State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Form. Senator haster you're recognized to present senate bill team. Thank you soon johnson you know I would like to start by just i'm comfortable that i'm speaking on half of the year entire senate when I say we really appreciate all the feedback that we've got from back home from our constituents constructive feedback great feedback from people that spoke over the last few days and given up their laughs to come down here and then speak into this process and people that are here today that will continue to speak into this process and I were just were were grateful and II think we're seeing a democratic process work out really well and we have a product here that that I think were really satisfied with in the senate. And so with that there's not a lot to say that we didn't say yesterday while we removed a bunch from this bill and we shrunk it down to just the security portion which I believe is you know anytime you have knowledge of something that could help in security with something we should absolutely do and in this bill does that it protects our constitutional officers and in there and they're working with the arkansas state police and their security plans and details in that's what it does it protects those things from freedom of information out you know it doesn't protect it redacting from that so that well anyway we're just we're just protecting them so I guess that's that i'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you everything you're saying any questions from members. Red center king. Dirt turn mac so to ask questions one of this. Back in a page one one see that a records communications I mean so this would just be communication solely on security mean and we're reacting to this to potential bomb thread or were reacting to this to a potential active shooter situation that would just be narrowly defined there. Anything that is security related. Okay. So you know we talked about the lower your partner just asking questions like I really don't know now not anything to fare us is going on in this question anybody but just trying to look at situations where you know we talked about the other bill with the lawyers being copied on there that that would that would you know put it under that umbrella that wouldn't be apple wable but. What if communications are with other staff people that kind of thing. But yet there's other communications in there that would be a policy related or or maybe something that could be for. Well you don't we we've heard people continue to pair the statement that if you can't be a a lawyer that is not avoidable knowing that is not true for intentionally being misleading about it that that is the reality but I heard repaired over and over and over again by people that actually claim that their intelligent people or that they're good lawyers they continue to say what they know is not true there are there are bad actors out there they may do something like that this is not that this is this is an active at an attempt to further super secure the governor in our constitutional officers and their families yet in own standard about the security aspect that let's say there is an email or something goes out in somebody wanted to be nefarious not giving example of like what I went through when I was auditor whenever you have a foundation scandal chancer gear heart the end tried to move in and i'm not saying this would be the tactic but i'm just saying the tactics of people trying to move things to high things and how they use things if they wanted to do that so I changed their care hard for example when he wanted to cover up and had things he moved things to and said they were personnel which was not afterward and they were not and had to go to court get that out and then i'll came out i'm just saying. You know it is communications. Only on that so if if they communicate with the security people but yet they're included in other staff people in including other things that are not related to security if somebody did apple while that. Would those things that are not included. Be still be apple wibble but yet the security part of the colonel talking about with the trooper that part would be redacted would that be an example I mean we're being clear enough about that yeah the university of arkansas and colleges are not included in this is just well i'm just giving that an example how somebody used to try being a fairies i'm not saying they're not in that but made the lawyer can answer this question it was not clear enough in trying to explain what would be redacted in in part of the communication but the other part of the communicate the security part would be redacted but the other part that is effortable would be released courtney kennedy chief legal council for office of the governor so yes only the security related portion would be redacted any other communications such as policy overall policy for state police that does not have to be with security that is still available to the public okay so brian king was governor in it in our money to hide something in our said hey this is this and i'll try to use it and include the colonel or drag the state police in to try and cover it we're just separate and what can be redacted but yet the foil but part would come out if the press or somebody correct under their security exemption and only applies to security record okay for. What why is in and I mean maybe in this whole thing i'm still trying to grab my roundabout. Why are the other constitutional authors included in on this. Because I requested that they were okay and what was your reasoning why for all other constitution officers II don't say there's anything to fair is with i'm just saying in members of the general city how does this relate to members of general similarly. Just the general it's assembly. Well what was you talking about the constitutional officer no just talking yeah I mean the costs is so officer supreme court a little bit understand I was just wondering why but like on the members of generous in the specifically if you just take