ALC-Policy Making
Video
Transcript
3 documents
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 8, 2026
The meeting will please come to order. The meeting will please come to order. I am
going to recognize my co-chair, Representative Bragg, for remarks. We just, one
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
0:19
reminder that we're here just strictly to review and not really
Speaker 6
0:23
go through an approval process, and so we'll begin with the proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator
English is not here to present the report of the Education Committee. Is that correct? So who is presenting the report of the Education Committee? Representative Dodson? Representative Dodson, you recognize to present the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
0:56
Education Committee recommendation. Yes, Madam Chair. So thank you. The Education Committee met on November 4th, and the consultant contract
that you have before you with APA or I'm not going to try to butcher the name by sounding it out, but APA consultants is what you have in your packet. Justin Silverstein from APA actually here today to help answer any questions with regards to that contract uh that they that is a result of the request for proposal that went out and uh and jill's here with the bureau to go over any questions you might have with regards to the contract as well
then i'm going to call on jillian to present the the details of
Speaker 14
1:47
the contract please Thank you, Madam Chair. Jill Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research. So you all have in your packet a rather thick document. Yes, sir. This is the contract between the Bureau of Legislative Research and APA Consulting. The contract itself is a fairly simple document. It's the one that we use for all of our consulting services agreements. It incorporates into it by attaching
the RFP that was released, as well as APA's response to that RFP, including their pricing information and some supplemental information that they sent to me via email about their pricing and their hourly rates. So this document incorporates all of that. It requires a recommendation by this subcommittee to the full legislative council in order for the Bureau to be able to enter the contract. And I'll answer any questions.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:42
Questions for Ms. Thayer? Seeing none, what is the pleasure of the body?
Madam Chair, I think just in closing, if I may. Oh, sorry, you may close for the bill. So the proposal had a lot of debate in Education Committee. Obviously, we went back and forth quite a bit, and I think Senator Bledsoe has a motion ready for the committee. I'm closed.
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
3:12
Senator Bledsoe, you're recognized. All right, thank you. I have a motion, and my motion is to authorize the Bureau of Legislative Research to enter negotiations with Sewell and Associates for a consulting service agreement incorporating the terms and conditions of RFP number BLR-190003 and Shul's proposal in response to the RFP with the ALC Executive Subcommittee having final approval
of the contract. I move approval of the Consultant Services Agreement with APA Consulting contingent upon approval by the House and Senate Education Committees of use of both Shuls and Associates and APA Consulting to provide education adequacy consulting services to the committees under the RFP. The Bureau of Legislative Research shall not be authorized to enter either of these consultant services contracts
unless approval of both contracts is agreed upon by the House and Senate Education Committees. And that's my motion, Madam Chair. Would you like to speak to it,
Madam Chair, Madam Senator Bledsoe? I do not. Is
there anyone else who would like to speak to it so that I
Speaker 26
4:39
can understand it? Mr. Ballinger? Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, just from my understanding is like I'd heard that the APA has never come back with a recommendation
that wasn't to basically spend more money on education, which maybe we need to spend more money on education. And if that's the case, and in my research, at least the places where there were articles written about it, like almost every time it's to come back and spend more. And it's possible we need to do that, but from my standpoint, having a balanced approach, having heard the debate, some of the debate in education, you guys had several meetings, and to me it seems like having kind of a more broad spectrum of ideas. More information is not going to hurt us.
We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars, a little over $2 billion on K-12 education. So having more information shouldn't hurt us. And to me, it makes sense to approve both consultants to get the ideas and wrestle with
Speaker 27
5:31
it and see what the legislature, which ultimately decides what adequacy is, comes up with. Senator Elliott, you're recognized. Would
you turn off the mic, the other mic, please? Thank you. Senator Elliott.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
5:51
Madam Chair, I want to offer a motion. May I get a clarification before I
Speaker 30
6:00
offer the motion? Certainly. Has the bureau, are both of these in our
packet? I'm not sure. Are both
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
6:15
of the contracts included in our packet? Somebody? All right. We
can hand out those binders that have both proposals.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
6:24
No, I don't necessarily want them. I guess I'm just trying to look really
quickly and I couldn't find it. So we do have the binders though available for anyone
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
6:34
who would care to. But what I want to look at what I want the clarification I
Speaker 35
6:39
want to get is but what we have before us on the table is APA and
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
6:48
and the other one as well. Okay. All right. Madam Chair, I move that we enter to a contract with APA and not with both.
A substitute motion. There's a substitute. Is there
a second? Second. It's been moved
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
7:10
and seconded. Discussion on the motion? I do have some discussion on the motion. I don't know that it's fruitful for us, and maybe I can be convinced of this, but right now I don't see it, to have two separate companies doing the work of adequacy. And that, to me, seems just to be a recipe for our spending more money and prolonging
what we're doing and keeping ourselves at odds as opposed to trying to you know get ourselves going down one road and you know for for that reason and for reasons of efficiency and everything else we can think about I think that is good practice that we don't enter into two separate contracts and that's and the one of the two it seemed very obvious that APA was the one who has has experience, who is more prepared to do this considering the other one is just painfully
new. And so when we have somebody who has experience and somebody who's done this for a long time and somebody who is pretty much using us as an experiment with how they're going to proceed, I just think it makes sense for us to go with the one with APA. End of my remarks,
Speaker 26
8:38
Madam Chair. Senator Ballinger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that, so ultimately, I think everyone here agrees it's the legislature's responsibility to set adequacy.
I mean, the courts have said so. The question is that if we go out there and we have one consultant that goes out there and comes back with whatever the recommendation is, and we don't go with that recommendation, I think we're setting ourselves up. We're providing a piece of evidence in a lawsuit that we didn't, as a legislature, didn't produce adequacy, right? So we are actually farming out, I think, our decision-making to one organization, one group. And they have a lot of experience, which is great. But like I said, the experience that they have comes back and says you're not spending enough on education.
