State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

It said was to speak for against the uh bills on the agenda there's a sign up she I guess yes right outside the door just be sure to sign up in the uh will pick those up and make sure you have the opportunity to test fat forward against anybody alone today's agenda thank i'll i'll be for being here today and first amount today's agenda is house bill one thousand and representative ray without objections ah we're going to pass over that bill saying no objections and house bill one thousand and nine has been passed over the next amount of days again there is house bill to an eleven by representative maybe I say representative is already at the end of the table representative maybe you're recognized to present house bill ten eleven thank you represent a touch I appreciate the opportunity to have discussion here and ask some questions and make us think a little bit and that's all i'm trying to do um I will say that my husband started here in twenty eleven as a state representative and so our family has been up here for quite some time and since twenty eleven our family has had situations where we've had to call the state police it was a time where we had to have the state police come out and watch my children get off of a school bus because we were concerned I had to notify the school district at one point to watch my children we had to notify all of our neighbors that there was a threat for our family and state police would be driving around our block more often so i'm well aware of the concern that a family would have regarding safety and I don't take that lightly I think in a it was widely known by both. Far right and far left in everything in between that safety is of up most importance and that part of the bill I did not see his controversial but that part of the bill and no matter how many times it was asked to be removed was not being removed and I kept thinking someone else is going to do that and yesterday I realized no one else was going to do that so I went down and I just filed filed a bill before I filed that I did ask a members if they were okay with just the emergency part of it and I had several members tell me that they would still be objectionable not before the bill because it included this retro active part component of it meaning going back to june first of twenty twenty two and initially it was just a genuine first of twenty twenty two which I really couldn't understand but any time that it was asked why do we have to go back to june first of twenty twenty two the response always worries well after the primary state police knew that regardless of whether it was the democrat or the republican that one there were going to be children back at the governor's mansion and going with the family and various places and they need it to start making a accommodation for that in a safety plan okay I understand that that's needed and every time we ask that was the response that we got it was about the children are console state police needed to needed to figure out a way to protect the kids. So listening to members listening to organizations and various public groups none of them were happy with that retroactive part and then and when I went home and I said you know how bad if we just put it for the security of the miners in that return retro active part they all said oh okay I can go for that so now i'm saying okay let me file that bill and that's what I filled yesterday. I understand there might be some of you who we we will talk about another bill in just a minute and you might be for the full retro activity of it and that's fine no hurt feelings but I owe it to my constitution to ask some questions because I don't think it's been really clear as to why we have to go back to june first of twenty twenty two this is all about transparency and I don't think there's been transparency and why going back to june first of twenty twenty two and if it truly is what I kept being told it's about the security of the children then the bill that i've proposed takes care of that so why do we need to expand it more those are questions we need to ask and if we get satisfied with those answers hey i'm good the other thing I want to make sure legislators think about okay that you've thought about and we've asked these questions there is a lawsuit that's pending on this. And are we going to have in the future any time that there might be a lawsuit pending on something are we going to be asked to come up here and change large and make it retroactive so that let lawsuit cannot exist. I just watch you to think long and heart about that as we move forward and consider this the other thing II would like to just kind of uhm finish with as I mentioned my husband started in twenty eleven and at that time the minority party was republican the majority party was democrat and we had a democrat governor and I wonder we still have members here today who were there like jeff word law for example but I think he was a democratic that time just stating we had other members there warmack was there meeks was there you all remember that time period. And if this bill was being presented. Or this issue was being presented in twenty eleven what we're republicans be saying and republicans would be asking these questions and we might be convinced to go along with it because we are talking about safety and that is very important. I understand that there has been another bill that was filed after late yesterday evening david ray did call me and tell me he was filing that bill i'm very grateful for that very grateful that there was movement finally something and so because of that and because i've had an opportunity to explain why I was concerned about this i'm willing to pull my bill down. Allow hb ten twelve to move forward and for a vote to be taken on that representative library is the chair I want to make sure I understand you did you just make a request to pull your bill down chair except that requires there's been no problem the test tomorrow the owner bailed the bill has been removed thank you appreciate your test board for this committee many members the next item on the day's agenda will be house beyond ten twelve year old image if there's anyone here in the area signed up or would like to speak for against this bill make sure that you are signed up to do so as representative you've right to have a seat at the end of the type of mister chairman if it's okay i've got cold gesture from the governor's office to join me okay so now it suggests regard to maybe here before the committee thank you mister chairman representative deray you recognize to present house will taken to oil. All right thank you mister chairman good morning colleagues this is house bill ten twelve house bill ten twelve i'll explain the bill briefly is necessary to protect information related to the security of the governor and her family. Are current f o I long only examples the security protocols and procedures emergency plans etc related to the governor's mansion and the manching grounds and it became avenue a few weeks ago I think for the first time to many people that there were basically no other exemptions for the safety and executive protection of the governor and her family so we're simply amending that to additionally cover the security that arkansas state police is required by a statute to provide two both the state capital grounds. And to the governor and his or her family members the fundamental reason that we have executive protection in the first place is for individuals who may be exposed to a higher level of personal risk simply due to the nature of their job and that obviously applies to the governor