Arkansas Independent Citizens Commission
Video
Transcript
Summary
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 3, 2026
The meeting began with confirmation of a quorum and approval of the November 14, 2025 minutes [2-4,7-13].
The Department of Finance presented the FY 2026 financial overview, noting a $7.15 billion general revenue, a $655 million surplus and strong reserves, while highlighting recent tax‑relief legislation that reduced individual and corporate rates [16-22].
Commissioners discussed the impact of tax cuts on the Constitutional Officers Fund, which is funded by a surcharge on revenue collections [21-22].
The commission reviewed its statutory duties, including setting salaries for constitutional officers, judges, and legislators, and noted limits such as a 15 % cap on salary changes and a required public‑comment period [52-54,70-73].
A motion was adopted to forego any stipend for commission meetings, continuing the historical practice [179-184,191-194].
Members examined salary comparison data, noting that Arkansas’ executive‑branch salaries are near the median for many states but lag behind for positions such as Secretary of State and financial officers [95-99,105-108,115-119].
The commission debated whether to obtain additional benchmark data before making recommendations, with several members requesting more information on specific offices [98-104,111-118].
Consensus emerged to apply a uniform 2 % salary increase to all constitutional officers and judicial positions, while maintaining the existing 95 % and 85 % ratios for Division A and Division B prosecutors respectively [282-290,300-307,320-324,362-364].
The motion for the 2 % increase and the prosecutor ratios was seconded and passed unanimously [322-327].
The commission decided that additional meetings may be needed to consider further data and to ratify any changes, proposing a second meeting in mid‑October and a third before two commissioners’ terms expire on November 5 [330-340,342-350,356-360].
The chair thanked participants and moved to adjourn the meeting, which was carried by a motion and second [366-367].
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 3, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
chairlady would would not like that it's me starting off late i would tell you that mrs tuck is under
Speaker 2
0:10
the weather today and she is going to try to join us by phone annabelle are you on she's not on so if she's able to to come on later we'll we'll let you know excuse me so um as i understand from tj we do have a quorum and uh so we have the right to go
ahead and uh proceed and if you
Speaker 5
0:43
want to go ahead and call the role just so we can do that yeah chair annabelle
Speaker 9
0:52
tutt tommy may clark smith larry mccready here robert husong
jan zimmerman president frank glenn present are here thank
Speaker 2
1:32
proceed you have a copy of the agenda in front of you uh we'll we'll try to be efficient with our time would remind everybody that
if you have an issue you'd like to talk about or when we're voting be sure and uh turn your microphone on and uh and we will go ahead and proceed again i feel very inadequate to chair this meeting but annabelle is like i said she's under the weather today and so she won't be with us but if she comes in later we will certainly acknowledge her
we have the minutes uh first of all declare a quorum we have the minutes of our last meeting which was november 14th 2025 and so we need to uh approve those minutes if everybody has had the opportunity to review those we will accept a motion at
Speaker 23
2:44
so move for the approval of the minutes from november 14th 2025.
Speaker 2
2:50
thank you jan we have a motion we have a second second thank you larry we uh we have a second any questions all in favor say aye aye any any any opposed any abstentions uh if not we will declare the minutes approved of no of our november 14th 2025 meeting
the next item on the agenda would be the economic overview of state revenues and budget by the department of finance administration andy thank you recognized yes sir thank
Speaker 32
3:50
you for the opportunity to give you a brief overview
of the economic position of the states and or the state and its implications for your work here arkansas closed the fiscal year 2026 on june 30th of this year with a net available general revenue of approximately 7.15 billion this is an increase of approximately seven percent from the prior fiscal year with the increase in collections and controlled spending the state recognized
a 655 million dollar general revenue surplus the surplus was the fifth largest on record Additionally, we continue to operate with strong reserves across the Catastrophic Reserve, General Revenue Allotment Reserve, and the Reserve Fund set aside, sustaining a balanced budget framework for day-to-day operations. While our reserves are quite strong, it is important to note that reserves and previous year surpluses are not available to fund current operations of the state government, including
salaries of the constitutional officers. These expenses may only be funded through existing fund balances in the constitutional officers fund. Consistent with the governor's priority to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and lower the overall tax burden on citizens of Arkansas, the governor signed additional tax relief legislation this past May. The legislation reduced the top individual income tax rate from 3.9 to 3.7 percent.
This reduction was retroactive to January 1, 2026. The top corporate rate will decline from 4.1 percent or will decline to 4.1 percent on January 1, 2027, and the remaining state sales tax on groceries, which was 1/8 of a cent, eliminated beginning january 1 of 2026. the administration's efficiency program ar forward is advancing long-term savings towards a goal of 300 million by 2030. we've already identified
approximately 127 million in savings across various sectors including technology procurement and facilities so moving to the 27 budget year the fiscal year 27 budget process built upon the framework with proposed state general revenue spending increase increasing by approximately 194 and a half million or roughly three percent while maintaining a balanced budget the same process is currently underway for the next biennium prioritizing the needs of the department versus
the cost to the taxpayers. The governor will present her balance budget for the next biennium in early November. A point directly relevant to this commission is the funding of the constitutional officers fund I mentioned earlier. This fund is supported by a 1% deduction of net general and special revenue collections. This surcharge structure means that when taxes are reduced and total collections decline, the constitutional officer fund experiences a proportional reduction.