And that may be true. But the truth is that, you know, we are basically tying our hands to have that discussion, to have that debate. Now, who knows, you know, if we end up with two groups that come back and say we're not spending enough on education, well, you know, then we'll be kind of stuck. That may be the case. But at least at that point, we have a couple different ideas, a couple different, and we're talking about spending billions of dollars. They come back and they say over and over again, you need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on education, is what APA has done historically.
And so if that's the case, then spending a little bit more, having another group, and have more ideas, and this makes sense. And if this committee has any function, it ought to have that debate, and we ought to be able
to consider those issues. Just a question from the chair to Representative Dotson. Since you were bringing this to us, and Senator Bledsoe, you may
chime in if you'd like, tell me what happens if they come back with conflicting reports. Are you talking about
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
10:21
the consultants if we hire both of them?
Well, if they hire both of them, it's the job of the legislature,
both under our Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court, I believe in cases in the past, that it's the legislature's responsibility to determine what adequacy is. And so, regardless of whether or not we have... Well, if
we have no study at all, it's our responsibility to determine what adequacy is. Is that correct? If we have no
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
10:46
study at all, we determine what it is. If we have one or if we have multiple ones, we still determine what that is.
Uh, with two consultants, I think it would be a, a, the ability to have a wide range of ideas and proposals in front of us, uh, for the adequacy committee to, to actually make a good determination on what we want to make the best mix for Arkansas to be. And so I'm fine with having a lot more ideas at the table, or we can hire no consultant and just bring in people to have recommendations to us.
There's plenty of various organizations out there that want to freely give us their information as well. And that was what I was advocating for in the Education Committee originally. But, you know, if we're going to have one, I have some disagreements with some of the members in the education committee, which I voiced. But the main thing, I think, was we had two very qualified groups that had submitted proposals. One was a newly formed organization that had a bunch of experts on their team that have been in this field of education for a long time.
We heard from them. My opinion was they gave a better proposal and answered questions better, but that's not the
debate that we're having here today. My only question was what happens
if there are two conflicting reports? We still decide. We would do that anyway. I mean, Senator
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
12:22
Bond, you recognize? Well, in my question, I have a couple, but one is, you know, in
looking at what the policy this committee does is, My understanding was that we review and make recommendations to the council regarding requests from interim committees for allocation of funds.
And the education committee has requested, at least my understanding of it, that we approve this contract, not that we approve some other contract that they apparently didn't vote for. So why would we do away with the process of the Education Committee making the recommendation and somehow take it up in this body, which I've never seen. I mean, most of the time people don't even attend these committee meetings. No offense to anybody, including me. We have limited attendance at the policymaking subcommittee.
And today we're going to change what the Education Committee determined and make that decision here. It doesn't seem like we're following our traditional process. We're trying to undo what the Education Committee already voted on. So if somebody can tell me why it's appropriate based on the definition of what ALC policymaking does, which is on our website, to somehow take up a proposal that hasn't been referred by the Education Committee,
then I'll consider it. But right now, I think it's
Speaker 55
13:53
out of order, by the way. Okay. Senator Cheatham. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bond, in his legal expertise, kind of answered or said some of the things that I want to say, but I just need to, I need a South Arkansas understanding. We're going
to pay both of these farms? If this motion passes. If this motion passes. oh no the motion on the floor is to pay only one she has substituted okay this is a substitute
the first motion it was the first motion was to
pay everybody and what would that amount be over one million dollars i think theirs was like four nine nine and the other was six
Speaker 63
14:34
sixty nine six fifty nine so you're talking about one point one
Speaker 55
14:39
million dollars instead of six fifty nine now I guess that was my question, and the fact that has this been done before where we hire two consultants at the same time to do anything on the state level?
I can't say if we've ever, since I've been in here, since 2003, we have never.
Speaker 55
14:54
But you know it's a new day. What can you say? I know there's a disagreement, and there's concern about when a report or two reports come back, will the state be on the hook for excess amount of money. But I think either report comes back and we still have the ability to say yes or no. So I still don't understand why we need two on here. I know there may be some agreements made, but I wasn't in the middle of an agreement.
I just know that I'm concerned about all the schools and state, but those in my Senate district and south of Little Rock You know, we need to look at some things closely, but I just like the firm we talked about and passed out of education, and Mr. Bond, you know, much smarter than I am, can point to some things that we really need to consider. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Cheatham. Representative Fielding.
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
15:57
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Bunn really said everything that I really was going to say because I am absolutely confused why we're dealing with this in a policymaking committee. At its definition, I'm confused on that. Second thing, Madam Chair, can you tell me was this dealt with in the education committee and what came out of the
education committee? In the Education Committee, both groups presented.
The Education Committee then voted to accept the Augenblick group. You're shaking your head, sir, and that is exactly what happened. I have no reason to make it up. The first vote was an affirmative vote on the House side. The second vote, there was not enough senators to vote in the affirmative. The chairs came back, had a suspension of the rule on the Senate side, and the Senate then voted to have APA, if you will.
We have never voted either body to have Shul. No member, I mean, there were individuals who voted for Shul, but neither the House Committee on Education nor the Senate Committee on Education has recommended Shul for consideration before this body. I just
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
17:22
feel that we are doing the work that the Education Committee should be doing.
And if what the Educate Committee is devoted on, it should have stayed in the Educate Committee and came out of there. And second thing, why are we dealing with two entities anyway? We got two reports about them. Like if two reports come back and they conflict with each other, what do you do? I mean, you said that we still have that decision, so thank you, Madam Chair. I
will put you back on, Mr. Bunn.
Speaker 71
18:02
Next up is Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this Shule and APA, they both had the same RFP, right? Yes, they did. And Shule was 400-something thousand? Yes, it was. And APA was 600? $659,000. So my question would be, why in the heck would, I mean, I said on the Education Committee, why would you accept the higher bidder anyway?