out the rest of it how does our our part relate to the rest of this bill. Does this mean our senate staff are sergeant our plans i'm just alike I said i'm just asking questions. The. Yeah it just just protects our security records as well if we have a plan for an active shooter or where we're stationing people though those are protected as well okay so we're singled out in its separate part that would be okay are that's just and just trying to clear that. Now this is where I have some questions and i'm glad you clarified the first part of that the retroactive part I mean I signed up to the bill that just had minorities in it that means family members. I mean to wire wire just if we're talking about the governor's family which i'm all force I sound on the other part about minors while we. Are we not included minors and separate net. Well because I don't think it's a reasonable to expect that there are manners traveling on a state playing without their parents. Yeah. What I mean I think that's just a reasonable assertion from almost anyone and I agree I mean agree with the monitors part I mean that that's not a issue but but if we only say monitors then that only means records to them if you say a dollar does I mean can that open up more to it and II mean I use an example I mean I know all the republicans are on hunter body and in all this other stuff we had a previous governor where his sign was on the payroll chinese companies yet there I mean. Does that include here I mean why are we included I mean our interest in include excluding the previous governor I mean III understand what the current governor gone retroactive but the previous government governor. Ham a little concerned about that privacy reasons yeah I understand your concern but you know what we're trying to do is capture any preparations and security that that that they thought this architects take police started doing in preparation for understanding for the first time in decades there were going to be not just too but five protected and that is totally fair but senator king sixty higher is going to be up here and I think that we are more appropriate question hate hanger out of the appear later now okay I mean the other big really issue that I have is. Back to the manners with the family in a new situation new world totally get that previous governor I have issue with that. The other part about this it really concerns me that I would like to see is the sunset on this meaning that it would sunset after the twenty twenty five session meaning that we would have a period of time since we're in a new part we're in a special session we're not thinking about everything we're trying to do everything come to run it on the go that we would have a sunset to the. That would sunset in allow twenty twenty five to see how this works see if the public's car you know she is nothing happens and then go forward is that a possibility and you understand my reasoning for that since we are in a special session going to all this we don't know once you tie the knot down here it's have a lot of done tied i've learned that what areas. No no that's that's but something that we we considered are on lots of things that we do or not instant doing this I mean in in The. This introduce yourself and you're recognized thank you mister chairman appreciate you having me this morning. A co founder the art consult transparency in government group is that spoke of yesterday I want to thank the senators for pooling what I consider to be a dark bill that would take arkansas back in terms of transparency. And. I think experts need to hear that bill my characters been attacked my senator history this morning is being somebody who's being dishonest about what I believe to be the large so that's why I say that instead of sending nest to a hand pick working group to a group that meets in secret the tsb set to the four year task force that this body creates which has representatives from the governor's office a representative from the attorney general a repre- eight are you going to speak on the real I am speaking on the i'm also no no imagine you speak on the bill. The. Yes i've i'm speaking against what's still in the bill for a couple of concerns my first concern is the retro activity class which is very concerning when I talk to people and they say we love governor sanders as do II love her policies but they tell me what are we hiding with this retroactivity clause and I think that's a valid question and it gives that appearance and and I think that we need to do our business in complete signshine no dartness we don't even need to have the appearance of that the second question that I want to ask in clarifying uh is it my belief that the obviously is the case that governor sanders will not be the governor forever in this day. Yeah. And I want to know if a governor is flying on a taxpayer applied I want to know what those expenses are I want to be able to see receipts I want to be able to see documents I want to know exactly what's been what's being spam I would also like to know who's on that plane. I think that's important yeah i'm no security expert but I one hundred percent support the governor's security and the officers of our constitutional officers in the supreme court but I want transparency and I think the people of arkansas won't transparency the people of arkansas the power of the people was on this play yesterday and I appreciate those people who came to this room in talked about transparency and showed courage people from all walks of life left right. Democrat republican poor rich across the spectrum came together to talk about the importance of our right to know and there's no more important foundation or freedom than our right to know. Appreciate your time senator johnson and thank you for having me before your committee thanks sir questions from the maybe. Seem and appreciate your test thanks sir. Next is jimmy calvin. The. The. Hmm. They're just introduced yourself you're recognized okay my name is kevin and i'm here representing myself is the citizen today in a very happy about what happened