As you set salaries for constitutional officers and members of the General Assembly, justices, judges, and prosecuting attorneys, this linkage between tax policy and fund capacity should remain central to the deliberations. As a point of reference, the most recent average salary increase was 1.35% within the executive branch agencies with the current average salary of approximately $60,000. In summary, Arkansas finances are strong and resilient. We're delivering efficiencies and
tax relief as priorities and while also acknowledging the direct relationship between collections and the funds that support constitutional offices. I appreciate your time this morning and i'll try to address any questions you may have all right thank you for that exceptional report if we could just
Speaker 37
8:16
say ditto next year the next year the next year that would be really good i
Speaker 2
8:31
think we would take it but outstanding report and at this time i think we'd open up for any questions that anybody on the commission might
Speaker 42
9:03
this was the the best uh financial year that we've had at at any point did you say that it was the fifth largest surplus that we had recorded we've had some that were larger
Speaker 2
9:25
but this is one of the best years yeah and and the the dollars that we targeted last year for the budget uh how did we
So when we talk
Speaker 42
9:42
allowed for the $655 million surplus. So if we look at this, our estimated expenditures were below our forecast, and then we exceeded what we forecasted as revenues. So
Speaker 2
10:04
Okay. Again, are there any questions? Larry. Thanks, Mr. Chair. You
Speaker 51
10:09
mentioned a 1.35% increase, I think. Was that for state employees? Was that the average increase
Speaker 42
10:17
for state employees across the board? That was the average increase in salaries for executive branch state employees. Okay. All right. Thank
Speaker 54
10:31
you. what was that what was the number the year before of that increase I don't
Speaker 32
10:41
have that with me but year over year it would have been skewed a little bit the prior year because we
Speaker 46
10:50
implemented a new pay plan and so it would have skewed that a little
Speaker 2
10:59
bit but I don't have the exact number in front of me okay okay On that, just for my information, on that 1.35% for the executive branch, does the judges that we will be looking at for consideration today, do you recall what those percent was, what that percent was the year before?
I do not. I think when we get into evaluating our increases that we will be doing now, I would like to know what it was our last time. So we'll see if we can't get that information and have it available for our discussion later.
Speaker 46
11:52
Okay, if it's acceptable to you, I can send that information to T.J. Fowler
and have him submit it to the committee. Okay, like
Speaker 1
12:06
I said, we're going to be having some discussion today, so we're not going to have that information, I assume. I believe I have some of that information from
Speaker 63
12:18
my presentation last year. okay so give me a minute i can probably pull that out before we adjourn this meeting and before you all start your deliberation that'll be fine and
Speaker 1
12:32
that out i think we all would just like to have our memory is not quite as good as jans and and some of these other real young folks so uh with that said let's uh let's move forward with the
Speaker 63
12:58
thanks for being here today um a couple years ago i'd given a presentation and this commission had
determined that they wanted some version of that presentation year year in and year out just as a refresher of our constitutional responsibilities and limitations so here is this year's version of of the presentation. Section one is our constitutional requirements. What is this commission required to do? The primary duties of this commission are to review and adjust the salaries of the elected constitutional officers, judiciary, justices, general assembly, and it is also
tasked with making recommendations for per diem and expenses for the general assembly before each regular session which will be this upcoming year. You do have a couple limits on the things that you can do, and those limits include, you have to include the overall economic condition of the state which we just heard from Andy at DFNA. It requires that the salaries of judges be uniform throughout the state.
You cannot diminish the salaries of the judges or justices, and any salary revision up or down may not exceed 15%. You're also required to have a public comment period after this meeting of not longer than 45 days, and then we will readjourn after that public comment period to review any public comments that we receive and
Speaker 70
14:28
then determine whether or not to ratify whatever numbers y'all outlay today.
Speaker 63
14:35
Section two, and everyone here has heard this before, so I'll try and be quick. The Independent Citizens Commission held its first meeting in 2014. They met over a dozen times in that first year to try and get salaries right. Everything that first commission did is still on the website, so I welcome anyone to go back and you can see the historical overview. Just like any other determination, any handouts, any public comments, any resolutions, they're They're all there on the website for your review.
These are the items that the first commission reviewed, and historically we have tried to look at all of these same items. I won't read them all. They're all in your packets. This is a new section this year. We had had some questions about what this commission had done historically on the per per diem expense and mileage reimbursements for the General Assembly. So I've created a spreadsheet in your packet.
It's really been uniform. The first commission looked to the GSA guidelines and had no change to that. At our meeting in 2024, we added one extra step there because I believe DFA's financial management guide now has some guidance on per diems and mileage. So what this commission did in its last review of these items was say, if Arkansas's financial management guide has guidance, let's use that. However, to the extent that guidance does not exist, we will defer to the GSA.
And I'll remind the commission that for the per diems, the mileage, and the expenses, y'all are not actually setting those things. The legislature sets them. The letter we
Speaker 70
16:24
send is simply a recommendation. Question four is the historic salary
Speaker 63
16:30
revisions by this commission. I've broken it down into three separate pages. You've got the General Assembly on page one, I believe Executive Officers are page two,
and then the Judiciary and the Prosecutors are page three. One change I made this year, I went ahead and added the percentage increase that each Each one of those amounted to for each year that
Speaker 70
16:52
it was made. I don't know if that's helpful or not, but I figured more information would be
Speaker 73
17:07
better than less information. And then the final section here, and this you all seen before, is just an overview of
the various offices and what they do, and then
Speaker 63
17:18
some comparisons with surrounding states. And I'll give my caveat that I give every year, excluding judicial and prosecutorial positions, there really isn't a one-to-one comparison with other states. What our treasurer does may not be what the Texas treasurer does. In fact, Texas doesn't have a treasurer, they have a comptroller. In some states, the things that our auditor does, our auditors do, the treasurer does.
So, same with Secretary of State, same with Land Commissioner. It's not a one-to-one, but at least it gives you a general idea of what other states are doing with their analogous positions. So, with that, I have updated the slide for governor's salaries, and I've updated the median and mean. I think one thing you will see through all of these slides is that a handful of the surrounding states have had some pretty meaningful increases in the last year. I think most notably, you'll see that Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia all had some pretty sizable increases, especially when it came to their financial officers and their secretaries of state. And I'll just scroll through each of those so you can see the various changes. I also added a couple states that weren't in previous models simply because I was able to find
Speaker 72
18:37
that data. And different states make it more difficult than others to find what they pay public officials.
Speaker 70
18:52
Here we've got secretaries of state, I believe the next one will be state financial officers. And on this slide, what I endeavor to do is find either treasurer, auditor, both, or the analogous position in each state. You'll see there are some states where they do have a treasurer and an auditor like we we do, but they may not pay them the same. And so for example, Mississippi and Florida and Tennessee, you'll see two separate
Speaker 63
19:20
amounts for each of those positions. The final portion of your packet just has generally what each,
it's a very, very high level overview of what each office does. Again, I won't read through this. It's largely unchanged from previous years other than those slides that talked about the numbers of appropriated positions and the amounts paid those positions. For example, the Attorney General's office, some of their amounts changed in the number
Speaker 70
19:48
of appropriated positions. Same with Treasury and same with the Auditor of State.