And in this whole process, is BLR going to be coming with their recommendations just like we did in interim for all the years that I sit on there? Are they going to be working through their adequacy research through this whole study? The Bureau will do what the
Bureau will do. This is a totally different study of adequacy. So they're going to be doing the study of
Speaker 71
18:53
adequacy also. Are you guys going to be
doing this? Marty, would you come to the table, please?
Speaker 77
19:07
Garrity with the Bureau of Legislative Research. Senator Johnson, yes, the Bureau will still be undergoing its adequacy study in preparation for the 2021 session. This RFP and the scope of work is for a review of adequacy in Arkansas, not adequacy, but a review of education in Arkansas, and then moving forward after 2021 to look at how the state wants to
do those studies. So this contract or this RFP should not impact the work of the Bureau for the the 2021 session. The 21, I
Speaker 71
19:46
mean, that's what we always went off of to, for our education adequacy. And
it has been based on, correct me if I'm wrong, Marty, it has been based on what Auden and Pike
has told us constitutes an educational adequacy piece. However, that has not been, we have not looked at it since 2003 with outside eyes.
A number of things, according to several committee members, and I'll just speak for myself, a number of things have changed. We didn't have the safety issues then that we have now. We had predicated the matrix on 500 students, but we have school districts that are substantially smaller. So if we fund on the matrix, for instance, and you have a school district that has less than 500, you may need a person, but you will get paid for only, say, seven-tenths of a person, which leaves that district to pick up the rest of the money.
So we do need to review, not just what I, in my view, And the chair will speak from her own perspective. In my view, we need to look at that so that if we're going to continue to have districts that are smaller than 500, we need to know what would constitute inadequate education. The Bureau must deal with what it deals with, but we have not had a change or a look at what constitutes real adequacy since 2003. And let me say also that while we had that study,
We still have school districts that are inadequately funding. We need to still look at safety. We need
Speaker 79
21:21
to look at transportation. We have not done that in a steady pace since that time. And
Speaker 71
21:26
I respect the chairs because she sat on that committee for longer than I had, and I did it for four years, but I always wanted more information. And I have, I mean, if we're already taking the high bidder, I don't care that you're spending another $400. I mean, that's, I mean, the Bureau is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
of man hours anyway, and the more information that we can get as a body, the better decisions that we make, and I don't care if we do one or both, or, I mean, I think we need to, the more information that we can get as a body, the better off we are, and I don't know, I don't even know what motion's on the floor. The
motion on the floor is to approve APA, which was a recommendation of the Education Committee.
Speaker 71
22:15
That is the motion on the floor. I just don't understand, Chairman, what the problem with having more information than having more people study it than not.
Okay. Well, let's go back and let's get back on. The Chair would be debating if the Chair started answering too much questions, and I want to maintain the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
22:35
integrity of the Chair. Yes, sir. Just to clarify, if you're following closely,
you got it, but there was a motion originally made. Senator Elliott made a motion, a substitute motion. You called substitute. It is a substitute motion. Okay. And that the first motion was made by Senator Bledsoe. I hope that clarified, please, because there was a motion.
And then this is a substitute. Then there was a second motion, but it was not called substitute except by the chair. So just, if
you will, clarify that for everybody. Thank you. Well. I think those of us, you guys have been around here long enough to know that if there is one motion and then there is a second motion, that it is the substitute motion. So the chair relied on y'all knowledge of saying since you've been here for a while representing the people that you would understand the substitute. Representative Eubanks. All right. Senator Elliott.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
23:27
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll speak to my substitute motion. And there's been some discussion here that I think that really we should have before us only as a matter of recognition, I guess, because no matter what we do, no matter what kind of study we have, to have a discussion of whether or not we're going to do what it says, we ask for recommendations from that committee. So it's in the end, no matter what, if it's one or if it's two, it's still our responsibility to decide, you know, what adequacy is.
What I do find bothersome, though, is I've sat on this committee and have been a part of these contracts and recommendations to AOC. And as far as I can remember back, no, we have not had two. Whatever got recommended to us is what we dealt with because in the end, we had, what, two meetings about which one of these we were going to recommend, at least two meetings.
I think it would be very bad precedent if we started bringing in our own stuff after the committees have done their due diligence. We just had one, I know most recently, we voted to recommend a contract, I think, to do the highway study. And I do believe when the RFPs were, when the RFP was let, But we, I don't know if
we had more than one.
May I ask the Bureau if we had more than one company that vied for that contract? Did we have just the one or more than one?
Speaker 91
25:17
Marty, you recognize? Thank you. For the transportation, there was
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
25:20
only one company. And the one before that, we had others where it was, we had more than one and we had to make a recommendation. Has it always been one company responding to our RFPs?
Speaker 94
25:31
Um, I think for the most part there's been at
least two. The last one I remember was the health care, the health piece, and there were several.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
25:40
The tax reform also had a couple. Yeah, and when that happens and then it's recommended to us, we just don't go through all of
this process. This is really, you know, quite interesting. And the last thing I want to remind the body of is when we, in 2003, that's when, this wording is really important. In 2003 is the last time we had a study. In 2007, the legislature changed the law that we would not have a study every two years,
that we would have a review. So it is improper and just wrong to say we've been having studies overall. We have not. The Bureau does not do studies for us. They go out and collect information for us, and the whole point of that has been to help us make us apprised of to what extent we are following what's been recommended to us since 2003.
And they give us this review because we didn't want to spend money every year to do a study, every other year to do a study. So those two terms are really important. important enough that we actually change the law in 2007. So if we think we're getting a study from the Bureau, that you would just be in error about that. And there's no way I think we can make the case that things haven't changed greatly since 2003.