yesterday i'm very happy about that in while I would like to get on board with the current bill I just think it's still a little too broad not narrow I don't think we should know how many our results state police are on the trip in heminorine the hotel because I do I think that gives a way a security details that don't need to be given away a month ago echo wouldn't mister mccurton said that I do think it's marite to see the cost of these trips in the invoices the receipts I think it's my right to know who is on my plane a sad from the undercover of servers I don't think I need to know who the arms all stay police pallets are I think it we're going to get outside contractors I should have that information my concern is that the the taxpayers money can be used the wrong way and i'm not going to even mention this governor's name because it's not about her it's about any governor if a governor is taking someone on taxpayer funded trips then I would like to know who that is in the reason behind that I was joking with some state room to say representatives in the elder this morning it bon jelvy's own and earth paying i'd like to know it. So it's not about the arms of state please who do a fun normal job all their being asked they don't there are some it they're given in the same in a really appreciate their service they don't they don't request guard anybody when they get the same it they do their job to the most their phenomenal added but I don't think that it's a security issue to the health and safety of our kansas to know who's on those trips to see those invoices for the hotel to see those research from dinner and things like that at the retro activity clause in maybe colonel hagar when he comes up can relieve my fears on that but to me i'm like mister mccurtsin when I see that going to june of twenty twenty two i'm going what do they not want me to know that's my first my first question the other thing I have like senator king is i'm having trouble and if you can alleviate these concerns please do i'm having trouble understanding what this goes past the governor especially with the assembly i'm really having trouble with that so maybe it's kidnapped leaving it by concerns because if it applies to the government so if say senator tucker goes on a trip in there is determined how he may need security okay that's fine i'm no problem protected in senator tucker but if standard turners taken a bus load of people with that no who's on the bus so I have no problem countered popular believe making sure you guys are safe and sound and protect okay I have no problem with that whatsoever I just think it's a little too broad in a does it narrow down to let us know everything if there's a thread against you senator doesn't I want to protect me in these guys and gales and do it and I want to see that that's done. Because there are legitimate threats to law makers there's no question about it but I want to make sure the t people who are finding in theirs have the rights to their record so with that i'll take any questions but if there's anything any alcohol say they would live at my concerns and then I will jump on this bill thank you thank you miss german so we have I mean i'll protect we have as when they were here to capital I don't i'll tell you that security plan i've got my own and I like that it's the I mean if it would have to be a direct and it would have to be a incredible through it before we were yet any production outside of the shamers that I know of it and I don't I know of. You know very few sad walking somebody there. Uh the. Near we we appreciate it whenever they can help us in that security to to our families and stuff and. The this is. This is mainly so are government can function safely and and not not have people assassinated and. And you know it's it is a different different society different world in the when it was first created and I don't think there's anything nefarious about the word to go on with this security bill but. Is there anything else any other members relate and I think colonel hagger can well help who are like a lot of those things is there any other questions from members seeing man thank you to I thank you guess. Lori justice. The. This introduce yourself and my name is lori justice and I represent myself and arm I have mixed feelings on the bill I wrote on the sheet i'm for the bill because I primarily am for the bill I think the biggest concern that I have and other people that i've spoken to have is this retroactivity why were going back so far into asa hutchinson's administration that kind of throws a flag for a lot of people on their wondering why we're doing that other than that I do appreciate the fact that you are listen to people one thing that I do hope you take away from this though is that the the bill that was originally introduced they'd violate that people's rights in the people will stand together if the time comes and I want to thank you for listening when I think in particular senators king and senators tucker for staying in explaining to us yesterday what happened we do appreciate your kindness and arm that's all I have to say thank you thank you is there any question from the members I also in questions. Next is got ready. Great great grand some somebody else wrote a on your name do you so. The. This introduce yourself in your recognize am scott gray with the sling county republican committee in altrada exercise better pinmanship next time. Okay this has been quiet and experienced i've never had democrats support anything i've said until this week I came back today to say thank you all for the process for listening to the people and for whittling this down to a security only bill especially thanks senator king for his excellent representation of the people we support this new bill and we continue to support our governor in our state police her safety in the safety of future governors of at most importance and this bill accomplishes that without curtailing people's for your rights in the future we are hopeful that the four year task force will be involved in public input will be