And if anyone wants to review these that's sitting here, I have a couple of printouts too. I know I'm going through these quickly since we've done this multiple times. I wanna be efficient with time. All right,
Speaker 63
20:22
and that brings me to the end of my presentation and to the point where you can ask me any questions you might have. TJ, thank you.
Speaker 2
20:36
That is really, really good information, information that we need to make the appropriate decisions. But you really have gone above and beyond here. And I think it's very helpful for us. And I thank you for that. I guess at this time we probably ought to open up for any questions that anybody
might have at this time concerning that report. And I guess we'll just-- well, that's what I'll do right now. If anybody has any questions concerning the report, I think right now would be a good time to ask, as TJ has already mentioned.
We're not always looking at apples and apples. And so I think we have to be very careful with that. Secondly, I think that, T.J., I would like to identify any of our positions that we think are out of bounds with where the market is so we can really focus on those.
And then I think the others we want to certainly keep competitive. But if there's
Speaker 40
22:20
any major adjustments that need to be made, either now or at some point, we need to go ahead and identify those. Are you asking
Speaker 1
22:44
report let's say anything like a in excess of a 10 15 variance
Speaker 89
22:49
so i'm reluctant to say that something is out of bounds i don't know that that's
Speaker 1
23:08
rephrase that then uh as acting chair and i look at those numbers if there is a what i consider a significant variance 15 15 or more i think we ought to understand if that variance is caused by the responsibilities of that one versus the the
index we're comparing it to so i
Speaker 72
23:30
think probably the information that would be helpful with regard to that question may be
Speaker 63
23:35
your median and your mean average uh compared to these other states you know i i think it's this commission's charge under the constitution to review this information but review it in the totality of all the other information you received, the economic standing of the state as a whole, what our positions do. So I don't think we just need to look at the mean and the average and the median and say, well, okay, we want to be ranked here. But I do think
Speaker 70
24:00
that's one item you all should consider. So with that in mind, you know, from as we
Speaker 63
24:08
go through these slides, the governor's slide, you know, we are really, really close to the mean average of all these surrounding states that I've identified, but as you
Speaker 70
24:17
move through some of these others, for example, the Attorney General, you know, we're very close to the median, we're a little bit further below the average. I think you see a
Speaker 63
24:29
bigger discrepancy as you move towards Secretaries of State and you
move towards financial officers, and I, you know, having worked in two financial officers' offices, I can give a little bit of my perspective there. I think modern treasuries, modern auditors in the last 10 to 15 years, that's been an increasingly technical role as states have moved their investments over to what I would call a modern portfolio, a broader range of fixed income investments. And then, you know, auditor's office, one of the main things we do is unclaimed property.
Those systems have been modernized. So I think those offices, when they were initially created, especially in Arkansas, it was really just to be the state's bank and the state's accountant, and those roles have expanded, and other states have seen the same thing. So again, as you move into, and Secretary of State, I've never worked in that office. Michael has, but I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say elections, business filings, running a Capitol, running a Capitol police force and the security involved, I think those things in every state have grown.
So you'll see that Secretary of State, we're a little further below the median and the mean, and you'll see the same trend with financial officers where the mean is, the average is $170,000 and the median is $154,000 and we're paying $105,000. The one place that I didn't do as good a job and I hope to do better, which is harder to find that information, is the land commissioner. Fewer states have a land commissioner or an analogous office as they do a financial officer
or secretary of state. started compiling that but there wasn't
Speaker 72
26:11
enough information to make it meaningful um so hopefully that helps answer your
Speaker 95
26:17
question as best i think i can it does uh anybody else have any questions concerning those uh
Speaker 1
26:26
the salary comparison sheet uh the various positions it looks like to me that
Speaker 1
26:43
in which the variance is, you know, maybe greater than 20%, and I'm not using 20% as a baseline or anything, but I do think that one of our charges is to, to make sure that the positions that we're looking at are competitive
Speaker 2
27:13
for a lot of reasons, but are competitive. Again, factoring in the responsibilities that we have in that position versus those that we are comparing it to.
Speaker 2
27:43
of the things that I would do is ask that we each one of those positions that we're looking at,
That we have a side-by-side comparison that we, for example, we would, I'll just use the Secretary of State or the Treasurer and Auditor. that if we could have a column listing that side by side with a column that would list the average of the other states,
that would be helpful to me in making decisions whether or not we're outside the bounds of where we should be. I can definitely add something
Speaker 66
28:39
like that in the next presentation. To the rest of the committee, agree with that. Would you like to see that?
Speaker 2
28:48
And is there anything else that we could take up TJ's time in getting him to do? You know, I always found that when I'm not real sure what to do,
it's ask for a report, and that goes real
Speaker 98
29:15
there are some positions that that clearly are not necessarily in line with some of the surrounding states what you're suggesting i think certainly would be helpful i do think it at some point if we are going to consider larger increases to bring those more in line i do think as well you did with the
governor in maybe one or two other positions, but to have a little better understanding of the role of those offices in Arkansas compared to some of those other states. For me sitting here, I can see the gap, but I'd want to understand better the responsibility gap and what they're doing, and certainly I think it's fair to say they're probably similar, but I don't know to what extent. And so before, I know for me, considering much larger increases to bring them in more
in line with our neighbors, I'd want to understand the responsibilities and duties a little
Speaker 72
30:20
bit better. Great idea. I can actually speak to that with some level of knowledge.
Speaker 63
30:26
You know, I was at the Arkansas Treasury for seven years, and now I've been at the auditor's office for four years. Through those programs, we go to national conferences, the National Association of State treasurers. And there are really three, maybe four, depending on how you look at it, main
items that those offices cover. You've got the investment of idle state funds. You have the investment of retirement accounts. And you have the administration of unclaimed property. And all 50 states break it down a little bit differently as to which office covers which. There are offices out in the United States where one office covers all three, and I say three, maybe four. In Arkansas, you have public employees' retirement and teachers' retirement.