But I also feel equally that it is not logical to
me that we, now if we want to just do something, we do
it. But let's don't put the logic before us that we need to have both these companies do a study for us. If we want to do it, and obviously there is some reason people want to have that one that we did not recommend from the Education Committee, I would really appreciate it if we would just say that
and not act as if we cannot have a study from APA and have the information that we need. And when it comes to cost, you don't always take the company that is the less expensive. You take the one that is the better in
this case. And it's just unquestionable which one is the better.
and qualified to do this work. And all the time we talk about efficiency, but the taxpayers' money, and we're going to try to make a case that we need to have two companies to do an adequacy study for us, where in those studies, one of the things they're supposed to tell us is how to efficiently spend taxpayers' money. That is actually a part of the study. efficiency. So we're going to very inefficiently hire two companies to tell us something that
I doubt seriously if there's anybody around this table who could not work with one company or the other. If it had been Sewell, I would have been very displeased by that. There's no question. But there's no way I would come in here and
recommend something that was not recommended by the Education Committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bunn? Well, I don't want to beat a
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
29:27
dead horse. For me, it's this issue of, are we, have I not been told
that we're trying to avoid going back to the Education Committee? Is there some side discussion that has gone on as the reason that the Education Committee can't just, in addition to this one, I mean, the way this works, if you read what's on our website as to what this committee does, we review the Interim Committee's proposal, what they say they want, which they want this one. So why not just approve this one? If the Ed Committee wants to propose what Senator Bledsoe has proposed, an additional study,
let them send it back and do them both that way. The process is the issue for me. I agree with some of the points Senator Johnson made, and this is a huge part of our budget, and maybe having more information is a bad idea, but this is not the way to do it. and we all know that. This may be the
way we want to do it, but this is not the way the majority wants to do it, but we know this is not the way you're supposed to do it, so
Speaker 26
30:33
that's my point. Senator Ballinger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, this committee, I don't think, was ever designed
to be a rubber stamp, right? I don't think this committee was ever designed to not be a debate, you know, a voice of the people that we represent, right? I mean, I can't imagine them designing a committee. I wouldn't want to be on a committee that doesn't actually come in and debate and work through problems and actually try to come to compromise, right? So this is about whether or not we're going to approve this contract as is or whether or not this committee is saying, look, we're not opposed to approving the contract, but if we do, if this committee
is going to do it. We want more information. We want balanced information. We want something additional. We're, I mean, in fact, the motion says we approve this, this contract condition upon getting this other organization that most of us have read in the papers. Most of us know that there, there's this other group out there. And, and that ultimately, I mean, we all know what this is about, right? We all know that this group has his stored track record of saying spend more money. And I get it. Like, that's a noble cause to, I'm a former public school teacher, I get the
desire to spend more money on education against a group that says we should do reforms in education, right? They, the question of their, their skills, I mean, they are PhD professors who go out and educate educators. They're, they're people who've worked in education finance for years and years and years. You know, it's a, it's a balance between people who are saying not spend less, but reforms in education versus somebody who says spend more in education. And I think that having all of those ideas on the table is going to make us as legislators,
who ultimately it's our responsibility to make that decision of what adequacy is, better at it. And so if this committee doesn't have that job, then we don't have, I mean, let's quit doing the committee. Let it go straight to ALC. But if we're going to decide whether or not we're going to spend, you know, a million dollars that could force us to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, Let's have this debate and decide to come to compromise, which I think is the beauty of this system. Senator Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
32:46
Along with Senator Ballinger, Senator Johnson, I think the more information we have, the better decision we make. The unique thing about this committee today is I've never heard anyone say they're not in favor of the study, that we want to spend the money to have the study. And do we want one study with some information, or do we want two studies with more information? And I know it costs more money, but we're looking at spending possibly hundreds of millions of dollars every year that we're going to have to come up with funding on if that's required.
And I prefer to have the additional information. I've not been in any meetings. I'm not on education, and I'm kind of blindsided. Senator Chesterfield, I told you I'd listen to what's going on, and that's what I hear, is that we want to have the study, but we're looking at spending large sums of money, and I think that if we're going to do that, I prefer having the additional information and knowledge that would be brought by both companies.
I don't prefer one over the other, but still for us to come out and spend, you know, to obligate the state for future hundreds of millions of dollars that the more knowledge we have, the better decision we'll make. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
And Senator Elliott. To my seatmate
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
34:15
right here, though, we're going to have our own little discussion. We are creating a choice that we don't have.
What's before us today is, that's been well pointed out, what's before us today is not a discussion of whether or not we're going to have debate. But the debate should properly be on what was sent to us by the Education Committee. We are not a rubber stamp committee. but we're also not a committee who's supposed to go out and bring in stuff we want to discuss that's not even on the agenda today and what's not even proposed to us by the Education Committee.
We can have all the robust discussion that we want, but it is supposed to be about what was sent to us. And it just so happened, inconveniently or not, the only thing the Education Committee sent to us was whether or not we're going to approve the APA recommendation for them. And this idea that they are known for saying spend money, spend money, spend money, guess what we're known for? Deciding how much money we're going to spend.
They don't get to dictate to us. I don't know if it's fair to say that or not, about spend money, spend money. But if they are, that's not something that we have to say. We didn't do everything Auden and Pikus said. You ought to go back and look at Auden and Pikus if you think somehow we spend everything people would tell us. If we were to go back and look at Auden and Pikus, we would have said that we ought to do a much better job and not go by the recommendation that was there for the schools that were 350 and under.
We chose to go with them. Other things they suggested that we do, we just flatly didn't do Because they suggest, for example, we ought to have a nurse in every school. Do we have that? No, we don't. And you could go on and on and on. So if we create, you know, a straw man over here and have a fuss with that straw man, that's one thing. But that's what we're doing. Because the only thing on this agenda is whether or not we are going to, the only thing that we're supposed to be doing at this point is deciding whether or not we're going to okay or not okay what was sent to us.