because she's the head of state and with no offense to any of our previous governors I can't think of a governor in recent memory who at the time they were in office were a household name not just within the state but around the country like our governor is and if you follow politics in america today you know who sarah how can be sanders is in most of those people have an opinion about her and. If you remember when governor sanders worked at the white house she was the first press secretary in the history of the country to require secret service protection secret service protection is typically reserved just for the president of the united states and the vice president in the only way that would be extended to a press secretary is that there were real credible sustained threats on that person's life. And unfortunately we live in a political climate that is not just caustic and toxic but has seen recent episodes of actual political violence assassination accounts against members of congress from both political parties have occurred in recent years and we see on a daily basis the attacks the victory all the hatred that is directed at this governor and that doesn't let that is not just confined to the sessport of social media sometimes it boils over into real life like last month when a man from enid oklahoma was arrested and pled guilty to threatening to murder governor sanders and her family or the man in russell bill last year who was arrested for threatening to shoot governor sanders we live in a time when violent and deranged people will do vile and deranged things if given the opportunity. And we have an opportunity to protect against that not only is it the right thing to do it ensures the stability and connuiting of our government on top of that political activists are using this loophole in the f o I to obtain to try and obtain information about the governor's security for executive protection and our security detail some of these same people have posted the location of her children's school on social media and there's nothing in our current depot I law that would prevent someone like that man in rosseville who threatened to shoot the governor from obtaining v f o y information related to the planning the security provision the executive protection that's provided to the governor there's little public purpose and having this information available at all of it unacceptably puts our governor and her family at a greater degree of risk and we have a responsibility and an obligation to do something about it. Some people have tried to say that this is about shielding expenses that is absolutely not true the travel expenses of the governor in her staff will continue to be available this bill does not exempt them is it possible that there will be certain documents that are financial in nature that the state police will determine are related to the safety and security of the governor of family yes that's possible and state policies here and they can explain that in greater detail but we're also adding in an element of this bill that you'll see in section two that requires. A spending report to be made by state police to ALC on a quarterly basis that will include categorical spending by month and so in that way we are at actually adding in a degree of transparency that doesn't currently exist in section three of the bill we go on to provide the records that reflect the planning and provision of security services provided to the rest of the constitutional officers to also be exampled for the many of the same reasons that i've already stated that makes sense section four of the bill is related to retro activity and since that was discussed a moment ago i'll just go ahead and and discuss that the reality is there are pending requests for improvement for all security related information not just receipts and things of that nature for all security related information of the governor in members of her family things that would divulge the sources methods procedures security protocols emergency plans etc that are used to protect the governor and the way that our foil all operates is. The law at the time of request was made is what governs in that situation and so if we change law but we fail to make it retroactive then it won't cover any of the pending requests that I just described now why june one twenty twenty two we're not aware of any other pending requests but we wanted to make a hundred percent sure that we covered any other possible requests in the event that there was one somewhere and by going back to june one twenty twenty two we feel like we adequately cover any period that would have been that that we're that would capture any of those request the treat is the date could be I mean the day committee in any number of dates that would accomplish the same goal but you have to pick a day it was a real we originally used january one just because it was a nice round number for some reason that gave people heartburn so we changed it to june one which was right after the primary that was the time when state police would have known who the nominees for the governmental race were and yes there was a a change from the fact that whoever the new governor was going to be there we're going to have small children living in the governor's mansion but at some point after the primary they were going to make new procedures update their procedures for the next administration and i'm certain that they would have done that in anticipation of governor sanders having a larger national profile than your typical governor so that section for the retroactivity section five there's do not caught a fire language that just ensures that this act does not limit the ability of legislative audit to report information that it obtains to the general assembly and then there is an emergency clause after this bill was filed last night there were messages put out by the arkansas press association and the arkansas broadcaster's associat. Shin that they're in support of the bill and so I feel like through all of the input that membership provided working with us through this process we've gotten a bill that I think is imminently reasonable and is a common sense approach to protecting the security of our governor and the rest of our constitutional officers and with that i'll be happy to take any questions any car management from mister gesture country no comments chair about will be happy to chip in when need any questions from community members it testime for represent the brain preparative clearly recognized for question thank you mister chair thank you representative rate for that explanation and I appreciate all the work that has gone into this I know it's been a really wild few days i've got some questions because as much as I appreciate the work that's gone into this I still have a little bit of uncertainty about how this plays out in practice so of course I want to prefer this by saying we all want to protect the governor and her family as the mom of too small young kids myself II get those concerns of course not near the level of our governor and want to do everything we can to keep her protected but I also want to balance that with making sure that our candidates are given information that they are entitled to that doesn't impact her security and so my concern is about the decision making process when we're determining what is directly related to her security and what is not so I guess my first question is can you tell me if arkansas state police will go through each individual request and see if it's directly related to or I should say see if it poses a threat to future security in determining whether to release those records or will it be just assumed