistent to your solemn sworn word and so the title uh of this bill is simply an act to prohibit municipal sanctuary policies and for other purposes and with that my uh my the senate sponsor has come in i'd like to ask for your permission mr chairman to have him join me at the table please do
and while he's coming it's a short bill it's not that long about two pages and so I'm going to ask if the senator would like to make any other comments by way of introduction before we take questions okay senator would you identify yourself
Chair
Unverified
6:13
for the record please thank you mr thank you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
6:17
mr chairman and thank you committee i appreciate you calling this meeting and allowing us to hear this
bill at the 11th hour because it is a very important bill and let me say something before i go any further there seems to be a sentiment that because of this bill somehow we hate people from other countries. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We're all immigrants. When you go back far enough, we're all immigrants. And we want people to come to this country. We need those people to come to this country. But we also have a process by which people
come here legally under our laws. And without those laws, we don't have a country. We have anarchy. So, and that process is really very simple. It's not as complex as a lot of people think. You, if you have some education, you have a skill, you pay $723 for an application, you can become a United States citizen in five years or even less. If you marry a United States citizen, you can become a citizen in
three years or less and people are standing in line thousands and thousands of people are going through that process right now legally to become citizens of this country while at the same time we have hundreds of thousands that are coming in and the first act of coming into this country is to break our laws but this goes much deeper than that I don't know mr. chairman how much long how much you want me to talk, but I will talk as long as you like. All right. When those people
come into this country illegally, sometimes we forget that there's a lot of other ramifications involved as far as the amount of drugs that are brought in. Just this last year, in the year 2018, border agents seized 282,000 pounds of cocaine. Now, this is last year in the last 12 months. They seized 2,400 pounds of fentanyl. That is enough fentanyl to kill every citizen in the United States of America,
all 325 million of us in that one bust. They also seized 248,000 pounds of methamphetamines, 6,500 pounds of heroin. That's a total of 1.7 million pounds of drugs. And let me tell you something, committee. those drugs don't just go to Chicago and New York and Baltimore and Los Angeles and San Diego. They also come to Little Rock and Hot Springs and Pine Bluff and West Helena and Fort Smith.
They go all over our state. And the cost of those drugs, it's hard to put a dollar amount on it Because the millions and millions of dollars that we spend in the state on health care and rehab on treating those whose lives have been impacted by these drugs as a result of not securing our borders. It amazes me about how many more of our citizens have to suffer needlessly.
I mean, what is the magic number of victims it will take before we become proactive in dealing with this issue. I grew up on a farm all my life, and I grew up in the 50s and 60s. We had a disease called brucellosis back in the 50s and 60s. Some of you who farm are familiar with that. It was a disease, though, that you could vaccinate for, and it would prevent it. A lot of farmers, some did, a lot didn't. And those that didn't, most of those, once one cow was detected as having that disease,
that entire herd was quarantined and destroyed, putting many farmers out of business. You have to be proactive. And the thing about it is, I heard this the other day in testimony in the Senate, that this is a solution looking for a problem. Let me tell you something. When you talk to the families that I have talked with the last three or four weeks and the ones who have lost loved ones and the ones who have been injured, had children and family members who have been injured by and all by illegal immigrants, just in the last couple of weeks, a young 13-year-old girl was ran over in Alabama on her way to school riding her bicycle by an illegal immigrant.
That's not a solution looking for a problem. Or the young girl in Alabama, the 12-year-old girl that was raped by an illegal immigrant who had been deported twice, that's not a solution looking for a problem. So this is not a solution looking for a problem. This is to ward off what is happening all over our country. Every state surrounding Arkansas has already passed this law. We already know that California is handing out millions of IDs to illegal immigrants.
The only difference here is they're allowing those immigrants to vote with those IDs. Do you think that's not coming here at some point in the future? You think that's not going to be allowed here at some point in the future
with those IDs? that, I will close, and I'll be glad to take any questions. Representative
Speaker 13
12:13
Galvey, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
12:17
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Representative, for bringing
this bill to us. I think it's an important bill. I am, though, interested in discussing Section C-1, which is line 13 through 34 on page 2 if you can if you can get to that because I am concerned over the Attorney General they become the fact finder when you
read that whole thing all the way down through 34 line 34 it appears that we're We're going to be requiring the Attorney General to issue an opinion, which is basically a fact-finding as to whether or not a municipality has policies in violation of this section. And so, if you could, could you speak to me? Because that does concern me. I understand, I think, what you're trying to do is create a mechanism for there to be
either a hearing or an appeal or something like that. But anytime I've ever asked for an attorney general's opinion, the first words are, we are not finders of fact. And this appears that that's what we're requiring them to do. So could you speak to that? Is that what you're doing here?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
13:40
Yes, I could. And the first thing I think we need to understand is this is not granting authority to law enforcement. And by the way, in order for this to work, and even Congress recognizes this now, because we've had 30 years of promises from the federal government, both parties.
There's no question that our immigration system is broken, and they have failed to fix it. And now they have finally recognized that states are going to have to step up with local law enforcement in order to help them to fix this problem because it's gotten so out of hand. But these cases you're referring to, We're talking about individuals who have broken the law as far as some of our laws. We're not talking about someone who's pulled over for speeding because this does not profile anyone.
If you're pulled over for speeding, this bill prohibits a law officer from profiling that individual because they look a certain way. If you'll look on line 11, on the second page, it said it prevents law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship or immigration status. But if an individual is arrested on drug offenses or some other more serious offense or crime,
certainly, then they have to use probable cause, but they still are given the right to inquire about their citizenship. That should be reasonable.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
15:17
Follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm not disputing that, Senator. The
part that is concerning to me, and maybe it's just because of my legal background, but the part that's concerning to me is, you know, once there's a complaint made about a violation of a municipality,
then it says the Attorney General shall issue an opinion stating whether the municipality is in violation of this section. And all that before it, I understand. I'm not disagreeing at all. It's just from there on, it appears to me, and that's what I'm really concerned about, is are we now making the Attorney General a fact finder, which is in violation of what they can do under our Constitution? And I don't want, you know, and that's really the heart of my question,
is does the Attorney General become a fact finder? And if the Attorney General becomes a fact finder, maybe there's a better mechanism for complaints to be
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:19
heard, is my question. I understand what you're saying. And this does permit the Attorney General's office to
look into this and to see if there's a municipality that has done something that makes them ineligible to receive discretionary state funds. Actually, this wording came from a North Carolina law,
which they use in some of the other laws that have been enacted by states surrounding us. And if we can make this better later on, I would be more than willing to change some of the language. I know I've spoken to the governor concerning some language involving probable cause, and I told him that I would be glad to change that. Other than that, he
said he had no issue with it. Thank you. I'm always willing to change a bill to make it better. Thank you, and I appreciate that. We may
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
17:06
need to kind of tweak that at some point in the future, but I appreciate that, Senator.