Those are two separate. And some other states will separate it out where only the public employees' retirement will fall under the treasurer, whereas the teachers will fall somewhere else. Most of those states where one office covers them all, it's actually an
Speaker 70
31:30
appointed position, or it's farmed out to some private entity like a BlackRock or someone like that. For
Speaker 63
31:37
most of the states you see around here, it's a lot like Arkansas. There are some differences, and I'm trying to think of the ones that -- so in Arkansas, neither the treasurer nor the auditor covers retirement programs.
You have APERS that covers public employee retirement, and you have teachers' retirement system that covers their retirement. Our treasury does all the investing for the idle state funds within the treasury. In addition to some other programs other states may not do, they do 529. They administer that program. They also deal with, and this is getting a little in the weeds, they deal with turnback funds. So, there's a lot of county taxes that are collected, and those county taxes are remitted to the treasury, but then some percentage goes back to the cities, counties, and municipalities.
Speaker 70
32:25
They also deal with the sort of day-to-day in-and-out banking debits and credits in their cash management group. So that is some additional things that not every Treasury you see on here may do. From the auditor's perspective in Arkansas, the two largest things we do are we
Speaker 63
32:42
act as the check printing -- well, it's a check and a balance, and I'm going to use the word check two different ways. It's a check and a balance against the Treasury. So every single warrant, that's what the R&S Constitution calls any payment from the state.
They don't call it a check. They call it a warrant. Any warrant that's issued by any agency in the state, we either print the physical check or we administer the payment of the ACH fund. The other side of our house, well, I guess we have two other sides of the house. We have an accounting payroll department, and we handle the payroll for every single office
Speaker 70
33:20
that y'all are dealing with here today. So we handle all the General Assembly's payroll, we handle
Speaker 63
33:27
all the Judiciary's payroll. We also deal with expenses in addition to payroll for the judiciary and for the prosecutors.
And then the largest swath of our office is the unclaimed property sector. So now I'm telling you what
Speaker 70
33:39
you do, what we do. Your question was, how does that compare to everyone else? I mean, the answer is pretty similar for all the states you see on this board, with some exceptions. I'm trying to think of the ones that I really
Speaker 63
33:55
know. Like for example, I know Missouri's treasurer handles unclaimed property, whereas their auditor doesn't. Their auditor does something totally different. It's actually more like legislative audit here where they're going and auditing the different
Speaker 70
34:06
offices in the state and the city and county. Is that helpful at
Speaker 98
34:13
all? It is, but from my limited understanding, I don't know that I
Speaker 74
34:18
could repeat it back to you, so it was helpful. Let me give you the condensed version. Of those four
Speaker 63
34:24
items that treasurers, comptrollers, or auditors may handle, there will be some variation between all of the states where it may not be one-to-one, but it's the same basic topics that they're all handling.
Now, what would be most helpful to you is if I could get you, here's exactly what Nebraska does and here's exactly
Speaker 70
34:44
what Oklahoma does. I can't get that for you today, but I'll be sure to include
Speaker 39
34:51
that in my next presentation the next time we do this. Okay, Larry, thank you. That was
Speaker 2
34:58
good information. And T.J., you said you couldn't get that for us now, but you'd have it in the next presentation. are you talking about the next
Speaker 40
35:09
presentation that we have in a few weeks, or are you talking about next year?
Speaker 72
35:15
Well, that's up to this commission. If this commission decides that
Speaker 63
35:20
they need that information before they can make a decision, and y'all want to meet one more time before you make the decision, and then meet a third time in order to actually ratify it, that is well within this commission's purview. So that's up to you. Right now, my understanding and the way it's historically been done is that a decision has been made at this meeting and then there's been
Speaker 72
35:40
a second meeting in order to ratify that. Obviously, I can't have you that information by this meeting.
Speaker 2
35:47
So if we deem that we need that information, which I think Larry is expressing a won't. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I personally would like to have that and feel better prepared to make these recommendations. You're saying that would
Speaker 72
36:16
require a third meeting? Yes, sir. That would require that we come back in order for y'all to
Speaker 63
36:21
make the initial decision as to what changes, if any, y'all want to make the compensation.
And at that point, we would publish that decision, and we'd
Speaker 23
36:33
period in order to ratify that decision okay mr chairman i think that it's necessary for us to have another meeting because this is
Speaker 2
36:44
overwhelming information and we want to get it right thank you miss and i think it's a compliment to
Speaker 1
36:51
you that we have overwhelming amount of really good information that will help us make not just the decision, but the right decision, not only for this
go-around, but for those of the future. You've
Speaker 2
37:05
done a great job in providing us a lot of meaningful information to digest it and make a good recommendation. We'd like to have that meeting. Thank you, sir. I do, from
Speaker 72
37:17
an administrative standpoint, I think I have to point out two things. One, there is a time limit placed on
Speaker 63
37:25
when you have to get your per diem reports in. So the per diem report to the legislature, if we do two meetings, we might be beyond
the time limit for that. So that might need to occur even if we wait for what I would call the salary decisions. Two, the Constitution limits the terms that the commissioners can have and we have two commissioners that are going to roll off in very early November. So if y'all break this down to three meetings, the timing of this will most likely require that y'all make a decision as to what those salaries are, then two commissioners roll off. We have to wait for two more appointments, both of them from the governor.
the governor aren't always exactly in time and so you could get yourself into a position where you don't have enough commissioners well i guess you'd have enough with two but you'd have to have everyone else here and you'd have
Speaker 107
38:23
two brand new commissioners that weren't part of the initial decision
Speaker 2
38:29
that would then have to ratify that decision well i'm not sure what our real chairman would would think about this but it seemed like to me
Speaker 2
38:43
hurdle that we tried to resolve that hurdle meaning have another meeting but have it quick couldn't we
Speaker 2
39:03
this and you deem it's appropriate to have that other meeting not only appropriate but but needed and we don't want to create a conflict of delay
we would like to have that meeting in relatively short order to where give you the time you need to get it, but also don't let us create a problem, time-wise. And if I could make
Speaker 63
39:38
perhaps the thing to do is identify any positions where this information, this additional information would be helpful. I presume that that isn't every single position on here.