that any records that stem from uh a security job of any sort and their duties related to security will those just be automatically presumed to be exempt. Representative that a question you want to enter your one you know i'll be happy i'll be having said that's a very it's a very fair question rate well out in that question not that we were not going to hate to the question it's just did you want to answer the dual corner again and i'll i'll be happy to drive the new recognition she gets she can ask colonel hagger as well I will say in in any instance in which someone makes it for your request that's going to go to the records custodian and the records custody and the front line records castodian will make a determination about whether that information can be provided or not in this instance I think it's very clear if you look at twelve a one o eight says the department of the arkansas state police shall be responsible for the safety and security of the governor and his or her family and so if the record if the record conflicts with that then it would be example if it doesn't conflict with that then it would not be exempt and it would have to be provided obviously any exemption any records custodian could make a determination that's incorrect there's a process for challenging determinations their incorrectly made that process is you go to circuit court and a judge who is essentially an unbiased empire will be able we'll take a look at that document and they'll say oh is this a is this related to the security and safety of the governor oh now that's a mcdonald's receipt that's not related to the safety and security so in in those in those instances uhm the front line custodian is the person that makes that determination and i'll be happy to allow the at the appropriate time the state police representative to speak to that as well you recognize thank you mister chair okay that that helps me a little bit I think my concern stems from the fact that as you mention where we're seeing kind of playout in real time what's happened over the last few months with requests that had been made in denied and those requests have been denied based on the basis of security. Right that's been the the reason that they've been denied but the things that have been denied have been expensive reports about trips taken list of you know passengers who were on the planes have arkansas state please plane have been redacted we in fact when released those names really don't pose the threat to security so my concern is is that with this very very broad language there is going to be a lot of information that is now available to the public that does not impact the governor of security that will now be hidden from the public or at least much much harder to get unless you can you know enter the litigation process which is we all know is very very hard so can you give me any kind of insurance that uhm certain information will still be available like expenses of particular trips in the aggregate i'm not even talking about specific itemized you know red line right you know itemized list of expenses but in the aggregate or passengers who have nothing to do with the security yeah sure so the language in section two of the bill would be asking about expenses in the aggregate there's going to be regular reports compiled by category by mine on that type of thing is far as I don't think it would I don't think it's remained at the bill for me to discuss past requests that are currently part of the lawsuit but what I will say is that as you're familiar there's a maximum in both logic in the law that abuse does not negate use and so yes it is possible it is possible currently under any exemption under any law for there to be an abuse by a records custodian at records custodian could make a bad determination that has literally no basis in the law that could happen today but I think what we have to do is judge. Each and every exemption based on the merits of that exemption and I think what this law says that the work and I extend this to the provision that state police should be responsible for the safety and security of the governor and her family that's that's imminently reasonable and information related to that service very little public purpose and beyond that i'll be happy to let state police come in on what expenses might qualify which wear another power yes thank you mr chair last one uh I guess in response to that my question is can you talk a little bit more as as sponsor of this bill can you talk a little bit more about why things that may be once were related to the governor of security you know plans that have things that have already happened in the past why those are those are all under this particular law right claim to be there able to be claimed to be exempt from four so forever so forever everything that has happened that had already happened right anything that stemmed from the duties of keeping the governor in her family safe say something happens today in two years those plans that not even plans any details regarding you know those things would still be exempt from four year much much later much much after the fact after these things have already happened and i'm not talking about the retroactivity cars in the bill i'm talking about you know even moving forward right and can you talk a little bit about the value of keeping those things shielded from public view forever rather than just for a specific length of time sure because a lot of the things that we're talking about go to the the sources the methods the provisions the strategies that the tactics that state police use in their executive protection and the all of those sources methods procedures strategies tactics that they use. Today they're likely to use in the future so if someone is privy to what their protocols are their emergency plans all of all of those sorts of documents if they're related to how they did security six months ago or a year ago then they're going to have inside into the the same sources methods and procedures that are being used now and in the future. In favor questions from committee members representatives guard to recognize your question thank you mister chairman representative rate two quest questions I think the price one is can you provide clearly because i'm just not sure that the arkansas state police provide protection after she was the nominee to governor sanders or doctor chris jones or is that something it doesn't take place and i'm i'm this comes to mine because she's such a high profile person before she was elected to be our governor so wishy provided any kind of protection while she was phenomenally christian are you asking about during the campaign. I'll defer that to state police because I don't know the answer to will be would realize that you can as that question would carl higers at the end of the table in further questions could be opportunity more do you have a question thank you mister chair representative mister gester do I have the understanding correct that currently and outside of the governor's mansion you can for you any security protocol any records on what type of windshield or protective glass in the transportation vehicle any potential state troop replacements to certain surrounding large events caliber of rounds carried by state police any any information the auto would be secret that is protecting the governor you can foy all of this or any records related to it currently certain people are certainly alleging that we are currently litigating some of these issues but there is a problem possible in the law that we need to get addressed. The. Indeed they have a question from committee representative to clearly recognize sorry thank