Chair
Unverified
17:11
Thank you. Representative Whitaker, you're recognized for a question?
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
17:16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. gentlemen and whoever wants to answer it or if you both want to take a crack at it do you have a list of cities in Arkansas that have enacted such ordinances? I'll
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
17:35
start out and then I'll defer to my colleague what we know right now in the state of Arkansas is there are
uh uh Things happening within the state, specifically in Little Rock, that it's not, there's not been an ordinance or a city ordinance put in place, But funding and some measures have been enacted basically kind of off the record to not go after some of these illegals that are in our state.
And so I don't know if the councilman is here, but one of the councilmen came and spoke during the Senate hearing. And he talked about the problem specifically that Little Rock is
Speaker 34
18:38
experiencing right now. Follow-up? Yes, follow-up.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
18:41
Your proposed bill talks a lot about passing ordinances or resolutions or whatever, about finding cities in noncompliance through the official acts of their governing body.
and yet you're talking about there's rumors that somebody might be doing it on the side. So how would this stop them if they don't
Speaker 35
19:01
actually reduce it to an ordinance? First of all, that's not a rumor.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
19:06
Representative Whitaker, Little Rock passed out 600, I think they're up to 1,100 now, IDs to illegal immigrants at a cost of $180,000. That's already taken place. So that's not a rumor. And when you think about it, cities and municipalities tend to follow other cities and municipalities' lead,
just like we pass laws and we say, well, Missouri's already passed it, Tennessee's passed it, you know. Cities tend to do the same thing. And before long, you have other cities adopting the same policies as Little Rock, who have already passed out 1,100 IDs to illegal immigrants at a cost of $180,000 to the taxpayers of the state. so that's that's not that's a
Speaker 18
19:49
fact it's not an assumption follow-up so your
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
19:56
answer is not one single city or town has adopted any such ordinance in this state and that's what you said right
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:05
well let me give you an example thank no one in Los Angeles no one in California knew what
a sanctuary city was until five years after Los Angeles had already adopted sanctuary city policies, and that was the first city in the United States where MS-13 started, originated. But nobody knew that Los Angeles was a sanctuary city.
They had already put in place the things that are starting to happen here. This is a proactive bill, it really is, and you're right, I don't know of any cities that have come out openly and adopted sanctuary policies, and like I said, you know, I didn't know any of my cows might have had brucellosis either until I took one and they pulled blood and determined it was positive and I had to sell the whole herd. So this is trying to ward off
something before it happens, Representative Whittaker. I hope
Chair
Unverified
21:01
that answers your question. Okay. Representative Love,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to Representative Smith and Senator Subblefield. I just want to ask, begin by asking, now would you not consider this a local rule issue? Ordinances that we pass, aren't
these local rule issues? It really is a local issue
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:27
because it's local to each city and county, their local governments.
They will be in charge and they will be the ones to determine what path or what direction they want to go in as far as this ordinance. But this sets out some guidelines to tell them that we can't do this under state law.
Okay, but shouldn't it be left up to a city if they want to enact whatever policy that they would have? I mean, if you went back to your home city, which is branch, and you wanted to enact a rule in which Little Rock did not, we didn't want to enact in here, shouldn't
your citizenry have the right to enact whatever laws that they would have or deem necessary? As long as that
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:08
law they enacted did not cost put a monetary
cost on the citizens of the rest of the state? I would say yes. But this is costing all of us. We're all paying for this, whether it be through drug rehab. We're always looking for Medicaid dollars to take care of the people we have. We don't even have enough money
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
22:28
to take care of our own citizens. We have people in this state that are hungry.
Senator, does Medicaid go to someone who is undocumented? well how would you know that but that answer let
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:43
me ask you a question when you go to a emergency room do they turn
Chair
Unverified
22:54
go to the emergency room question you need to be asking
the questions senator sorry sorry mr chairman so so what I'm saying my first point was this is a local this is a local rule issue number
one but number two is is that the what
you just stated, Senator, is just not a fact. If you are undocumented, you cannot receive Medicaid services. And then the, the, the last, last but not least, you stated something in regards to, uh, illegal immigration and, uh, and equating them with rape or, or some sort of criminal piece. And I just
not, I just find that not of, I guess, decorum because any person could rape anybody. It doesn't have to make an illegal person could do that, but any citizen could do
that to someone else. And so I
just don't find that equating a criminal history with someone who is undocumented, that's not, to me, that's not the decorum that I would say our state officials should take. I mean, crime is crime regardless of who it comes from. And so to equate that with an undocumented person is just not right. Can I respond to that? And I would yield.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
24:19
Yes, please respond. Thank you, Representative Love. And I agree with you. Just because someone has committed a horrendous crime, even if they're, does not mean all illegals are like that. But the fact of the matter is that we have women parents in this state who have lost children and other parents who have children or loved ones who have been disabled or harmed or injured, not because of someone, but because of someone who was here illegally.
Had that person not been here illegally, those people would still have their children. Okay. Representative
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
25:05
Hawks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and uh first of all for the record i'm not for sanctuary cities but i have a number of questions about this bill because i think it's trying to handle a very complex issue in a simple two-page manner but my first question refers back to a statement that you made on line 11 of page two
you said that this uh bill prevents people from uh basically stereotyping or trying to figure out But really that line 11 allows the officers to do that is the way that I take that. Now, I may be reading that wrong, but they're saying that the municipality cannot ban a person from asking about their citizenship or immigration status. Am I reading that wrong, or will they be allowed to do that?