For me, it's not. It sounds to me that it probably is limited to secretaries of state,
Speaker 107
39:56
auditors, treasurers, and analogous financial positions. Yeah, that's what it is for me. I don't
Speaker 87
40:05
recommend that we move forward with every other position other
Speaker 63
40:08
than those three, and then y'all can have a second meeting on those three positions. That way, you're moving forward with everything else, and if we do get into some sort of time crunch or appointment crunch with those three, at least we've taken care of the per diem,
Speaker 107
40:22
We've taken care of the judiciary and the prosecutors. We've taken care of the General
Speaker 2
40:40
other executive officers. That all sounds good, you know, don't mess up. I would
Speaker 1
40:46
say let's go ahead and move through the agenda, and maybe be thinking about some timelines
Speaker 2
40:56
there if you might yes sir okay so we're going to move past that particular item
number e or section e on the agenda but we're going to come back with some final recommendations on that so the next item on the agenda is consideration of stipend for each independent citizens commission meeting historically i would i would say the time that i've been on here and i think going back that most of us have agreed that we're not interested in any type of stipend for
for this group is that correct if if someone feels differently then you know we'd be
Speaker 19
41:39
glad to do it That's kind of awkward saying that if anybody fails, you want something. However, that really doesn't create a problem for me, so I do suggest that my feeling is that we forego the stipend as we have historically. I totally agree.
Speaker 23
42:14
I'd like to make a motion that we act as a commission as we have in past years and forego any stipend for our Independent Citizens
Speaker 1
42:25
Commission meetings. Thank you, Mrs. Zimmerman. Do we have a second? Second.
Speaker 2
42:30
I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the recommendation to forego any type of site?
Speaker 125
42:42
Aye. So order. Next item. Mr. May, if I may, Aaron Lowry from the Attorney General's Office. Because there are two commissioners on the phone and to comply with FOIA, I would suggest maybe you ask them to do a voice vote so they can identify themselves and then make their vote on the commission or on the motion rather okay you're talking about um
Speaker 2
43:17
agree with the emotion identify yourself and and verbalize your vote is that what you're asking yes sir okay clark yeah this is clark smith
Speaker 19
43:45
okay frank apparently is absent so clark has voted in favor and still
Speaker 2
44:02
next item on the agenda would be the consideration of the uh amounts to be paid to members of the general assembly number one
per per diem and number two reimbursement for expenses number three reimbursement for mileage as required pursuant to article 19 section 31 and uh so let's let's begin with the um -
Speaker 63
44:55
every recommendation since this commission's inception, and generally it has been following the GSA guidelines. The first letter said, we recommend you follow the GSA guidelines, and then the four subsequent letters literally said, no change to our previous recommendation. The recommendation this commission made in 2024 was slightly altered from that. It stated first, it would like to see if the state's financial management guide,
published by DFA, had any guidance, and if so,
Speaker 107
45:26
follow that guidance. However, if no such guidance existed,
Speaker 1
45:39
that charge as we see, in the history of the per diem and the mileage recommendations there have been no changes in the recommendations
Speaker 2
45:55
over those that four-year period and so with that with that said and tj
Speaker 1
46:01
i assume you don't have any information that would cause us to reconsider a portion of of what is in front of us i did not know sir okay can
Speaker 2
46:14
we have a motion for recommendation on the uh increase relative to the per diem and mileage mr chairman i so move we have a a motion that
Speaker 19
46:32
no changes be recommended going forward for this reporting period second we have a second uh larry any other observations that need to be made by any of the members on
Speaker 2
47:01
the uh telephone hearing none all those in favor of no change say aye aye aye any anyone that favors making a change
uh all right thank you so so we're we're good to go on that okay the what somebody wants to say i'm frank did you want to say something no i was just i was just gonna say tommy i'm gonna
Speaker 91
47:39
lie all right okay well I appreciate it I appreciate it we got you down yeah okay
okay so so the next
Speaker 63
48:11
be H, and H-A would be your constitutional
officers, meaning the executive branch constitutional officers. I've gone ahead and pulled
Speaker 91
48:22
that slide up. Okay, thank you, T.J. So we have completed through item G on
Speaker 2
48:29
our report agendas. agendas, and we're going to item H. Is that right? Yes, sir. And
Speaker 63
48:44
to those sections. There has been one letter that is provided in your packet provided by the Treasurer of
State. We, a couple months before this meeting, we send out a request to every single office, courts, the prosecutors, every executive branch office, and both the House and the Senate, and we just ask, "Hey, do you have any input?" This is a letter we
Speaker 107
49:07
received in response to our request. It was the only executive branch response we received.
Speaker 1
49:20
So there's no specific request here. It's just a general letter to the board to look at?
Speaker 2
49:27
that's my understanding yes okay all of you have this in your packet thank you very much so now we move uh we move forward with the uh review the commission review of salary adjustments And on the slide that T.J. has put forth up here, by the way, again, great job.
We really like a lot of information, and you sure are giving us the pertinent. On constitutional officers, is that the slide for all of those? This is the slide. one slide yes sir this is all seven
Speaker 72
50:20
of the executive branch constitutional officers in arkansas okay so we're
Speaker 2
50:25
looking for adjustments but we're looking for salary adjustments is that correct
yes sir okay so um you know we we've already said that um we wanted a little additional information and so if we're going to be making a recommendation it's going to be without having seen that
Speaker 1
50:57
but we could make the recommendation and then make adjustments if we see necessary certainly you
Speaker 70
51:06
it would be to take these either one by one or you could batch out the the three um that commissioner McCready had questions about. That's totally up to the Commission, how you want to address that. Say that one more time. Yes, sir. You could, and this is not
Speaker 63
51:28
the entire universe of options, but these are the options I see. You could go one by one on each of these offices. You could batch them all together, but obviously that would not address Commissioner McCready's earlier concern.
you could batch out the three offices that did give Commissioner McCready a concern. That would be the secretary of state, the treasurer, and the auditor. And
Speaker 89
51:49
so then you could address the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and land commissioner together. - I think I'd like that.