you mister chair i'm not sorry actually this is this is a big deal i'm going to ask questions so I just pay you back on representative more in here I guess my concern here isn't necessarily representative ray with a a records concerning making a decision that is not in accordance with the law my my concern is that the law is so broad that that there is a lot covered that a records castodian could find uhm could make a judgement on that the law protects now of course the things the representative more are talking about or things that should be protected I think they are under I think that they are actually protected under current law but we can agree to disagree on that let's count let let have a bill if those are our concerns that narrowly address those particular security concerns but the way that this is written and i'm not claiming that this is the intent but the way that it is written is that any duties that stam from arkansas state police or anything that stems from the duties related to protecting her are now able to be hidden from public view for ever that covers a vast array of things that are not the types of things that directly put her at our future security risk for instance i'm thinking about what we just read about uhm overnight maybe something you read about the for a former governor who spent a large amount of money on car service in dc sort of in further it's of his security those things would now be protected from public view that that use of taxpayer money would be protected from public view forever those don't impact anybody's future security but they would be shielded from public view the knowledge of how that tax payer money with spent so that's that's the kind of thing i'm concerned about and just curious your thoughts and then I promise I am done well the types of expenses that you're talking about would be reported and understand the language of section two of the bill they would be reported to alc or the joint budget committee. Depending on the circumstance it becomes very difficult if you want you get as you know this when you're riding legislation if you try and pin point every exact specific thing that you're trying to cover it not only becomes very difficult there's a very high likelihood that you're not going to imagine at the time of the drafting all of the scenarios that you would like to be covered and that is going to result in. Language that is incomplete and doesn't accomplish the stated goal of adequately shielding information related to security and safety of the governor the good thing about all of these provisions in the foyer is that overtime the court's way in their refined through case law and you get further clarity based on that so I feel comfortable with the language that we have the attorney general's officers reviewed this bill thoroughly and I think we're honestly I think we're in a very good place with this and if we if this language were were overly broad I don't think the press association in the broadcasters would have come out and support of it. The. In favor questions from committee members representative scott you recognize thank you last question right now so our four year law has been in effect since nineteen sixty four can you point to me or briefly give me a instance where in the current statue the governor or her family has been put at risk i'm not aware of any examples where individuals have used the foyer up until now to obtain information related to their safety and security but I think it's very important that and II respect and and I think I understand where you're coming from and II think you're intentions are good but I think it's very important that we not rely on a documented case where someone has attempted to bring physical harm to an elected official and use that as the standard for whether this is justified or not I think a much better standard would be to say if this information that we're talking about we're in the hands of some wine who was deranged or who had malevolent intentions is that something we would want to guard accounts and I think by that standard the app the answer is a hundred percent absolutely yes we would want to guard against that in further questions from committee membership. Say none. Representative right we've been books and up speak for this bill gallery just make room at the end of the table. Just a reminder of those view and attendant here today there is a sign up sheet uh but I have in bruno be poor people signed up to speak for the bill is the only one present one here to speak or the bail are against debate be sure to sign up just outside the door in uh we'll make sure you've recognized it to proper term first only agenda is uh coloral markhager. Carly people just have to say thirteen of the table then by yourself to the committee and graduate before the community good morning mr chairman glad to be here how many smile caker on the secretary department republic safety and the director of the state police. And now we had some community members that had some questions for you we've deferred while ago representative squash guide or you reckon you recognize for your questions just down thank you mister chair I think the question was about did it after dr christians and governor sanders became the nominees for their party with him being an african american as living in the south and the political climate that were really living in he he talked about how toxic it was did the arkansas state police actually provide security to governor sanders or doctor chris jones why they were nominees for the party if they were possibly received threats right no man we did not have I believe given their sanders campaign contract with a private firm for security i'm not sure not sure of doctor jones did as well but about statute we only pick up the the governor that's been we actually will pick up together after your own election not so we assigned as a matter of routine we assigned troopers to both campaign headquarters and once the governor is declared or the government elect is declared they have security from that point forward but not during the campaign. Follow up now right now in the past the questions for representative richmond you recognize for question thank you miss chair thank you sir been here is not you know you we've heard discussion about how broad may be too broad this bill bab but is it not possible to take information over a period of time and build a pattern of security how you guys operate your protocols and all the other things. Is that something that you need to be concerned about as well yes sir that is one hundred percent are concerned I should have remarks prepared to I guess I should have led with before we started quite this month in the state but you see no uh let me give you my background required i've been with the state please for twenty seven years fourteen years of that assamuras been on the governor's protection detail uh almost five years that I was the commander of the detail a served for both republicans and democrats asserted more tomorrow governor BB I think that I did any other governor this is not a political issue for us this is one hundred percent about physical security so exactly what you just said is our concern the state police has never produced documents until now as we've been directed by their scattered but we've never produced documents that would show the financial expenses any of the operation reading the operational details for the governor's security as you know of course we do not have to create documents in order to satisfy for you the documents that we do have are all financial in nature and they're all things that were directly tied down the number of troopers that are present