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
25:55
Well, we vetted this through Representative Hoffman. We've vetted this through the AG's office,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
26:01
and that line says prevents law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship or immigration status. And like I said before, when you're talking about certain heinous crimes that have been committed, then this is not—they're going to be asked. But when it's a minor violation of the law, such as a traffic stop, this says very explicitly that it prevents law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship.
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
26:41
Do you recognize for a follow-up? okay because i read on uh page one starting on line 26 it says as used in this section sanctuary policy means an order ordinance or law enforcement policy whether formally enacted or informally adopted by customer practice that then you have your colon there and it limits all the way down to six that it prevents law enforcement officers from asking a person about
his or her citizenship so that in your bill would be a sanctuary policy and i understand it may have been bedded by the ag but i'm just saying what it really appears that your bill
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:30
says thank you well okay would you agree well i would agree that a sanctuary policy under those lines uh is an ordinance and it says limits or prohibits a municipal official or person employed by the municipality from communicating or cooperating with federal
agencies. That is the definition of what a sanctuary city is when a city sets up a policy that prevents its law enforcement or officials from cooperating with the federal government as far as a detainer
Chair
Unverified
28:02
is concerned. That's what that language is.
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
28:06
Okay, Representative Hodges, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this kind of alludes to what Representative Love spoke about. But you mentioned about the criminal activities by illegals.
So do you have any data, any stats, or any information showing the, you know, any statistical data showing how many people have been raped or murdered by an illegal as opposed to a citizen? because we have to have something to go by in order to make our decision as to is this necessary or not. So, you know, is there any data that you can provide that show that this is a problem?
There is data, and I wish you – if you would give me
just a second, I would try to pull it up. I believe we should be proactive. I believe in being proactive and all that, but are we being proactive? We have to be being proactive for a reason, and data helps us form our decision. Exactly. I'll
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
29:24
just give you some statistics that are true for here in Arkansas.
There are 79,000 illegal immigrants living in Arkansas. They have illegal alien households add 23,000 students to our local schools. That average cost to our Kansas is $4,300 per illegal immigrant that's here in our schools. It cost our education system $253 million. dollars uh police and legal and correction institutions and by the way uh we know this
because i checked with the department of corrections we're spending over two million dollars a year incarcerating uh individuals who have broken our laws in our state prisons but there's a total cost of 53.2 million for police legal and corrections plus uh health care, public assistance, and general government services expenses, $397 million. So when you start adding up numbers like that, and we're sitting
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
30:30
in here getting ready to do an RSA.
I'll follow up. I'm just kind of ignorant to, you know, if they're undocumented, illegal, how
do we keep up with somebody who's not documented? How do how do you keep up with these with these numbers if they're not documented or if they're illegal? I'm just kind of confused. How do you keep up? You threw out some numbers and and you know first of all you know we mentioned that you know they can't
get public assistance because they're not legal. So how are we keeping up with the data you just gave me if these individuals aren't accounted for, if they're not documented? Well, some of these who are
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:30
committing these crimes are documented if they find out they're illegals. Those are being documented. But there's a large number that are not. There's no way we could know the entire totality of how many there are because we don't know.
Nobody even knows really how many there
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
31:51
are in the United States. Our federal government has put out, you know, numbers anywhere from 12
to 25 million. But I want to talk about Arkansas. I agree. And why
we are, you know, why do we feel this is necessary or see this as being a problem for the state of
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
32:13
Arkansas? So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to add a comment here for my colleague, Representative Hodges. If you'll take some time, maybe this evening when you've got some time, check out the Center for Immigration Studies.
And basically in that study where these social science researchers collect and analyze data, you'll see not only maps but also a complete list of what they present as facts based on their collection, engagement, questions, interviews,
views and so it's all right there and one of the maps that they have on their their site there's three different colors mentioned red yellow and green and each one of those stands for something that may be a sanctuary status or more of a high crime and what we do know is from some of our families in the state of Arkansas who have lost children or loved ones
by having, and they had to be an illegal immigrant in the state to be known as an angel mom or an angel parent, if they weren't here, the chances are that their child would still be in their home. And even in my own family, in Garland County, my daughter-in-law was hit by a truck full of illegal immigrants.
And before the police could get there because her vehicle was disabled, they fled the scene, and there was no reporting, nothing. And so we had, I eventually had to go to Hot Springs and pick up the truck and bring it back to Jonesboro for repairs. And so, if they're not here, we don't have as broad a criminal activity. And so, I've spoken with several families over the last few weeks, myself, and primarily I've spoken to naturalized immigrants.
Some have just received their citizenship in the last week. And they talked about the processes that were in place, the 100 number, you know, of questionnaires on our government and how we operate as Americans. And they were worried about how can I ever learn the answers to 100 questions, you know, when I go in and meet with the immigration official. And then one of them told me that they actually were only asked two questions.
out of 100, and they passed. And so talking about people from El Salvador, I'm talking about a Chinese lady in Searcy that she was studying her book while she was bringing food to our table. And these are proud people that want to be here and do it the right way. But when we have illegals crossing at unprecedented rates, they're finding their way from our southern borders up into Arkansas and beyond, and it's just time that we say,
do it the right way or don't come here. Richard? Yes. Richard Chairman? Yes.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
36:00
We have another witness here from the city of Little Rock, city director. If it would be okay, could we ask him to come? Well, at this time, I've got several people in
Chair
Unverified
36:09
the queue that would like to ask some questions. Do you think this person... Well, he might be able to answer some of those. Okay.
Speaker 96
36:15
For that reason. All right. Go ahead. Have him come up.