Speaker 142
52:03
with me. - Jan? - Yes, I thought we were gonna address the secretary of state, treasurer,
Speaker 142
52:16
was my understanding that we were going to
have further discussion regarding the secretary of state the treasurer the auditor and the land commissioner okay yeah and again
Speaker 63
52:25
please don't take any of my recommendations as what y'all should or have to do this is completely y'all can address this in any way you want um i i can tell tell you that in the past, in my three years of doing this, initially, y'all would take all the executive officers together, and then it was either last year or the year before y'all felt it more prudent to do them individually because y'all started to acknowledge that
there may be some differences in the pay scales and those things. So however you want to do it, if you want to go
Speaker 2
53:08
down where it's the top three and then the bottom four, completely up to this commission. I'm thinking that at our last year, you know, we felt like that we had made adjustments pretty much across the board that was fairly close to market.
Now, we don't know that, and we're going to take another look at that. I think what I would suggest we do, but, T.J., you correct me if you've got a different idea, because I don't want to get in trouble with our chairman. I think I would be okay, instead of deferring that right now,
that we go ahead and we make adjustments with the information that we have. And then when we get this additional information, we could make that change if needed. And that would take a
Speaker 18
54:20
little bit of pressure, I think, off of everything. And I probably
Speaker 72
54:25
should clarify, and Aaron, you correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm
Speaker 63
54:31
right here. Historically, what this commission has done is it has set salaries, and it has met some period of time later, and it has ratified that decision.
This commission is under no obligation to ratify that decision when it comes back and meets if new information is received. And I think the Constitution suspects that would be because of public comment. But I could certainly have the information that Commissioner McCready has asked for. So if the Commission did want to set those salaries based on the information it has now, and then I would present that additional information at the next meeting, y'all would be perfectly within your power to say, okay, we're going to ratify the judiciary, the prosecutors,
the General Assembly, and the top three, but we're not going to ratify these. going to submit another salary uh recommendation for these other four you would have to come back and meet a third time but it would only be for those items that you did not ratify we're we're
Speaker 2
55:27
having to come back meet a third time anyway aren't we you are if you
Speaker 72
55:32
decide to do it that way now you don't necessarily have to if y'all set if you if you
Speaker 63
55:38
set salaries for everyone now understanding that there may be some additional information that could change your mind if it
Speaker 72
55:45
doesn't change your mind at the next one then at that point you
Speaker 23
55:50
would not have to meet a third time. So given what you've just stated would it be prudent for us to consider all of the constitutional officers together and table that for our next meeting? That is
Speaker 98
56:17
I take that to mean what TJ was suggesting. I think it's wise to do that because I do think that, as we see today, getting everybody together two more times in a relatively short period of time can be difficult to do. So I think it would be prudent to that. It doesn't preclude us from if we have new information that we receive at the next meeting where we would otherwise ratify all of them, we can make a shift in our thinking then if
it's warranted and if that's what the will of the commission is to do. So I think it's smart to
Speaker 2
57:08
understand what you're saying is that right now, go ahead and make a recommendation on those. And are
Speaker 18
57:18
we still going to come back? Are you still saying come back for our meeting, a special additional meeting?
Speaker 98
57:27
Well, what I'm saying is we have to come back no matter what. To ratify. To ratify, and I think if we have information that we get in that period where we come back to ratify, where we may not want to ratify a few of the offices, then we have the ability not to ratify those and to adjust what those are, notice them up, and then we'd have to come back a third time at that point. Am I understanding that correctly in terms of our noticing requirements if we made changes
Speaker 125
57:59
at that second meeting? That's correct. If you make changes, whether that's based on public comment or additional information, you'd have to come back the third time to ratify. Just those that you made changes.
Speaker 72
58:20
TJ, don't look at me, say something. I want to try and summarize what I'm hearing from everyone. It sounds like the consensus from
Speaker 63
58:27
the commissioners at this point is, let's go down this list, maybe either one by one or with the batch of the top three and the bottom four, make
decisions based on the information we have, understanding that I've been charged with bringing you additional information that will be provided in the interim during the public
Speaker 153
58:44
comment period. Okay. I think that's great. That's what I was looking for. Yeah. Thank you, Larry.
Speaker 98
58:50
Okay. And with that, I'll just give my comments now, and from my point of view, I'm fine with considering all of the offices is one. I heard the report of how the state is doing financially.
I think it's great. I also keep in mind the -- what I do think is relevant is the increase that the other state employees had received in their salaries. I think that gives us a good benchmark. And so, the good news of how the state is doing financially is well received, and I think that's great. For me personally, I weighed against, you know, on my drive down here, I had to stop and fill up for gas. It's a lot of money. Other prices are up.
So I do think we need to keep in mind the overall economic conditions in the state and how it's going to be received by the citizens of the state as we consider salary increases. So my sense is, and what I'm supportive of, is an increase in the range or in the scope of what the rest of the state employees received. That's what I am supportive of. It doesn't have to be exactly 1.35 percent, but in that range is something that I'm comfortable
doing. I think much beyond it at this point is getting outside of my comfort level. I do notice for the judicial and prosecutorial positions, I know some of them are here. I'm certainly sensitive to that because that's how I earn my living as well. But I note in the last, you know, two years or so, we have made an effort to sort of maybe bring those positions more in line to what the competitors are. And so that's why I'm in favor of considering all of them together in an increase to make
Speaker 162
1:00:40
sure we're keeping up with the cost of living and make sure it's consistent with how
Speaker 63
1:00:47
other state employees have been treated. And I may, if I may jump in here just to give a little more color there. I do have the Social Security COLA data and the latest inflation data, if that would be helpful there nationally. So it looks like in 2027, the projected Social Security cost of living adjustment for 2027 is going to be between 3.5 and 3.6 percent, and the Social Security cost of living adjustment
COLA for 2026 is 2.8 percent. Say that last one again. Yes, sir. The Social Security cost of living adjustment for
Speaker 2
1:01:35
government sees for Social Security benefits. Yep. Would you all like to make a specific recommendation on the increase?
Speaker 23
1:01:46
I have one question of T.J., and in my notes, I wrote down that the increases for the constitutional officers comes from a second fund. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Speaker 72
1:02:00
Yes, and I wish Andy were still here. He's the expert on that, but all
Speaker 63
1:02:06
of the salaries for the constitutional officers and their offices, The payments for their offices, appropriations, they all come out of a separate fund called the Constitutional Officers Fund.