If we want to do other stuff, like I said, let's just own up to it and say we want this other company for whatever the reason may be. And just to say we're going to have more information, I can appreciate, but that doesn't seem like that's what we're here to do. I know it's not. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Representative Miller, you recognize for
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
36:58
a question? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Folks, I guess my question is this. Yes, whoever, chair, whoever can answer.
We have one item on the agenda. I understand that. We had another motion brought up. I can kind of see some points that were made concerning the process. Here's my question. If we, the item on the agenda is the approval or whatever of the contract that was sent to us by Education Committee. which I get the feeling perhaps a majority of the people in this room don't really like.
But that's neither here nor there. If we do not approve that contract, if we forget all the other motions and just don't approve that
contract, what happens then? And I have a
Speaker 77
37:58
follow-up. Marty, I think it goes directly to counsel. The report of this subcommittee would be that no contract was approved by the subcommittee. Then it would be up to Legislative Council to adopt the report or possibly to a motion to revisit the issue.
Speaker 110
38:16
Okay, so if ALC adopts our report of... If
the substitute motion passes, then the APA would be the sole one. If the main motion passes in both of those, if neither passes, then we just report that to
ALC, and ALC may determine to accept what we say, which is no recommendation, or
you may make a motion in council to amend the report.
Speaker 112
38:48
Am I making any sense? somewhat uh yeah we say it again i mean that with
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
38:57
all due respect okay uh i mean i guess i see what you're saying about we've got we've now got two different motions which i i think senator elliott's substitute motion is perhaps the main motion that was on the agenda um i'm just uh i'm just trying to figure out
If we can't have these discussions and debates here, because we've already stayed way past the 15 minutes I had planned on being in here, but just being honest, if all this committee supposed to do is review and adopt whatever's being sent to us by interim committees. Why in
the heck have this committee? I mean, to me, we should be, this is a part of the process of getting a contract approved. Am I wrong or right? A part of the,
let me just say this. I've chaired policy for some time. This is a new one for me. Does that mean it's out of order? I don't know. I do worry by process because in the past, all we have ever done is debate yes or no on what was sent to us. That was our debate. Yes
or no. If we don't like it, we don't adopt it. If we like it, we adopt it. That has been what policy has done was to review what was sent to us by committees. The policy committee was never designed to create the policy, but to respond to the policies that were proposed. That is my understanding of what we do. What this body will do is up to this body. But in the past, what we have done is voted yes or no on what was sent to us by a committee. And what I'm understanding and
looking and we're supposed to be debating the substitute. But what I'm looking at in the main motion is not only are we not going to vote for what the Senate and the House, I mean, House committees said, we're going to send it back to them. And we're going to make them say one way or the other, if we can't have both and we can't have either. And I guess then it comes back to policy again. That's what's troubling to me. Because you're going to have, if you're going to send it back to education, and it deals with money. Any committee that deals with money
is going to have to come before this body, and this body will determine whether or not the money will be spent.
Speaker 112
41:44
I understand. Okay. Can I follow up? Sure, and you don't have to ask that. You're
a sitting representative. You can ask him any questions you want. I do a lot of sitting.
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
41:57
Well, I can understand that. Anyway, if we, okay, Senator Elliott has a substitute motion, which is basically, like I said, the main motion that we were brought here today for.
Yes. If we vote no on that. We're back to the main motion. Then we're back to the main motion, which we just voted no on. No, we have not voted on anything. Well, I mean, we'd be voting on Senator Elliott's motion, which is to
accept the APA contract. That's the substitute motion. The main motion is the motion that Senator Bledsoe made, which says, in essence, that the Bureau of Legislative Research shall not be authorized to enter into either of these consulting services
unless the contracts are approved by both the House and Senate Ed committees. So we're talking about in that first motion, we would send it back to Senate Ed and say to them, you've got to accept both of these or you don't get anything. And then you'll have to come back here and deal with this policy again. That is my view. Marty, correct me
Speaker 76
43:05
if I'm wrong. I believe under the language of the motion, it would not need to come back to policymaking.
would take that up. Where is that in the language
Speaker 76
43:22
that you're understanding? The first paragraph, a motion to authorize the Bureau in response
to the RFP. But it will have to go back to the Education Committees? Yes. And then the ALC Executive Subcommittee will determine, regardless of what the Education Committee decides,
if the Education Committee decides no on this, then it's a dead issue, I assume? Correct. All right. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion?
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
43:56
You have this? Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, obviously we don't have to do a study. There's nothing requiring us to do one. There's a lot of desire to get more input and data. I just wanted to refer back to something I said several times in the Education Committee that hadn't been brought forward here today.
You know, a couple years ago, we have hired consultants before, and we've actually fired consultants before. We had a tax debate and a consultant that we hired a few years ago, and after several months of hearing from them, we ended up firing them and then just bringing in two different viewpoints on what the best type of tax policy going forward with. I think this kind of gives us that same opportunity, is to have multiple viewpoints on education policy,
which is one of the largest pieces of policy that we deal with in the state. And so, and then just to one other point, Senator Elliott said that this wasn't on the agenda. Well, when this passed out of education last week, it wasn't on the agenda either. And it passed in two different committees. that failed the first meeting that it came up, and it wasn't voted on by the entire committee at the same meeting. And so there's a question there on whether or not it was done properly
or not. But as far as the contract that we have before us, I think it would be good to have a balanced approach to both. So I'm speaking against the substitute motion, and then go to Senator Bledsoe's main motion, I would speak in favor of that. Senator Elliott and Senator Cheatham, you
recognize first. Now let Ms. Elliott close for her motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.
Speaker 55
45:49
You know, we've heard Senator Johnson and Senator Caldwell, more information is great. I'll go back to what Mr. Bond said and Mr. Ballinger, both lawyers. You know, if we've got rules and regulation and process, why don't we follow them? If we want both of these to use, why not approve this one? Education Committee approve the other one if they have the votes and send it to us.