Lance Hines
Unverified
36:23
Please identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mayor, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Lance Hines. I'm a city director for
Chair
Unverified
36:42
Ward 5 in Little Rock. Okay. do you have a
Lance Hines
Unverified
36:44
statement you'd like to make or sure sure i can make a quick statement and i'll promise to be
brief i know we're belaboring the issue uh part of the reason i'm here in support of the senate bill 411 is earlier this year i attempted to run a resolution that merely
uh recognized what the city of little rock is already doing to comply with federal immigration law based on our department of justice public safety grants and the ability to even be eligible to petition the government for other public safety grants from the department of justice going forward i was unable to garner enough votes to get that passed as all of you guys know you know what the majority is in your committees i know what the majority is on our city board and requires six votes requires eight to override a mayoral veto i was planning on going down with the perorial ship
I knew I didn't have the votes. I was going to run the legislation. My fellow board members thought it would be a black mark on the city of Little Rock to have a bill like that fail. At the same time, Senator Stubblefield contacted me and told me he was going to run this bill. So I withdrew my resolution at the city. And a resolution in municipal government simply recognizes what the city policy is. This is something we were already doing administratively through our police chief, through our city attorney and in compliance with federal law. My concern is if it's not
recognized as the policy of the city of Little Rock, that it can be changed administratively, much like our city ID program that was created. It was created, it was never, it was voted on by the board as a budget item. So to say that there is not an ordinance on the books is not correct. We do have a budget ordinance that created the city of Little Rock ID program. It was billed as a program to give ID to people such as the homeless and also to immigrants who weren't unable to get ID. We earmarked $180,000 in the 2018 budget. Not all of that was used.
We started the program in June of 2018, and by the end of 2018, we had created roughly 550 IDs. in the 2019 budget that leftover funding was rolled over and is currently funding the city id program that id program includes funding for a multicultural liaison that runs a part-time employee that runs the program for the city to date as of about a month and a half ago i think we had issued over 1100 ids and i don't know whether or not those were all to homeless to
illegal immigrants, but that's how many we've done. I had an issue with it. I think that's the state's purview to issue ID. If you're a foreign national in the country legally, you have a passport and a visa, you can go to the state of Arkansas and get an ID. The Mexican consulate, if you're a Mexican national, you can go to the Mexican consulate and get an ID. The consulates for Honduras, Guatemala, and I want to say Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, about every quarter
have consulates that come here, and they issue ID to their citizens that are living in the state of Arkansas to say that we couldn't do this. So, you know, I think the issue, and even our mayor, Frank Scott, said that this was just a solution looking for a problem. I really think it's preemptive prevention. You know, I would be the first one normally down here objecting to preemption by the state.
That's why I wanted to run my resolution so we could come down here when Senator Stubblefield ran his bill and I could say we don't really need it. We're handling it at the local level. But we've been unwilling to even have the discussion at the local level. you know the you'll hear some comments and we heard them in the senate testimony that there's panic in the immigrant community most of the groups you're going to hear from raise money and get money to help the immigrant community they're the ones that are the direct
conduit on what our policies are at the state level and i think they've caused some of the panic within the immigrant community. My resolution didn't do anything but state what our policy was as a city and they were scared that we were going to be transparent and tell everybody what we were actually doing as a city because I'm tired as a legislator from Little Rock hearing all you folks from around the state assume that Little Rock is a sanctuary city and we're not but with the absence of this preemption I'm afraid that that we're already headed down that road. Thank you. Thank
Chair
Unverified
41:29
you. Representative Brown, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Karilyn Brown
Unverified
41:34
you, Mr. Chair. I'm concerned here that we're getting off into the weeds of the problems that are created by the influx of illegal immigration and not addressing this bill, which is simply a preemptive bill to say that we will not tolerate sanctuary cities in our state and it clearly states here what what is a sanctuary
policy and one of those is that it violates 8 usc 1373 well just a brief a little search says in general notwithstanding any other provision of federal state or local law a federal state or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of an individual.
And that's really what we're talking about here is if we have people who are incarcerated and it has been identified that they are not legal immigrants and to boot, they've broken the law, they've committed a crime, then we need to put in place that Arkansas, no municipality in this state, will allow or will prohibit the transferring of information back and forth with immigration and the naturalization service.
I mean, we have to have that. We have to be a rule of law. wouldn't you agree? Yes, ma'am. I mean, isn't that what this bill is about? I would agree. I mean, we can't do anything about what it costs. I mean, you've got to be sleeping under a log to not know what it costs. You have to be sleeping under a log to not know that sanctuary cities have more crime than other cities. And when you prohibit federal government from doing their job by your policies, then we are not being good citizens.
And I'm having a difficult time finding what would be onerous about this bill. okay representative brown uh representing richmond y'all try to keep it on
Chair
Unverified
44:00
the bill we have been drifting a little bit so i think that's thank you mr chair and this question is for anybody up
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
44:10
there let's go back to local control for just a minute that was discussed a while ago i know my experience in here local control each and every side uses it when it benefits them
I mean that's the bottom line in this particular case you see the same argument however the difference is in this particular case should a city be allowed on the basis of local control pass laws resolutions whatever that violates federal law I can't hear you no no
Chair
Unverified
44:50
thank you Okay. Representative Love, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'm glad that we're talking about should we pass
laws that are also legal because we've passed several of them in a form of abortion, which are a direct contradiction of the Constitution right now. So, I mean, that is, I mean, so that, but that's. Point of order, Mr. Chair. This has
Yes. Please keep the remarks on the bill.
Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I see that I'm looking through the bill, and there is references to the Attorney General. What I would like to ask the sponsor is, is there a fiscal impact to the Attorney General's office? Not that I'm aware of. They have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
45:45
staff already being paid to do things like this. Okay. All
Chair
Unverified
45:51
right. Thank you. Okay. Representative Hawks, you're recognized.
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
45:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, looking at the bill
and ambiguity in the bill, It says here on line 33, page 1, that you are a sanctuary city if you grant to illegal immigrants the right to lawful presence. What does that even mean? Can somebody
explain allows illegal immigrants the right to lawful presence? Well, I would
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
46:27
refer back to what Representative Brown said.
I think we're still drifting off. But this bill is really very simple. It defines what a municipal sanctuary policy is in the first of the bill, and it also provides a penalty for the law in subsection. And the fact of the matter is that sanctuary cities defy federal laws, whether it be city, county, state government. They all have to comply with federal law.
Chair
Unverified
47:01
Okay, Representative Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
47:09
question and then probably a follow-up if you're okay with that. Yeah, that'll be fine. So there's been a lot of question about preemption and preemptive legislation, and so I just want to ask your opinion on this while I'm thinking about it. If we have no sanctuary cities today and no plans for them, what do you see as the concern with preemptive legislation?