with again or they're traveling with together so it's things like travel reimbursement forms credit card receipts meal receipts hotel receipts receipts for airline tickets things like that so one could easily take that information and reduce that down to how much security has the governor has with her at any particular time and that's the reason we have never turned that over uh want to say something just declare five something that represented right mentioned that we had never had an exemption to this in and it's now necessary. That to disagree with the the person that's running our bill were greatly appreciated that they just want to clarify a bit we have never turned these documents over as a result of four year again I go back to two thousand and my time on the detail i've spoken with to commanders that were prior to me and which go back run at thirty years and confirmed with them we have never one time turned over any of the documents related to four year under the exemption or I see the exemption i'm running attorneys so you have to bear with me with that common talk with me we have we've always fallen back in or twelve eight one await because the the documents that we would have to turn over would cause a uh security concern for the governor because again now you can pattern at the details movements in the number of detail and things like that. So again from lay person's perspective where these waters get muddied with in two thousand and seventeen or acts have leaves in two thousand sixteen the reason request for video footage from the governors mention and I think there were some discussion about the remarks the legal teams from the state police and also from the general's office about you know what we had to turn over we changing I was the commander of the detail at that time in we explained our concern that if we release that video footage is going to potentially show weaknesses in this system i'm glad to report we have a new system there now or newer then we did at that time but we had a lot of concerns with the the holes in this system and we didn't want your average member of the public to know that quite frankly we didn't want them to know where those weaknesses so there is a subsection c there was added to that law in two thousand seventeen when the f o manual was written after that when it was updated it now refers to twelve eight one away and it has in parent to see says a brief description it refers to subsection c so now if you go back and you look at that the twelve eight one await and its entirely it would appear that the only thing that is examples is section c with the digital evidence to video footage and things like that around the mention I can tell you going back at least thirty years before that was ever in place that we never released any of these documents we've been for you multiple times we've never one time in the history of the detail of going back at least thirty years and I would see I would strongly suspect much longer than that we have never released any documents based on we'll be want to wait. Follow it reagan as yes sir would you agree that if some of the sinformation they create a pattern and then your political procedures are in fact identified that at that point their potential for success of who is planning some kind of attack with significantly go up and your ability to defend would be greater significantly and you only get one chance as security there's no second chances is that a true statement that's absolutely correct thank you a friend from my home town I spoke with the other day he you know he used this analogy because he like a lot of the public had some concern about this and he used the analogy after we had a conversation that senator hester used the other day and committed basically was that you know we we defeated can't state this weekend but coach movement can't turn over that playbook because he's get ten more games to play and and that's where we're at I mean we've. We have a establishment of protocols they're pretty much a standard in the industry that we follow and it's there is only so many ways to do this job and we have the resources that we can afford to extend to accomplish this mission and anything that we do to give away those operational details would absolutely affect the security of the game and ran the people on the detail. The. Like sir thank you representative you recognize for a question thing that share so we we heard one other bill or explanation one other bill earlier and they were we're on hospital ten twelve now there's very modern differences there belong with retroactive piece of a part of me and one going to the children why go on the four family just for the record can you explain the importance of passing this one as opposed to the other one I know of lots of people if I questions on that can you help us out with that and i'm sorry ask it specifically what what was the change that you're asking about so the retroactive pieces of the bill one of them references just going back to the information regarding the governor's children and one is references the whole family occurred covering it retroactively right I can't speak specifically to the thought processed it went into that change but from once again from a security standpoint to reach the retroactive piece is important to us is if their two pay several leaves the two you can't get it back so regardless if it's this administration of the last that's the reason that we do not want to release any of these details as for the june first number and I believe that the thought process on that process on that and from our specific perspectives strictly from security that's when planning in preparation began knowing that our new governor whether it be doctor jones or governor sanders our new governor has three small children and in addition to that one of those candidates. Has a significant security uh threat against her and that's that's something that followed her from previous position as something it's not changed I can tell you about fourteen years on the detail it's not even comparable discovered her threat level versus the three getters that are served under uhm it's not even comparable but that's the reason the retroactive piece was important test is just to go back in in secure that information to where once again we're not getting any type of operational details it could be used against us. Representative or all you recognize for question okay representative clearly you reckon as for a question thank you mister chair thank you really appreciate your testimony II am as you are not a lawyer i'm not a law enforcement expert so bear with me with these questions but i've got a couple of them so the first one is just about something you said and maybe I just need clear clarification you mentioned and twelve eight one o eight has has kept you all so far from being able to from from being forced to release things that do pose a real threat to the governor which i'm glad to hear my question I guess is the obvious one and so why then do we need a change if it has been sufficient so far to protect your right so once that occurred in two thousand and seventeen for that additional language was put into that statute it's now again it gives the appearance that that's the only thing that is exempt from four year we've all we've always fallen back on twelve it want to wait and in for everything that we just discussed about we don't want to give away those operators operational details that could affect her security but now that we've had a lawsuit it's powered and it's going to be heard you always have the potential that information being released so if we felt it was important to clarify this