Speaker 63
1:02:22
a one-point-something percent haircut off the top of general revenue that goes and pays for this fund. It's been that way since the Revenue Stabilization Act of 2015, somewhere in that. Don't quote
Speaker 72
1:02:35
me on that year, but that's just the way the budget mechanism
Speaker 107
1:02:53
works. And y'all's deliberation, you know, that's y'all's deliberation,
Speaker 172
1:02:57
but turn on the mics for the deliberation. He just wants our microphones
Speaker 162
1:03:07
on as we have these conversations i'm sorry okay so um why don't we
Speaker 2
1:03:17
go ahead and and make a motion i've heard that you know the number one and a half to two percent um do either one of you have a preference there
I'm personally, I'm thinking that probably the 2% range is appropriate. I made a few phone calls ahead of time, but you know, what I'm seeing in the banking industry, they are doing numbers in the 2% to 3% range. Can I ask one question of
Speaker 51
1:04:03
maybe Andy is the one of it. How was the 1.3% increase for state employees arrived at?
Speaker 72
1:04:09
I can't tell you his exact methodology, but I can tell you I've asked
Speaker 63
1:04:15
that question of DFA in past years to provide this information, and the way it works for executive branch employees is the governor essentially announces a range based on your performance review. So if you get a certain performance review, you're allowed up to a certain percentage, and I don't know what those percentages were last year. I think it was 3% or 4%, 3% if you got the top review, 1% if you were in a middle review,
and 0% if you were anything lower than that. When I gave that data in last year, I always gave you the caveat, giving the different agency heads the authority to get those raises doesn't mean those raises are given. And oftentimes, in addition to the COLA, you have some merit and some other things. So I suspect the way that DFA reached that was they took the average of what executive branch employees actually received on the COLA only, not on the merit or any bonus as well, which all that to say it's a sum,
Speaker 2
1:05:15
So whatever number that we come up with, whatever percent we come up with, We're saying that there's going to be some higher, there's going to be some lower. And we would expect the average to be in
Speaker 97
1:05:39
that range. Well, hearing that, I know I'm comfortable with 2% then. Hearing that 1.35,
Speaker 98
1:05:45
there was not a methodology that's an average of a larger range,
I'm certainly comfortable with 2%.
Speaker 2
1:05:56
as in my okay we have a emotion that the adjustment would be 2% all in favor say I if we voted on it twice
Speaker 19
1:06:18
thank you thank you that the recommendation of 2% is a
recommendation all in favor say hi again next thank you frank next
Speaker 50
1:06:30
item thank you frank got you okay um the the next uh group that we're
Speaker 2
1:06:48
going to be uh looking at is
the the Arkansas legislature and General Assembly you see up above in front of you you see
Speaker 2
1:07:08
one of those I'm assuming And those brackets don't mean negative, so around the percentage, you know, bankers tend
to look at brackets in the negative standpoint, so.
Speaker 51
1:07:37
thank you. Any thoughts? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, for clarity, but my view was to consider the salary adjustments as a block for all the
Speaker 98
1:07:46
positions, so if others want to go through them category by
Speaker 175
1:07:51
category, that's fine. You're saying for all the category positions?
Speaker 98
1:07:55
A to G on the, all those categories on the agenda, A through G, my rationale would apply across the board. That's totally permissible if
Speaker 72
1:08:08
that's what the commission wants to do. I think historically, at minimum, you've broken them down by
Speaker 63
1:08:14
the three branches of government. And for the judiciary, there may be some even better reason to do that because the ask from the prosecutor's office hasn't always, although the percent may end up with the exact same
result. They generally ask, and I can pull it up, but the prosecutors, Division A prosecutors are generally just set at 95% of what the circuit judges receive, and then the Division B prosecutors are set at 85% of the Division A prosecutors. I can't believe I remembered that. But again, 2% may effectuate
Speaker 70
1:08:46
the same thing. It'll be real close. And certainly, I'm in
Speaker 98
1:08:52
favor of keeping those percentages as they are. I think that's consistent with what the request was, and I'm certainly comfortable with that.
Speaker 93
1:09:01
So my only point would be if you, I think if you batch everyone at
Speaker 70
1:09:06
2%, it may not exactly, you might actually alter those figures a little
Speaker 98
1:09:10
bit. That's a fair point. And I wasn't suggesting we modify that, and so we may need to break them down a little bit more. It was to, of the judicial positions would be 2%, and then the prosecuting attorneys, their salaries remain based on that existing percentage of the ones above them, so. okay so TJ what do you
Speaker 63
1:09:43
Commissioner McCready and I don't know if that was a motion but I believe what he is saying is
Speaker 107
1:09:51
he's making a motion that every single position under your purview minus the prosecutorial positions receive a 2% increase and the prosecutorial positions remain at their historical percentages, which would be the Division A prosecutors receive 95% of what the new circuit judge salary would be, and the Division B prosecutors receive 85% of the new salary for the Division A prosecutors.
Speaker 98
1:10:18
That's exactly what I wanted, and that's why TJ was a better student in law school with me. And so that's what I will make my motion as. okay you've heard the
Speaker 2
1:10:29
motion i don't plan to repeat it but we have it you got the motion we have a second second mrs zimmerman second any questions all in favor say aye aye aye aye any opposed
That was an eye, right? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2
1:11:09
it. So the next item of gender, we're going to look at the judge, the circuit court
Speaker 63
1:11:26
My understanding is that the motion that y'all just passed covered the circuit, every judicial position at 2%. My understanding is the motion as it was presented just took care of all of item H. A through G. A through G. Okay, thank you. Excuse me.
Speaker 2
1:11:56
Now we're down to item number I, and that's any new business that needs to come before the group or any old business that we need to consider. Larry, I want to thank you and Jan for helping get through this agenda. I'll be glad when our chairman returns, and that will be at our next meeting.