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
47:31
I think well I think the reason this is important is because as we look not only within our state but nationally the trend is moving toward more sanctuary cities sanctuary states It's a slippery slope, and so what this bill is going to do is establish the parameters for our state
and the legal rationale for saying we will not do this in our state. It doesn't mean we're still not going to have an influx of illegals, but now we're on record as saying not in our state. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Could I ask Representative? Can you ask
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
48:23
him a question? It usually doesn't work
Speaker 126
48:26
that way here. Let me just walk around it another
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
48:31
way then. Okay, you can walk around it then.
If I was a pharmacist and it was flu season, when would I try to get somebody to take a flu shot? Before they got it or after they got it? If I was a pharmacist, I would certainly recommend that they get that flu shot way ahead of time before the flu season actually rolls in. Senator, would you talk into
Chair
Unverified
48:59
the mic? We're having a little trouble picking you up. Yes, thank you. Okay, I'm
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
49:03
sorry. I just said if I was a pharmacist and I had patients coming in to get their medicine
and it was getting close to flu season, I would recommend that my patients get a flu shot months ahead of the flu season. Follow-up. Thank you,
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
49:17
Mr. Chair. Just real quickly, there's been some discussion about the Attorney General of being a finder of fact, and I'm just curious, do either of you, Senator or Representative, request legal opinions from the Attorney General's in an official format? Thank you. Yes, occasionally I do. I do as well. Okay, Representative Hodges, you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
49:42
Okay. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
49:46
Chair. I just want to speak to what Representative Hawks was talking about, because I think he left a vital part of what he was saying out. It says that a person, it says, grants to illegal immigrants the right to lawful presence or status within a municipality in violation of federal law. It doesn't say they can't. It just says in presence of violation
of federal law. Do you agree? I
Chair
Unverified
50:25
think so. Sure. Yeah. okay seeing no other
questions from the committee oh this is my favorite time trying to pronounce some of these names we have nine people who are signed up to speak for or against the bill I would ask that you keep them your comments brief a lot of this has been covered already
but I do not want you to think that you didn't get to speak. So at this time, the first one who signed up against it, Maria, yes, would
Speaker 13
51:04
you please come forward? I apologize on your name. Please state your name
Chair
Unverified
51:12
for the record and if you represent anyone. Thank
Mireya Wright
Unverified
51:16
you. Good evening. I guess now it's officially evening.
to the committee chair, our vice chair, and appreciate the entire committee giving us the opportunity today to present some alternative perspectives and hopefully clarify some matters that were addressed. My name is Mireya Wright. I am from Fayetteville, Arkansas, and I'm sitting here as the founding executive director of Arkansas United, which is a non-profit that operates seven immigrant resource centers here across Arkansas. I also have the unique distinction of being the first Latina state official in Arkansas
having just finished seven years of public service myself and I know the time and commitment that you all put to this and so thank you all for your public service and that we know that this is an important part of our democratic process. I appreciate that you all are giving the attention to immigration that we also share. We firmly believe that we have a broken system And I want to sit here as somebody that works with
and advocates for the immigrant community to say that we are equally thirsty for a conversation on immigration. We would just respectfully say that this isn't the forum to do that. And our concerns today are largely about our local communities and our concerns for our mayors and what we're exposing right now our state and mayors to in regards to lawsuits, but also the potential economic development our state and impact and to give you all some context because this is part of a broader national conversation things that came out just today that are going
to have a direct impact in Arkansas if we pass this bill so first and foremost in regards to our mayors and municipalities I started this work working with our immigrant community and immigration back in 2010 and 11 when Arizona passed a bill SB 1070 that basically legalized the racial profiling of our immigrant community, and I will say that that was a hefty legislation that the state had to pursue for several years and lost, and every state that subsequently passed
similar lawsuits equally lost that place in legislation and had to pay quite significant fines to litigate it. Every time that the courts have had a chance to talk about who has the authority to enforce immigration policy, that remains with Congress, that remains with our federal government, and that is not our states. Meanwhile, here at the local level, we're not denying and actually want to reaffirm what's been stated here already. There is no city in Arkansas looking to put in place a sanctuary policy, and this conversation
has not been raised. Instead, our concern with this law is that it doesn't only just talk about ordinances, and it doesn't just talk about policies, but it actually talks about practice, which is broad and undefined. And I also wanna say that sanctuary itself is not defined anywhere in federal law. So you are talking about here interpretations on interpretations of what sanctuary means. And I want to point to the own testimony of the sponsors of this bill who have tried
to loop in the municipal ID program as something that is sanctuary, which by any definition of any city who has quote unquote a trust policy or policies that might be inferred here as sanctuary, they themselves would never consider a municipal ID program as something that would be sanctuary. And yet that has been a target of these conversations and one that is being asked, and we're asking in a very bureaucratic and heavy way for our sponsors to look into and to litigate and to put money into.
And this should be of concern to every municipality. I'm also here to share that I've received phone calls since the end of last week when this bill received momentum from national immigration legal funds who plan to sue municipalities the minute that they have infringed on the freedom of speech, due process, or Fourth Amendment rights of any immigrants affected by this law. Now, again, responsibility falls with the municipalities. You are asking our mayors and our municipalities to be open to lawsuits, and yet many mayors,
when we made calls today, were not even aware that this legislation was moving forward. Little Rock has debated this because this was at the city level, but the majority of our mayors across Arkansas have no idea that this conversation is being had. And because of the 11th hour nature of this, aren't given the opportunity today to opine, to be able to say whether they think the risk is worthwhile, especially given the fact that, once again, they are not hosting any sanctuary policies, nor talking about sanctuary policies in their communities.
And this is why the Municipal League has given out comments saying that they stand against this. Now, I do also want to lift up the economic development because that is something we all share here in Arkansas. We want to see Arkansas be its best. Well, right now, there is this bill also being debated in Florida and in Tennessee. And today, the state chamber in Florida issued a travel ban to any immigrant traveling to Florida purely because they are also debating this bill. Imagine here in Arkansas, if we got to the point where our biggest companies or the state chamber felt
that because of the risk of racial profiling that is put here, that nobody should be able to come to Arkansas. And I have to say, I'm part of efforts up in Northwest Arkansas that are looking at how we help Northwest Arkansas become more economic viable, and we have found already that right now, Arkansas is perceived as one of the worst places to be an entrepreneur precisely because we are still considered racist and unfriendly to diversity and passing a law like this would further affect that.