considered earlier in the process thank you all again. The questions from membership so you know and thank you thank you. The. There's two sand up in the same lane robert stanbard and courtney road. Mr stand lawyer the first one so please introduce yourself thank you sure my name is robertson i'm sure you thank you thank you sir my name is robert steinberg i'm a law professor i'm on the foya task force. I'm here simply the think everyone involved for this uh outcome this positive outcome thank you said history i'd like to think the governor as well senator johnson for administering what was on downloading a difficult committee process all of the members further insightful questions the spouses of the beyond uh i'd also mention representatives may very crawford long richards in ry and wooden for introducing a similar bill in the house uhm senators king and cork on that uh bill as well and I appreciate the outcome this friday begins the jewish holiday of the new year it's called russia shannon one week later is the the holiday of the gay of atonement we only have one day for a tonent I assure you if there were more I would use them sir thank you for your time thank you for this process. Thank you sir in questions remember. Thank you. Introduce yourself and your recognized my name is courtney rolled in and the president alone county conservative republican women and I start on the executive board for the first congressional district I am here are speaking favor this bill I appreciate the ones who listen to the people and thank you for this new bill it's possibly a still a little over reaching and I do record echo the concerns of certificating and others but. We asked for a security bill and you gave us a security bill and we appreciate it so thank you. Be questions from members so you know and thank you for your testimony. Colonel hagger. In allison brang. Yeah. Ms brag i'll ask you to go first goes were reland on a colonel haggered at anterson questions thank you this relish seven year recognize thank you mr chair like you said i'm alice and brag in the inspector general for the state of arkansas and as I mentioned yesterday really to speak to this legislation i'm here more so in my capacity from my background and experience which as we mention yesterday I was a federal prosecutor for ten years and have I think a significant experience and security operations and the details surrounding those my comments today will echo what I said yesterday and so I want be labor that point and say everything again but I do just want to reat a rate especially that this version of this bill is very narrowly tailored to the security protection of the governor in her very young family in what is an increasingly volatile political climate bailing to release certain details that in the hands of a bad actor would make it much more possible for them to fulfil and efferious plan is achieved by this bill and I appreciate your consideration of it and I appreciate you'll let me visit about it today thank you thank you the questions. Thank you current understanding is yourself and you recognize good morning have my caker secretary department of public safety in director of state police. You're recognized could you turn your mac off so we don't get that was secretary brag mention we've. Sufficiently beaten this horse the death for so out of respect for the committee's time and other people in attendance I have you know testified yesterday I know it's been have stated that there were going to be questions for me I was just opened up for any questions the members might ask. I mean you heard my questions about like the state police you understand that your security part would be fine that they give her you know you were and so you know if you have a security question if you have a state troopers or whatever contract security they would be just maybe listed as trooper a trooper be trooper or something no names which i'm not for the names of of the trust and security but we declare about that I mean so you understand what my question is if there's an email or something in so bad studies various and I give the examples the real word examples that happen here in arkansas where like chancer year heart was the situation and I know university of trying to use at its situation where he moved the personnel files of john darman and those emails try to move it to personnel to keep it here and you know john darman was an exemplary state employee that got a moping in very unfairly persecuted and had the courage to stand up and say something's going wrong here and if it hadn't been for the website for our emails that would have not come out so I just worry about like I don't want to see and i'm not saying in governor sanders or anybody that in the previous situation that they put a steak trooper or you or the next colonel or anything of trying to lump them in and try to protect what they do in in bring that into it so that's my question about separate now. Okay. Honestly a lot of that is forced to league out he's a dead I don't know that i'm qualified to testify to their force releasing the names. You know obviously that would be concerning tests to release the names of the troopers bed even to release trooper age with rebate you proceed those details are concerning tests that's that's one of the things that we've gone back to it anything that's going to tip off operational security detail as specifics at all numbers of detail traveling things like that that's what we're concerned about is for where this what the state police is concerned about his force what's voible and what tonight truthfully thank the lord we have a legal team that I get to go to with things like that because I don't I can qualify to answer that yeah wait and you have your own lawyer there to do that yes so I understand about the truth report so I just want back that clear but I just don't want to see a situation where you do app somebody acted in various trying to cover sure for you know security is around him constantly I mean the rabio situation so that's that's kind of a question I have I just don't