And now we have to decide what is the next meeting date based on
Speaker 91
1:12:36
these discussions that we've had. TJ. Yes, sir. And the only
Speaker 63
1:12:41
limitations on that are that it must be a reasonable period, not more than 45 days. However, I will remind the Commission that we will have two Commissioners that roll off on November the 5th, I believe is the date. And so I think it would be prudent to set this somewhere halfway between now and November
5th. That way, if you all do end up making changes based on any new information provided, we still have time to have a third meeting prior to the two current Commissioners rolling off. Okay. Excuse me. - Historically, y'all have met on a Friday. There's no requirement that that occurs. So, any day that y'all
Speaker 2
1:13:23
agree to, halfway between now and November 5th. - Right now, we're on the second, October 2nd. We want to have two meetings in between now
and November 5th before our two members roll off. And has everybody had a chance to look at their calendars?
Speaker 2
1:14:07
is she? No, sir. Okay, so any conflicts that anybody has,
Uh, I would, I would think that maybe if we were just looking at, at Friday's, you know, to get
Speaker 41
1:14:22
everything together, uh, TJ, how long do you need to, I'll move
Speaker 63
1:14:48
The 6th, I think that might be pushing the bounds of what is a reasonable time
Speaker 195
1:14:55
period. What day did you say? I just asked about October the 6th, but if that's impossible. That would
Speaker 37
1:15:01
only be two business days. I think that the 12th or the 13th. I think the week
Speaker 72
1:15:08
of the 12th, you know, anywhere between the 12th and the 16th. That gives a full week of publication. I think
Speaker 2
1:15:15
Monday and Tuesday is what I would like to look at.
One of those, either the 12th or the 19th. the 12th state holiday columbus
Speaker 19
1:15:28
emissions columbus day 13th in is tuesday february 13th october i mean october 13. i
Speaker 70
1:15:35
don't think the 12th is a state holiday so y'all could do that as well the capital will be open okay uh
Speaker 2
1:15:42
what about our commission what do y'all prefer 12th is great 12th is fine with me okay two two like the 12th um
let's see frank those that are on the phone is that a good date for you the 12th is guys are the 12th good for you so you're saying that comes a little up to meet on the 12th yes sir yeah i'm uh the 12th will not work i'll be out of town the
Speaker 202
1:16:11
the 12th and the 19th i could i was thinking more so maybe around the sometime after the night the
Speaker 37
1:16:27
21st you know my schedule kind of clears well we're gonna have
Speaker 2
1:16:46
phone again as we are now uh yes okay um anybody okay let's let's work
Speaker 2
1:17:01
the agenda will will look like and what we need to be thinking of between
Speaker 63
1:17:08
now and then the agenda will any public comment that we receive between now and that meeting will be presented. Anyone who wants to make a public comment at that meeting will have the opportunity to do so from the public. I will present the information that has been requested by the Commission. And at that point, you all will have the opportunity to vote
Speaker 70
1:17:31
to either ratify or modify any of
the salary recommendations you all have made
Speaker 2
1:17:37
at this meeting. And could we repeat what the recommendations have been made at
Speaker 107
1:17:44
this meeting? The recommendations that have been made and that will be published are that all offices under the Commission's purview are to receive a 2% salary increase with the exception of Division A prosecutors which are to receive 95% of the updated salary for circuit judges and Division B prosecutors, which are to receive 85% of the revised salary for Division A prosecutors.
Speaker 1
1:18:12
So the percent stay the same. The only adjustment is the 2% for basically across
Speaker 39
1:18:19
the board with adjustments that will be made for some of these positions. Yes, sir. Okay, anything else that needs to
Speaker 2
1:18:34
come before the committee? Again, I want to thank all of you for being here and for your participation.
And we'll look forward to our next meeting and being able to get some of the work done for the state. Thank you very much. I move the commission to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn from Larry, second from Jan, all
Agenda
No agenda available.
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 5
Speaker 9
Speaker 19
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 23
Speaker 2
Speaker 32
Speaker 37
Speaker 2
Speaker 39
Speaker 2
Speaker 42
Speaker 2
Speaker 32
Speaker 42
Speaker 48
Speaker 2
Speaker 51
Speaker 42
Speaker 54
Speaker 32
Speaker 46
Speaker 2
Speaker 46
Speaker 1
Speaker 63
Speaker 66
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 68
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 73
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 2
Speaker 40
Speaker 63
Speaker 40
Speaker 1
Speaker 89
Speaker 19
Speaker 1
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 95
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 19
Speaker 2
Speaker 66
Speaker 2
Speaker 96
Speaker 97
Speaker 98
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 98
Speaker 74
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 39
Speaker 2
Speaker 40
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 23
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 98
Speaker 87
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 20
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 19
Speaker 2
Speaker 119
Speaker 23
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 125
Speaker 54
Speaker 2
Speaker 131
Speaker 19
Speaker 134
Speaker 2
Speaker 91
Speaker 73
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 91
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 19
Speaker 2
Speaker 91
Speaker 2
Speaker 147
Speaker 8
Speaker 63
Speaker 91
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 72
Speaker 70
Speaker 63
Speaker 89
Speaker 50
Speaker 142
Speaker 69
Speaker 142
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 18
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 2
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 23
Speaker 161
Speaker 114
Speaker 98
Speaker 162
Speaker 153
Speaker 2
Speaker 18
Speaker 98
Speaker 125
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 153
Speaker 98
Speaker 162
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 23
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 107
Speaker 172
Speaker 162
Speaker 2
Speaker 114
Speaker 51
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 97
Speaker 98
Speaker 2
Speaker 19
Speaker 50
Speaker 2
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 100
Speaker 50
Speaker 51
Speaker 98
Speaker 175
Speaker 98
Speaker 72
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 98
Speaker 93
Speaker 70
Speaker 98
Speaker 41
Speaker 63
Speaker 107
Speaker 98
Speaker 2
Speaker 86
Speaker 2
Speaker 172
Speaker 63
Speaker 2
Speaker 91
Speaker 63
Speaker 2
Speaker 95
Speaker 2
Speaker 41
Speaker 72
Speaker 19
Speaker 169
Speaker 63
Speaker 195
Speaker 37
Speaker 72
Speaker 2
Speaker 19
Speaker 70
Speaker 2
Speaker 202
Speaker 37
Speaker 206
Speaker 2
Speaker 54
Speaker 2
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Speaker 2
Speaker 107
Speaker 1
Speaker 39
Speaker 2
Speaker 122