I do want to correct a couple things in immigration said here today. One, that there is this interpretation that there is somehow some line that immigrants get into. We have a broken system that has not been updated since the 1980s. There is not a line. There is three ways by which one can apply for a green card and and that is it. And once you do so, you are completely restricted by a lottery based on the country you are from. It can wait, the wait can be up to 25 to 30
years for some individuals from some countries to even have a chance of their application to be considered. There is not a line. There is a broken system, but I have to say that all of us in one way or another have found ourselves complicit in the system. All the conversation today puts the blame on immigrants and makes the immigrants see themselves as criminals, but we have companies, we have small employers. How many people use lawn services? How many of us have domestic servants where we are paying in cash and not asking about somebody's status? There are so many others that are involved and
complicit in this system, and it can't be just on our immigrants. To put it just on their back takes us back to the days of the civil rights fight in this state, where we are just using one unique factor by which to define someone's whole identity and somehow make them lesser than human. I do want to finally make an appeal because we are grateful for the opportunities that you all have given to those with DACA and that we are going to be celebrating here in Arkansas some important legislation that you all pass and we celebrate and appreciate it. If this law passed
any of those same DACA-mended individuals that you all just gave the opportunity to became nurses and give them that in-state tuition, they can be profiled based on this law. And I will tell you this, those that have DACA, even if we've forwarded them these new opportunities, if they feel that they are being profiled and unwelcomed in Arkansas, are not going to want to stay. And we have undone all that important work and progress that we have made to be able to make sure that the kids that we are educating get to stay here in this state.
At the end of the day, I know there's others wanting to speak, and I welcome questions. I just want to say one of the things that makes me most proud, and I have several. I was born on the 4th of July. My dad was a Marine. I'm the daughter of a naturalized citizen. And as I said, I was very humbled to be a public servant for seven years here in Arkansas. But one of the things that makes me most proud in Arkansas is that we can block out the noise from everywhere else in the nation and just focus on what needs to be done here locally.
And there is good work being done by good people. No one is talking about breaking federal laws, nor wants to, but laws like this, because, again, they are broad, they are vague, and they are not clear, only exposes us to lawsuits, only exposes us to continue stereotypes of Arkansas being racist, and only is going to hurt what really could be an opportunity for Arkansas to achieve a greater potential. Thank you. Okay. Is there any questions?
Chair
Unverified
1:00:20
Yes. Representative Bullitt, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:25
just want to thank you for being here today. I appreciate your testimony. But I did want to come back just a little bit. You had talked about this being the 11th hour. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the bill was filed February 26, 2019, and that has given it well over a month to be discussed.
Mireya Wright
Unverified
1:00:43
Yes, sir, and we've sat in committee every single day since it's been filed. And so where we were aware, we can appreciate, as I'm sure you do, the thousands of bills that were at the session.
And so mayors have been following things that they've been debated. And this was on the deferred agenda until the very end of last week. And so I'm not surprised that our mayors, where we may have been aware of it, mayors across Arkansas, were not up until now this
Chair
Unverified
1:01:11
has raised to the level of state attention. Excuse me. Representative
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:01:17
Deppenball, you're recognized? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know much about the immigration situation like I should,
but what I did want to zero in on one thing you said, and I don't know which state it was, but you said an undocumented immigrant can be picked up for a crime and they prove that they're an undocumented immigrant. They can sue the police force, the city, or the government. Is that right? Is that what you said?
Mireya Wright
Unverified
1:01:47
Yes, sir. Actually, that stands place even now in Arkansas. If somebody feels that they are stopped purely because of their race and or ethnicity or some other physical character,
then that is a violation of their civil rights. And that is to protect all of us. Because I do want to say where there have been references to other immigrant groups, every example that's been given here, including by Representative Smith, I would just kindly ask him how he knew that those individuals were undocumented in that van, except that maybe they were Hispanic. Somebody might run from police because they don't have insurance, or they're just afraid of police. If we are making assumptions without having asked, and again, because we don't have these things documented in places,
then it has to be because of somebody's characteristic. And the most prominent one is that they're Hispanic or
Chair
Unverified
1:02:35
that they have an accent. I've got to follow up. Excuse me.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:02:42
to follow up? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, one other question. Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights in the U.S.?
Mireya Wright
Unverified
1:02:49
Sir, we all have constitutional rights, and it's not about documented or undocumented. We all have human rights that are protected at the international level.
We are party to several international declarations that protect those rights here for everybody. And that's for even us. if we travel to other countries, we want a minimum of rights respected, and those are the same rights that are afforded to our people. But it's a slippery slope to say that somebody, because of their status or not, is protected by their rights. Again, if the defining characteristics by which that was revealed was because of their race or ethnicity or their accent. All right,
Chair
Unverified
1:03:28
thank you. Okay, Representative Hawkins, you're recognized.
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
1:03:30
Mr. Chair, per Rule 38Q, I'm going to request that
a physical impact statement be given to each member on the committee before we take a vote on this. Let me talk to staff here.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:04
Okay, we're going to continue with the debate, and we'll get clarification on it. Representative Whitaker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion. Okay, we have a
Speaker 13
1:04:17
motion. Yes, I move immediate consideration. I have a motion for immediate. Hold it just a second here. You can
Speaker 88
1:04:27
make a motion to win a debate during the public forum.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:34
That is an improper motion, staff tells me. I
think we can limit debate at this time, but we cannot.