once and for all to where there's no danger of that because again we can't put that too to pays back in the two if we have one judge one court that that finds against us and we had to turn over those records for the shorts demand of time that information is out now and it's going to be hard to recover from that. Follow up thank you mister chair thank you and and one more question just about the specific content of white can and can't be really used if we if this proposed change goes through so of course I would not want anything that reveals your patterns in your methods that all needs to say private zero argument for me on that is it your position that things like civilians who are traveling on the arkansas state police that their identities would put those things at risk would potentially reveal those means I guess my question is to you if if what we are really concerned about is protecting those patterns why isn't the language more targeted at those patterns rather than as broad as it is and if it is as brought as it is is that your position that your office will reveal things things things like the names of civilians on a plane or the total maybe through the total amount of expenses spent on a given trip things like that are those things that risk exposing patterns and means yes ma'am it could uh is four of the expenses are concerned you know again we have never done that ever in the time that i've been with the state please the town that I was associated with the detailed this gimmer directed us in the spirit transparency because of this issue and because of the concern that we are howing expenses and things like that we're not going to do a monthly aggregate total of the security details specifically to the security detail and what is causing the state of arkansas we absolutely believe in that we're going to present their quarterly to uh my understand to legislate the council so we're not trying to cover we're not trying to have any expenses anything like that related and we're absolutely going to turn that over it's forced civilians that are traveling with the governor uh truthfully from a security perspective and again i'm not a politician you said you're not law enforced expert forgive me for mob for testimony to this party because i'm i'm not a legislator but. From my perspective are concerned about that is not who is traveling with the governor are concerned about that your silly susance is who is not traveling with the governor who may be on that plane versus who may not be on that plane everywhere our given or goes she's going to have security detail with her but that will vary from time to time depending on a a depending on thread assessment of that again depending on transport or transport to and from again I would assort to say our governor's national peter she's an international but she does travel around the country that king or has a limit and that keen your can only hold so many people and it can only place so far and you can track the movement of that king here on flat tracker so we are concerned about if we start redacting names of safer instance we redactable the troopers were redacted or the detailed members were reducted from the plane manifest well it's not hard to do the math and realize what there's two red actions on there there's one red action on there or more importantly in our case there's no red actions on there because there are times depending on where she goes in what she's doing that we have detailed to put her on the plane and we have detailed a receiver when she gets off the plane but in that instance is rare as they are if their plane has to divert if that plane has to stop somewhere for fuel anything like that we have now once again tipped off while we do have security are i'm sorry that we do have security on the plane that we do not have security on the plane and it again allows people to pattern that is she's traveling a certain distance that people could know what she may have security but she's only going to have this number if that makes sense but that's our concern is not who is on the plane again we're not looking this from a political angle it's not who is on the plane it's it's the the security presence on the plane how much when they're there things like that thank you representatives got you recognized for a quote thank you mr chair. I'm trying to wrap my head around the reactive peace because I think you just there that yelled in start covering the governor until election night which was november the eighth so I don't really necessarily understand the retroactive peace in the bill if the arkansas state police wasn't covering her detail at that point in that probably won't be a question for you but maybe I can refer that to and maybe i'm confused i'm just right i'm following what you're saying and I make a note right just from a security aspect alone I would be concerned for any operational details to before your ball. Uh regardless whether it was june the twenty twenty two or june of nineteen ninety two and the reason why it's because we just don't want information out there and again we're not talking about documents of planning and things like that we're not talking about you know tactical operation plans or words we're talking about the only documents that we have that would be considered affordable in other instances our financial records in those financial records are always going to be individual records you know travel reimbursement for things like that to where you can pattern the amount of security that is with the governor of any particular time when he trip that's the only thing that we would have to turn over because until now until we were directed by this governor we've never kept a financial report on what the detail cost so the only thing that we would have to turn over would be information that you could use and if we get into operational integrity of the detail. Hello during that so I guess i'm still missing. The. So the operation details but you said this governor it's nothing you've ever seen right through dealing with so I don't understand how june the june part until november eighth really impacts and it might be because i'm not law enforcement so can you help me through that part because if at that point we were still under governor hutchison right i'm sorry in no you probably are asked your question perfectly in amex stated or I misunderstood from a security purpose for security I aspect of this as far as i'm concerned the reason that date is important is that's around the time but I can't see when the primary voice but that's around the top that the primaries were overweight in our candidates were selected and we knew at that time it was going to come down realistically the two candidates both of which have to rechildren and we are going to move from to protect these to fire protectees also one of which had a very hard profile nationally internationally and had a very have threat level against her so that that preparation started might before the election I hope that okay if you can pay the questions from committee members saying nine colon I grew up thank you for your test tomorrow for this committee today committed members we have four more folks signed up to speak in regards to this bill next we'll go to uh mister bail kapatzki mister boske you're signed up speak against bill if you would just have said at the end of the table to keep up he would save us mark phone plan be just pushed the button and the day to buy yourself to the committee and you'll be recognized give you test money against the bale thank you sir my name is bill cowsky director of the arkansas public policy panel. In the citizens or congress we testified against the