want to see a trip or colonel put in this situation where somebody does activation as like I said you know give the example that you get the forester example where a robert arrives it stood up and said what was going wrong and are he bucked the system in the thing and tell the truth bill walker death people there's a lot of situations out there I just don't want to see the good state employees that are art putting a bad situation sure so we actually think i'm I hopefully i'm trying to say i'm trying to protect you guys get you into your security job and not be put in the bad situation you know the other question I guess to you is is like while the previous governor of the breeds governor was on the current laws I think that should be excluded. I understand that governor standards really I don't I don't want to begin to think about having kids today in today's world and do it a very sympathetic to that I don't I do have an issue with covering the previous go. Center king ticket clarify you're asking me to enter that question what's that are you asking me to answer that yes sir to address the question of retro activity the bill specifies a date in twenty twenty two my understanding is immediately after the gubernatorial primaries took place and at that point two candidates had a merged both of him had three small children and so regardless of the outcome of the election state police began to understand that they would have to significantly change their security procedures regardless of which family became the first family of arkansas and so while that does mean that it happened to be during the end of the previous administration it is because of the preparations being made for the next administration and and I understand that but I mean I think that language could mean and to dispecifically deal with that night the past government just have serious issues because what has come out in what I know about to pass good i'm sorry but that's just a little bit but I understand that scary I totally agree with you exactly what you said about the current governor whether you'd been at that time you didn't know I understand thank you senator tucker thank you mister chair and I really I think I would like to hear both your answer to this question and the questions is very simply is what's in this bill in your judgement what's necessary to protect the governor in our family. Yes sir absolutely. Yes great thank you senator center data. Thank you mister chair and I think you just at the end of senator king's question you came around to answering this that it was in preparation after the primary was over that you took over security of the first family on the night of the election in november is that in my understanding that correctly I can't remember if you said that yesterday if I heard it somewhere else yes sir on election tonight so obviously those security plans in preparations had to be in advance of election night twenty twenty two yes then you're on duty desert and they needed to be covering five protections for men on this that's why it's needed it was needed for sure in the twenty twenty two yes sir thanks. Yeah the questions. Seeman thank you for your test the money. Yeah. Minute request for a discussion. Oh sorry senator haster close. Almost did that twice that now well thank you soon johnson i'm going to close with how I opened uh on behalf of the entire sentence I want to think our constituents that have reached out of us and given us a good solid feedback for and against and things that we should reconsider the members that took lots of time the last few days many many hours working through this diligently the people that came and spent the last three days here at the capital to be heard i'm just grateful of thankful for all the input we are very pleased with the bill that we have and with that after some discussion I have emotionally thank you senator been requested a time and discussion members. Go ahead and her doctor thank you michael I just wanted to take a moment on i'm gonna vote for this bill today and that makes the price some folks and disappoint some but I just wanted to briefly explain why i'm doing it uh the first reason is I just want to give difference to our governor when it comes to the safety and security of her family if our writing this bill I would write it differently in my personal opinion I think it's probably a little bit broader than it should be however when it comes to the safety and security of the governor and her family I think it's important to air on the side of their security rather than having it be too narrow and impose some kind of security risk and I can also say that if our in her position which i'm not I would be overly protective of my family and I i'm very sympathetic to that second reason is I have no security background myself there are experts who work in the governor of security detail and they told us here this morning that this is what's necessary to protect the governor of her family and i'm going to give them difference on that. And the final reason is because i've been pleading with my colleagues all week to please give us a security only for foi bill and that if they would then I would vote for it now don't get me wrong they're not doing it for me they're doing it because of their convictions and because the people of arkansas who stood strong this week as we've heard from all walks of life and beyond the look out for a a tea party for tucker invitation some point in the future but it's that part of this week has been really rewarding i've have made some new friends and I i'm i'm grateful for that but everyone came together to stand for transparency and government and arkansas but you know I told my colleagues that if we had a security only bill then I would vote for it and I want to be a matter of my word so i'll be voting for this bill in committee on the florida anyone else discussion. Thank you recognize promotion have emotion do pass on senate bill ten motion do pass second by senator nards and all in favors they are all opposed like san thank you senator center stage agencies.