Immediate consideration follows a main motion. We have not
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
1:05:19
had the main motion yet. Well,
Speaker 168
1:05:54
that's already occurred. Okay. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
1:05:59
a little clarification okay we can you can
Speaker 13
1:06:03
make that motion uh the end debate and for immediate consideration hold it hold it hold it
Chair
Unverified
1:06:29
All right, here's what we can do. You can make a motion to end debate, and we'll vote on that. If that passes, then we can do for immediate consideration. So moved. Okay, we have a motion here to end debate. It is non-debatable. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. now are you wanting to make another motion at this time i would i would move immediate
consideration we have a motion for
Speaker 172
1:07:07
immediate consideration non-debatable we do not have a do pass motion yet or
Chair
Unverified
1:07:20
a do not pass motion yet it needs a main motion before we
Speaker 13
1:07:27
can move to immediate consideration i'm being told i apologize
Speaker 13
1:07:37
i hope i'm doing this right i move do pass we have a motion do pass any discussion on that that is debatable.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:55
Motion. All right, I have a motion for immediate consideration. For immediate consideration. I have a motion for immediate consideration, non-debatable. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes
Speaker 13
1:08:05
have it. We are now voting on the motion. Do pass.
Any debate on that? Can't debate? We're not debating that, okay? All
Chair
Unverified
1:08:15
in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. No.
Speaker 182
1:08:33
The ayes have it. Roll call. How many? Roll call. Okay, we have a roll call. Ready? Okay. Representative Shepard. Representative Shepard. Representative Deffenbaugh.
Yes. Representative Fielding. No. Representative Holcomb? Yes. Representative Whitaker? No. Representative Hodges? No. Representative De La Rosa? Representative De La Rosa? Representative Boyd? Yes. Representative Speaks? Yes. Representative Brown? Yes. Representative Nix? No. No, just to be clear. Okay. Representative Richmond? Yes.
Representative Kavanaugh, Representative Rye, Representative Rye, Representative Dalby, Representative Dalby, Representative Johnson, Representative Johnson, Representative Hawks, Representative Hawks, Representative Cooper? Okay. Representative Love? Representative Fyte?
Speaker 188
1:10:37
mark Johnson state senator district 15 mr.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:10:41
chairman we have an amendment and I believe that representative love is going to offer the amendment it's
Speaker 190
1:11:00
a agreed to amendment okay
We have a motion to adopt. Any discussion on it? Okay.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:32
to speak for or against the bill?
amendment, excuse me. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. Your represent, excuse me, Senator Johnson, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:11:50
Mr. Chairman, committee. Senate Bill 179 came out of a conversation I had with some folks in Little Rock that mentioned that there were some people that wished that Little Rock would consider changing its form of government from the city manager form of government to the mayor council form of government and I explained to those people that the way our process works it's rather
convoluted there has to be a petition drive people submit petitions at that point election is called and if the voters vote to change the form of government basically the existing city government is dissolved and you have new people file for office and elect a new city council and a mayor and a city attorney and a city clerk i thought since we'd just gone through a long election season in in little rock and elected a new mayor and several new city board members
that it was rather redundant to do that and i set about crafting us what became senate bill 179 basically at its core what it does it just cuts out a couple of the steps one is if there's consensus in a city in the city manager form of government that the city board would like to refer to the voters the opportunity to change the form of government then they could do so by an ordinance there would be an election and if it passed then the existing mayor if he or she had
been elected within the last two years would continue as a mayor and that's under what's known in the law as the strong mayor system which Little Rock has so in taking the legal verbiage out of it what this would mean is that if the city of Little Rock the city board and Mayor Scott opted to refer such a measure to the people to vote then if they voted for it then we would not have to have a new election for a mayor and city council that the existing mayor and city board
members would become the mayor and council. The bill outlines a transition period to a total ward system and would allow that transition period to take place over the next four years. We're fortunate as it turns out in Little Rock that all of the three at-large city directors were elected last November to a four-year term so it would work very well for them. It could go seamlessly. After I had worked on this bill, I didn't hear from Mayor Scott, who seemed to like the idea.
He did have a few changes that he would like to see, and those were included in the amendment that Representative Love just offered and the committee adopted. So this is, at least from a Little Rock standpoint, is an agreed-to bill. It's a practical matter. It probably only applies to Little Rock. I'd like to come back in two years and maybe have something similar for other cities that are similarly situated. that are smaller cities but this is totally permissive it lays out a framework where if
the city board and the voters of little rock wanted to change to a mayor council form of government they could do it in a seamless manner without having to have a total wholesale upheaval of city hall our recently elected mayor mayor frank scott would continue our recently elected city board members would become city council members as they transition into that and then in 2020 and 2022 we'd have elections that would end up in the over the four-year period Little Rock would be functioning just like any other city using a mayor council form of government
and that's what the bill does I'll be happy to answer any questions okay
Chair
Unverified
1:15:43
represented love you're recognized okay seeing no
Speaker 13
1:15:48
discussion anyone in the audience we'd like to speak for or against this bill yes we have uh someone to speak for the bill Lance are you speaking for the bill thank you Mr. Chair okay please identify yourself for the
Lance Hines
Unverified
1:16:10
record this is Lance Hines again city director and Laura I think it's going to depend I don't know what the amendment was there were some issues I had with it because of some restrictions that it put on us but if it is turned into a totally permissive bill much like representative Davis's bill changing some things to city manager I don't think we'll have any objection to it but if there's any restrictions on how we can or can't do things I would be personally opposed to it but I think if we've changed that I haven't seen the amendment so I don't know okay Mr. Hines has
Chair
Unverified
1:16:41
spoken for and against the bill it depends okay if I may Mr. Chairman I'll clarify to my
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:16:48
friend Director Hines the language that I had written it originally the city or the county board of election commissioners would draw the ward boundaries for the uh the city mayor scott asked me if i would remove that from the bill i agreed to do that there's a couple of technical changes that the little rock city attorney's office provided to make it a smooth transition
and they provided those uh changes to the uh in that amendment and uh it and this has nothing to with what the bill that Representative Davis has that would address the continuance of the city manager form this bill would only come into play should the board decide to transition and to refer to the voters where they could by ballot box choose to change the form of government at that part it is
totally the entire bill is permissive but if the voters decided to do that the those changes that the amendment have would apply but again the entire package is totally permissive it can sit there on the shelf and if the mayor and the city board chooses not to to take this option it would not change the thing the only purpose of this was it seemed crazy to me we just had an election and if there's a desire in Little Rock to change the form of government we don't
have to go back and elect another mayor we have a mayor we just elected one we have a city board we just elected one we can let them be a city council and he can be a mayor in the mayor council without
Chair
Unverified
1:18:33
an extra uh special election okay um representative speaks
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
1:18:37
uh you had a question i would like for mr hayes to come to the table i want to hear for sure that it's not going to affect any of our other towns please
Chair
Unverified
1:18:51
identify yourself with the record if you would
Speaker 201
1:18:54
mark hayes with the municipal league um i have i have not i was sent two amendments which i think was a mistake so if i could see the amendment i think it's i think it's spot on i think it actually got rid of the ward issues and everything else but there were some oddities in the First Amendment draft, and I don't know. I guess
Speaker 202
1:19:22
they got cleared up. I just didn't get to see them.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:19:27
Emily Cox with the City of Little Rock advised us on the language of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 206
1:19:34
I think it took all the ward limitations out and all that stuff, right? Senator
Chair
Unverified
1:19:38
Johnson, while he's reviewing that, now you keep referring to Little Rock. Now, this could be used by
Speaker 13
1:19:44
anybody that has a city, I mean, has a city manager
Chair
Unverified
1:19:50
form of government, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. There's only what,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:19:53
I believe Mr. Hayes could tell you exactly. I think there are four in the...