previous versions of this bill in the senate or spare you a lot of that and just say that we think that for your information act is sacred to our democracy and that the public host rate to know what our public officials are doing I want to thank the members of the legislature for making this bill significantly better I know a lot of work is going into it in the hearings in the senate where we're long and a lot of people were engaged are concerns about this bill is that while it is much better it is still too broad we believe the public has a right to know who the governor takes trips with other than her family and her security details I heard the i'm sorry i've lost its name the state super who this is here say that listing the red actions would be problematic and I hear that I would think there would be a way to create a list of who is on the plane that doesn't have any red action so you wouldn't know how many reductions there were just of civilians on the plane I would think if you would imagine a future governor taking ten trips with one lobbyist in a two month period and then taking executive actions or promoting legislation that supported the employers of that lobbyist you would want to know that as law makers the public it want to know that I think it's a reasonable thing for the public to know who the governor is interacting with on the public's time so there it's really that simple the other thing is that the we still think the types of records that can be withheld should be more narrowly defined uh in that there could be an appeals process created so that if that power to conceal records from the public was ever thought to be abused that be a fair way to uh adjudicate that and income to determination. Uhm our organization and myself personally as a father totally respect the need to protect the first family and in her chain and her children and frankly we think all state employees deserve a safe work environment so totally respect that and again I want to thank the sponsors for making the changes they have we just don't ninety percent there would like to go ten more yards and we appreciate in questions from community members saying no i'm sorry thank you for being before this committee and given the sheer test model we appreciate your ten minutes thank you signed up to speak for the bale and secteralism by. Take care of you I just have a say to ten the table there are parties up to the committee in your recognized to uh you test money in favor of the bill. Thank you mister chair and members of the committee i'm also brang as the chair mentioned i'm the secretary of the department of inspector general and while I am here today in that capacity I think i'm really more here today because of my background um some of you might know that I worked as a federal prosecutor at the US attorney's office for ten years and as part of that employment a lot of my experiences based around conducting federal investigations around ongoing criminal inner prizes often that had to do with effectuating the arrest of dozens of dangerous criminals at the same time sometimes during a drug ring investigation sometimes during again take down other situations where law enforcement operations became highly sensitive in my experience in those opportunities to see this playout a light of what takes place is organized foreign advance in what's called an operations plan or an ops plan colloquially in that just means the logistics so before an operation like that takes place especially across multi agency operations that might involve the fbi DEA atf in arkansas state police but of planning and detail are undertaken before any action takes place so all of those agencies will get together and formulate an operations plan meaning who all is going to go on this operation who all will be there how many officers which officers what officer will do everything what officer will stay and here how many officers will stand there how many people will they have as a backup what weapons what they have in what circumstances will they use those weapons based on civilian head count how many people will be required to watch out for those types of situations very detailed very streamlined operations in that sense and when they're setting up these operational plans. The number one consideration is safety that's the safety of the officers of course it's a safety of anyone that they're trying to protect its also the safety of any potential defendants who are being arrested the number of one consideration is safety that's safety is weakened the more details are made public and so when an operations plan is being constructed and is being carried out and even after the fact the details of that plan can compromise the safety of the next plan representative cloudy asked a really good question earlier about why does it matter what it's over why did those kind of details have to be capped confidential indefinitely and that's because the past patterns of law enforcement will predict the way they will keep the governor safe in the future law enforcement is going to determine the best methods possible the best practices that they can and they're going to want to keep those quiet because they're going to want to use them again in doing that that's why this bill is drafted the way it is that's why law enforcement has a need to keep those details confidential because in the future they'll need to be confidential for the next time that applies to fight manifests as well colonel haggle made a great point that a plane will only hold so many people and it's not hard to google the model of a king air and find out whether it holds nine ten eleven fifteen passengers and if you get a flat manifest that contains thirteen civilians then you know there are two extra seats who you think is in the two extra seats are they empty are they law enforcement these are details that are bad actor can use to formulate a plan for the next time we heard a little bit earlier today about previous threats that have been made against the governor that rise to such a level of credibility that those two individuals have been convicted of that. I think it's important to know the gentleman in russell bell did not just make the threat he drove to where the governor was he got in his corn drove from reservation two clarksville where she was on a campaign event what if he had had more operational details what if he had known more about how many troopers would be there and where they would be standing in what they would be planning to do we don't know what would have happened he not only had the intent he took action and he drove there unfortunately law enforcement was able to prevent a tragedy from occurring that is really the conclusion of my remarks appreciate all letting me be here today thank you miss regard there any questions from committee report in the clown europe and ask for a question thank you miss bag that was helpful and and i'm really not trying to be able i'm really not trying to be argument of here I really am trying to come to some solution that that actually impacts the problems that are very real and I and I agree with you I hear you on them I guess as i'm thinking about here's my here's my concern my concern is the way that this bill is drafted now. Any governor and I want to be very clear that I am not making accusations about this particular governor would do something like this i'm just saying once we make this lots law for everywhere and so we need to consider the fact that this applies to every future governor so under the way this bill is written if we consider things like citizens who travel on the arkansas state police plane as exempt from from foyability my concern is that a governor