I don't understand. I mean, I want it. I want the study. If I have to have two, that's fine. But I want the study. But I would rather have one. I mean, I don't see any sense of spending that much money for additional study, but if that's the way it's going to be, evidently it's decided before we got here what it's going to be. But at
Speaker 60
46:41
least let's follow the process. Let's send it back. Education. Who chaired this? Senator English and Representative Cossard. So the two chairs of education, this was their piece of legislation?
Speaker 55
46:52
Yes, it was. And anyway, I just don't like the process we're doing.
Speaker 5
46:59
But anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right.
Representative Bragg is recognized for a question. I just
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
47:05
need clarification on the process. If Senator Elliott's substitute motion doesn't pass, we go back to the original motion. It passes. It goes back to the Education Committee. If it doesn't pass the Education Committee, then we don't have a study at all.
clarification. The chair will call for a vote on the question. You're going to let
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
47:34
me. Oh, I'm sorry. You may close, Senator. I want to point out that the reason I consider the motion here, the original motion here today, out of order, because it is in conflict with what we are supposed to do in this committee. The reason what we did in the education committee last time we met,
When the Senate education side voted on the motion, there was no conflict with any kind of parliamentary procedure or what we were there to do. And the first motion is obviously in conflict with what we are designed to do in here. And I just ask us, regardless of what the issues are we have going on, I think it would be prudent for us to pass this motion.
and at least be in line with what we are designed to do. And out of respect for what the folks did who studied this and studied it to ad nauseum, I can promise you, and have some respect for that. Whether you get what you want or not, it's almost as if, you know, I've had a lot of practice of not getting what I want. I've never had the privilege of thinking that I'm gonna get what I want just because it's what I want,
and never even push that I'm gonna do it just because I have the votes. I'm just longing for somebody to help me understand why this is good policy, as opposed to something that I just want for reasons that are not obvious to all of us, but clearly obvious to some of us, leaving the rest of us to speculate. And I think I know probably enough to do some informed speculation. And what it leads me to is something that I consider,
I wouldn't say dangerous, that's an overstatement, but clearly out of step with what we ought to be doing. So I would urge you to please vote for this
motion and respect the work of the committee and respect what this committee is formed to
do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Senator Elliott. Would you call the roll, please? The motion before
you is to accept APA consulting for the provision of education adequacy consulting services
for the benefit of the House and Senate education committees. That is what is before you. It is too late. We're going to vote now. That's fine. You can always divide the House and the Senate. Is that what you're doing? You need three hands to do that. All right. We have a division. All right. Let us go to the Senate first. Senator Elliott? Aye.
Speaker 132
50:43
Senator Caldwell? No. No. Senator Cheatham? Aye. Senator Blake Johnson? No. Senator Vaughn? Aye. Senator Ballinger? No. Senator Blesso? No. Senator Rice? No. Senator Pippo? No. Senator Pippo? No. Senator Rice? No. Senator Pippo? No. Senator Pippo? No. The motion has failed.
We are back to the main motion, and that main motion is that of Senator Bledsoe, that is to authorize the Bureau
of Legislative Research to enter negotiations with Schultz and Associates for a Consulting Services Agreement, incorporating the terms and conditions of RFP number BLR 19003, and Shul's proposal
in response to the RFP, with the ALC Executive Subcommittee having final approval of the contract.
I move approval of the Consultant Services Agreement with APA Consulting contingent upon approval by the House and Senate Ed Committees of use of both Shul's and Associates and APA Consulting to provide education adequacy consulting services to the committees under the RFP. the Bureau of Legislative Research shall not be authorized to enter either of these consulting services contracts unless approval of both contracts is agreed upon by the House and Senate Ed Committees.
Is that correct, Senator? You may
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
52:24
speak to your motion. That is correct, and I think what we have just said about it and your explanation of the motion on the floor is self-explanatory, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
Senator Elliott, you recognize. Senator Bundy, chair of
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
52:44
your head. Madam Chair, I would need to understand
why it's going to ALC Executive. Is there some kind of parliamentary reason for that that requires that? Is that just a choice made in the motion? And
I would like to also know who makes up the ALC Executive
Speaker 77
53:05
Subcommittee. Um, the members, I'll start with the members first. It's the two chairs and co-chairs of Legislative Council. It's the Speaker and the Pro Tem, and then it's the former Chairs of Legislative Council. So that would be Senator Sample, um, and in that case it would have been
Representative Dotson, but because he is ex-officio as a vice chair, I believe it's Representative Eubanks? No. Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Ferguson. Sorry, my apologies, Representative Ferguson. The reason that it's going to Executive is that a subcommittee needed to be given authority to enter into the contract because ALC will not meet again until December. So the idea was this is done when they want to move.
Speaker 91
53:55
Don't want to wait until the next ALC subcommittee meeting.
Speaker 148
53:58
And when is that? December 20th, I believe. Can
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
54:04
we get sure about December 20th? It is.
Speaker 94
54:08
It is December 20th? Yeah, it's the third Friday of the month, December
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
54:12
20th. So if it's December 20th, we're going to go to the ALC executive committee because we can't wait until December. 20th.
I don't, why is that? Could somebody tell me why we can't wait till December 20th?
What's the problem? That we cannot wait till December 20th. I just want a rational reason for that. Senator
Bledsoe, is your motion? I guess I'm asking Senator Bledsoe,
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
54:48
I suppose. I defer to Dodson, Representative Dodson. So you don't have
a rationale for why you want to send it there?
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
55:00
Well, I think the question was, why could we not wait? Well, I just think the better plan would be to get it done and do it as soon as possible because they have been discussing this in education for quite some time. So that is my rationale. I don't know about the others. Thank
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:22
you. Mr. Dodson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just as far as being able to have somebody have authorization once education committee meets and with the assumption that they actually approve both of them,
not having to wait until a full ALC council, if we give them authorization, executive subcommittee can be called more quickly by the call of the chairs at a shorter time frame. Let the chair make an observation. It
is not lost on the chair that the majority of the folks who are on ALC executive committee are opposed
to APA. And that's what's troubling to me. I don't care how you feel about it. You're not recognized. Chair is speaking right now.