Speaker 201
1:19:58
There are five city manager forms of government in the state, the capital city being one of them.
That would be applicable to all five city manager forms of government, but the senator is 100% right. It is totally permissive and what it would essentially do is say that 15% of the voters could petition to have a change of government on the ballot or the board by majority vote could do so. That's the first thing it does. And then the second thing it does is simply make sure that the current mayor and board of directors would stay in their office through the time that they were elected to while the transition to mayor council form goes away.
the issues that were originally raised were it dictated a number of wards and six i think and several other kinds of things like that but that's all gone based on that amendment so it really is just permissive
Chair
Unverified
1:20:58
for those five cities okay any other questions if
not um are you closed i'm closed, Mr. Chair. Okay. Anyone want to speak for or against this again? Seeing none.
Entertain a motion. Okay. Representative Speaks makes a motion. Any as amended?
As amended, yes, sir. Yes. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. okay uh your bill passes congratulations representative love has a referral that he would like to run very quickly here even though
Chair
Unverified
1:21:48
Okay, this is Senate Bill 481 that has been re-referred back to the
committee here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. This should be quick. I re-referred Senate Bill 481 back to committee because Senator Clark had one minor issue. When we adopted the amendment, it had some non-codified language in there,
which did not go into the legislative intent of the bill, which was line two of the non-codified amendment.
and they're red. Let me see if I have this one. Let me try to pull this amendment
up. It just removed it will remove lines
on page 8, it deleted lines 4 through 6 and this was in the non-codified section of the language I talked with Municipal League talked with Senator Clark, Senator Clark wanted to remove this, talked to Municipal League, so everybody is fine with the bill as is. So now it's a truly agreed upon bill. But Senator Clark wanted that piece removed. So other than that, I can call Municipal League up and they'll testify that
Speaker 211
1:23:36
they're fine with the bill. And I'll make a motion to amend, Mr. Chair. Okay, we're having a motion to amend.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
1:23:47
Mr. Chair? Yes. Just a point of clarification. Do we have the amendment? Yeah, it should be on
Chair
Unverified
1:23:56
your tablet there. Senate Bill 481. It's now there, thank goodness. Has it been codified yet? Mm-hmm. Has it
Speaker 156
1:24:03
been? Oh, no, it hasn't been engrossed yet. Yes. I mean, I mean, engrossed.
Speaker 175
1:24:07
I'm sorry. It's late. Okay. All right. You
Speaker 201
1:24:23
good? Okay. Are you good? Okay. All right. Yes, Mr. Hayes. Mark Hayes with the Municipal League. Yes, I was approached, probably just a point of clarification, after the original bill failed in committee last week, Representative Love contacted me and several others in a group that was concerned about the
original form of the bill. And the group, at Representative Love's request, provided an edited version the language that's being stricken today was not provided by the league but by others with some interest and so it's not a league bill but I think the two policy issues that it mainly does just like we talked about last time is just fine but I just want my board had asked me to make sure that everybody understood that it's not a league this is not a league bill doesn't mean that we
don't approve of it or like it just not something that came through our organization so with that point of clarification, I think the bill's just fine. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Representing Love,
Speaker 13
1:25:23
you made a motion to adopt. To amend. Excuse me. Yeah. A motion to adopt the amendment. Yes. Okay. Any discussion
Chair
Unverified
1:25:40
on that? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.
Congratulations. Now, Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to do pass as amended for Senate Bill 481. I have a motion to do pass as amended.
Speaker 13
1:25:55
Is there any discussion on that? Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, you're closed for the bill? I'm closed. And you have a motion. All in
Chair
Unverified
1:26:06
favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Thank you.
Agenda
TO OFFER TESTIMONY ON A BILL, PLEASE SIGN IN TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1614 Hawks TO CREATE A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR MUNICIPAL FIREFIGHTERS.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB179 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THEREORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
SB411 Stubblefield TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES
SB481
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1025 Rye TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF VOTING CENTERS IN ACITY OF THE SECOND CLASS.
SB180 M. Johnson CONCERNING NOMINATING PETITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
HB1735 A. Collins TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND; TO AMEND THE DISTRIBUTION OFREVENUES IN THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND; AND TO TAKE COMMUTER TRAFFIC INTO ACCOUNT IN DISTRIBUTINGREVENUES IN THE MUNICIPAL AID FUND.
HB1766 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS.
HB1926 Richey TO ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO AFFIX A SECURITY CAMERA TO A UTILITYPOLE LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictionsdesignating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 8, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Speaker 18
Representative Fredrick J. Love Chair
Unverified
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
Speaker 96
Lance Hines
Unverified
Representative Karilyn Brown
Unverified
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 116
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 126
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Mireya Wright
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 153
Speaker 88
Speaker 167
Speaker 170
Speaker 168
Speaker 172
Speaker 176
Speaker 182
Speaker 188
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 190
Speaker 191
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 202
Speaker 206
Speaker 211
Speaker 156
Speaker 175