And the chair does not like for folks to try to make a fool of the chair. You did not want APA, and that's fine, you're lost in education, but now you're going to send it to a committee that's going to virtually rubber stamp exactly what you do want, without giving the full body the authority and the opportunity then to vote on this, and that's what we're doing. What we're doing is we're strong arming the House Education and Senate committees. Either you do it our way or you're not going to get anything.
That's what this is about. And I have sat here very quietly and tried to be as non-partisan as I could in this debate, but this is important to me. Our kids deserve better. SHUL did not have an iota, a single iota of experience in looking at school districts across this state. That's why they weren't accepted. They were a fly-by-night group that came in and organized themselves a month before they were to submit a bid to this body. And now we're acting like they're on the same level
as somebody that's been doing this for years. They're not. But let it be known that we're not stupid here. It may go to ALC Executive Committee, and I see trains rolling, and I'm about to get run over by the caboose. But I would be remiss if I did not say, it's ugly. There is nothing that would preclude you from going to full council, except perhaps you You think you might not prevail there. And with that,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
57:40
anybody else want to say? Madam Chair, I wanted you to finish with trying to get the rationale down.
Because if there is a reason that we need to go this route, I assume, I would like to assume that somebody thought about something other than this is just how we want to do it. And apparently not. because if we wait until, if we just go through the process that we have right now on the table, we could have passed, for example, we could have passed that first motion if we're in such a hurry, we would be done with this if we would just do what the Education Committee
recommended that we do. There would be nothing else to talk about. But since we don't want to do that and we want to do something else, now we have to hurry up and let a smaller body decide something, which was my big fear, When we gave all of this power and authority to the ALC Executive Committee, that things like this would come up just exactly like this, and here we are. When we will say a small body will decide what we're going to do, and then, oh, by the way, somewhere down the road, you get to say yes or no to it,
whether or not what they decide is going to be okay, and we know how that turns out. I will just put on record, Madam Chair, that my question was, what's the rationale? And right now, I have no rationale for doing this and send it to the ALC Executive Committee as opposed to follow the process that we have laid out, not one that I think is respectful of the intellect of the folks on this committee anyway.
You can tell me it's snowing outside, but I know better. Thank you. Senator
Speaker 26
59:27
Ballinger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask Senator Bledsoe and Representative Dotson, because obviously he's engaged in this too, would you all be okay with amending the motion to essentially send it back through the regular process? So, I mean, in order to address the concerns that Senator Bledsoe and the Chair has had, And, you know, to me, I think that from my understanding, the idea of sending it through the executive committee was to try to get things moving quicker.
And it was part of the compromise, I think. But I don't think anybody is opposed to going through a regular process on this. So is
that right? Representative Dodson and Representative Ritchie. Yes,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:07
I think that would be fine. The suggestion to go through the process, the only thing that I might suggest is that if we make it, we have this committee do the approval, have final approval. If ALC authorizes this committee to do it, then we can meet not having to wait until December 20th.
It's not a, if we have to go through the entire full process, that's fine with me, too. I don't really care one way or another. I think it was
an expediency issue. The only thing that we're asking that I am concerned about, so you are asking to delete ALC executive subcommittee and
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:45
substitute counsel? Is that the motion? I mean, I would suggest
policymaking subcommittee as opposed to executive subcommittee, but if just with ALC having final approval of the contract, that would be fine as well.
If Senator Bledsoe is open to that.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:01:05
Let's hear a motion then. Yes. Do we have the authority to send something to the education committee
that the education committee didn't send to us in the first place? Do we
have that authority? This is absolutely new territory. I know Representative Bragg, this is his first time, and it's not my first rodeo, but I've never ridden this horse before.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:01:31
Like if I wanted to send something to the public health committee that the public health committee hadn't dealt with in the first time, can I
Speaker 35
1:01:39
just order them to take something from this committee on our behalf? Marty?
Yes. Would you read what our mission is? That would be helpful to me. Just read what we're supposed to do. I don't have... I'm sure Jill has it. I think we ought to read what our mission is.
We've never in the past been authorized to send something back to a committee, so I don't know
how this works. Vote it up, vote it down,
Speaker 76
1:02:23
move on, and it goes to ALC. Okay. So there's two provisions in council rules, and let me read the policymaking first. To this subcommittee shall be referred matters pertaining to review of study proposals referred to interim committees by members thereof which have not previously been reviewed by legislative
Council as to Germaneness. Those are for ISVs. The subcommittee shall submit its recommendations to Legislative Council concerning the germaneness of the study proposals to the subject areas assigned to the Interim Committees as provided by law, and review and make recommendations to the Legislative Council regarding requests from Interim Committees, Task Force, and subcommittees of Legislative Council for the allocation of funds and personnel to be funded from monies appropriated to the Legislative Council for Interim Committee study purposes.
There's also a provision regarding consultant contracts. Upon completing its process for selecting a consultant, a subcommittee of the Legislative Council or committee or task force of the General Assembly desiring to hire a consultant to assist with the study of the subcommittee, committee or task force shall authorize the Bureau of Legislative research to enter into the contract with the chosen consultant and recommend approval of the contract to the policymaking subcommittee of the Legislative Council during the interim or the executive subcommittee of the Legislative Council during the legislative session by an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the subcommittee, committee, or task force. The policymaking subcommittee or executive subcommittee, if during the legislative session, shall conduct a review of the proposed contract and make a recommendation to the Legislative Council regarding authorization of the Bureau of Legislative Research to enter the contract. Upon approval of the contract by the Legislative Council, the Bureau of Legislative Research may execute the approved contract, and the selected consultant may begin work for the subcommittee, committee, or task force.
Ms. So according to our own rules, there is nothing in here that says we get to refer anything to anybody except to counsel. Is that correct? That is the only place? That is all I hear? is that our job is to make a recommendation to council, not a subcommittee or a committee, but it says specifically to where? Council. To council. And that is all we can do. But this is going against what we have set out to do. And this is saying we're going to send this back to a committee.
We don't have that authority according to our mission.
Speaker 76
1:04:57
No, you don't have the authority to make them take it up. You can recommend. You can make a motion to recommend that
they take something. Whom does it say we make recommendations, Marty? It doesn't say we make recommendations to committees. It says we make recommendations to whom? We make recommendations to council. That's it. Yes, and this is a recommendation
Speaker 77
1:05:15
to council. So this motion is a recommendation to council, and council by adopting a report. We'll determine whether or not to send it back to House Ed and send it.
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:05:24
Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Senator Bledsoe? Yes, Madam Chair, if you would like for me to read the revised motion. I would appreciate it. All right. Motion to authorize the Bureau of Legislative Research to enter negotiations with Sewell and Associates for a consulting services agreement incorporating the terms and conditions of RFP number BLR 19003 ensures proposal
So in response to the RFP with the full ALC committee having final approval of the contract. And the rest of the motion remains the same. Okay, you mean the ALC council? Well.
Yeah, rather than committee. Well, ALC is. Is the
committee. Is the committee, right. Gotcha. You've heard the amendment. Does the body consider this a friendly amendment? Second.
If it's a friendly amendment, we don't have to vote on it. Is there objection to saying that this is a friendly
amendment to her own recommendation? All right. Then it is accepted. And we're now at the main motion as
Speaker 177
1:06:42
with the change. Yes, sir. Representative Ritchie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, really, obviously, you know, the group that got the contract was not the group that a majority of this committee wanted. And so that the education, well, that the education committee recommended.
So I think we've clearly sent the message without this motion that unless you do both,
Speaker 178
1:07:04
we're not, this committee is not going to approve it. So I don't really understand why we even have to do this motion to send it back because I think we've communicated that pretty clearly that if you don't allow this other group to be part of this, then the majority is not going to approve it. So I really don't even see
the need of the motion. Well, the motion is needed because it is a change, a sea change, really, from the way this body has operated in the past.
And what this body has done is either accept or reject the recommendations of those who have done the work and brought it to us. So we are now making a change. And since that change is here, we have set a precedent. So we're going to do this in the future if we need to. Is there further discussion on Senator Bledsoe's motion? Senator
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:07:53
Bunn. Just technical. I know everybody's tired of talking about it. So the motion says that we're authorizing BLR to enter into negotiations and for the
contract, and this may be a question for Marty.
So technically, maybe everybody understands this but me, y'all are going to reestablish contact with this. What's the name of this group?
Speaker 144
1:08:12
Souls or Shoals and Associates. And get
Speaker 181
1:08:15
them in a contract? Yes, we'd take a look at
Speaker 77
1:08:19
the, or we'd do a similar contract that was drafted for APA. And it's, as Jill mentioned, it's a short contract, and we reference in the RFP and their proposal. And so it will be for the, will
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:08:32
it be for the price they've already proposed, or do they get to change that?
Speaker 77
1:08:37
No, it would be for the maximum price that they've proposed and the
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:08:42
scope of work that they've proposed. And so then after y'all enter a contract with them, it will then go to House Ed for House Ed to approve that contract in addition to the APA contract? Technically,
Speaker 77
1:08:58
how's that work technically? I think we would begin the negotiations of a contract, but at some point the education committees would need to meet to approve entering or to authorize working with Schultz and
associate on the adequacy study. Once that's done and then legislative council approves entering into a contract, then I would sign up on the contract with both APA and Schultz and Associates. So it would be y'alls
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:09:26
work first, then back to the committee, then under the new motion to ALC? Or they could
Speaker 91
1:09:33
be running in parallel. How does one run in parallel?
Speaker 77
1:09:39
The committee is going to assume we didn't draft the contract with APA until after the
education committees had authorized us to begin work on the contract. So we could begin based on this motion authorizes you to begin that now. Yes, it does. So that would be different than in the past. Yes. That's all the questions
I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Further discussion on the main motion? Seeing none,
we'll put the question. Let's call the roll. Call it on the House side first. All those in favor.
Wait a minute. Let me just have her call the roll. I want
Speaker 187
1:10:26
everybody to be on record. Representative Eubanks, Aye Representative Ritchie, No Representative Miller, Yes,
Speaker 132
1:10:41
Aye Representative Sullivan, Yes Representative Richmond, Representative Richmond, Representative
Representative Fielding. No. Representative Warlaw. Aye. Representative Dotson. Aye. Representative Bragg. Aye. Representative Douglas. Aye. The Senate Senate Senator Elliott no Senator Caldwell Senator Cheetah Senator Johnson
Senator Bond Senator Ballinger Senator Blesso Senator Rice Senator Flippo? Aye. Senator Chesterfield? No. Thank you so much. Let
me say this. Let us hope that we have not established a president whereby the committees
that you chair are overturned by a committee that wasn't even there.
Unknown speaker
1:11:55
Thank you. And with that, we are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
Consideration and Review of the contract between Bureau of Legislative Research and APA Consulting for the provision of Education Adequacy Consulting Services for the benefit of the House and Senate Education Committees [Exhibit B]
Other Business
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ALC-POLICY MAKING, Nov 13, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Attachment A · Call to Order. | Exhibit | 213 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit B - APA Contract_Final | Exhibit | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Linda Chesterfield Chair
Unverified
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 14
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 35
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 63
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Speaker 79
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 94
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 112
Speaker 60
Speaker 5
Speaker 132
Speaker 148
Speaker 177
Speaker 178
Speaker 144
Speaker 181
Speaker 187