could travel around with some big donor on the opens our state police plane on the taxpayers down and taxpayers would never know is there any threat that would put a bit out but I appreciate. What both you and hagger said with regards to uhm to threatening you know revealing parents of who was on the plane and who is it what about releasing that information citizen to travel on the taxpayers dime in the aggregate as we do with expenses why can't we do something like that to at least provide transparency that while we don't know what trips you know to wear a more even who is with each other that these were the citizens of the state of arkansas who did travel on arkansas with money thank you representative claiming I think that's another good point and I don't want to speak for a state police I don't work there and they have their own attorneys but as an attorney it seems to me that a more narrowly tailored for your request from whoever's asking would be an excellent way to see if state police determines if the castodian of records determines that that information impact security or not if a foyer request just asks for something more bride like that because stodian of records at state police will have the opportunity to evaluate with colonel hagger and with other people who are involved in security whether or not releasing that information like you said in the aggregate or in a different way maybe that doesn't compromise security in their expert opinion and maybe it can be released in that way. Regnant for a follow up thank you so so it with the presumption would be that the release of it would be in violation so we're going to I guess put the put the onus on on arkansas citizens to individually taylor for your request I guess would be the way to do it and say who are flew on the arkansas state police plan this month maybe do something like that every month and the age or get that would be a way around and I suppose but but you see my point my point is if we're presenting is that I don't want to release any information that would endanger than governor but I also do think that we need to keep in mind that taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent if it does not post the threat to the governor so i'm just trying to think of solutions to that so thank you for the questions from committee members saying thank you for your test more for this committee we appreciate you being here signed up next to speak in favor of the bill is low justice lord just as possible she would just have said the table people there value to the committee and you recognize to give you test money in favor of the bill thank you my name is lord justice and i'm just speaking for myself um I want to thank representative scarring clowning for their questions because that's something that I brought up in the senate hearings a question i'm hearing is why are we going back why is this retroactive to governor hutchinson's time and so there are something that's been concerning to the people that i've been listening to so thank you for getting that cleared up with the colonel. I want to say that I do appreciate representative maybe for separating this bill out from the rest of it and then representative ray for for taking that in in building on that and coming up with something that is in my opinion is a little more. Agreeable to everyone so it doesn't take the rights of the citizens away but it also protects the governor which everyone agrees that they want so I just want to thank you both for that and that's all I have to say in questions may I am thank you so much for paying for those committee those comments signed up we got one more signed up speaking favor the bale committee that is mister scott gray mister you would just have say the day of the table there by september committee in your recognized to speak in favor of the bill thank you mister chairman i'm scott gray with the sling counting republican committee. I'd like to take a moment to thanks lane county representative duly maybe for bringing for the first security only bill which maintains the people's four year eyes we appreciate that we had serious reservations about the initial bills who were pleased to support this compromise we thank you all for listening to gear constituents concerns and we do appreciate the process the questions can make a members saying i'm which great diet for test more for this committee taking time to be here. Is I have no one else signed up to speak for against the bill we are sure. Jimmy can. Okay we had you down for another house bill number that's okay now now the that's fine that's reason it was the one that we we head you down per house bill one thousand and nine that's one that uh we were passed over today you still want to speak uh okay i'm sorry this is as biotian toy i've just have a safety of the table if you were just notifying you she up to the committee and you recognize to speaking instrument yes sir jimmy kevin represent myself as the citizen like the point out II wish I could support this bill but I just can uh to look to probably would like to porn out by the test money in this been made I don't understand why this bills were forced because under that or twelve of this information is already example. And if the argument is that well there's a lawsuit filed against it in regard to the cattle twelve well then their stands reading the lawsuit can be filed against this law so if the ideas to keep it out the court that's not going to happen uh i'd like to start up at saying that of course. It reasonable person would like to make sure that the governor and i'm not even going to take governor saying there's other questions let's just stick with governors okay whether they have ten kids or no kids that I think everybody wants the governor to be secure and I think we're all on board with them I don't think we need to know how many are you sell state police or something to the detail I don't think we need to know how many plane I don't think we need to know how many did a hotel or an event a do think is a citizen with rights we should be able to know who's on that plan. Who's in that hotel who's in the hotel roams besides those curiosity I told some people in the hotel only capital elbow this morning it bon jelvy's own airplane i'd like to know it in if if a governor to say to take the rather they're burthering their sister law and on a trip i'd like to know it if a governor has a political consultant. On a trip i'd like to know it. And I think we have a right to know that I think we have a right I would like to see invoices I think I have a right to the invoices for the hotels I think I have a right to see all that I don't think it's about the security in our cell state police who ball away do a phenomenal job and I think the point needs to be made when they they don't ask for the assignment to go our to anybody but when they get it they take that same it doesn't matter to them who that person is they take their simon and they're going to do colonel haggling as much is going to do everything they can and take every tactical advantage that can to do that and that's their job but there's a balance there's a balance in that don't I don't think this is quite it you know when we tell we talk about these last list of who are also applies to then just prior to the governor does it it applies to you. Now we'll give you an example if representative deray of he if there's a legitimate thread against represent ray then I would like him to be protected and I would like his family be protecting the same representative rate of on a trip in there's credible threat okay and we have protection form the less they represent rays going on strip and he takes a bus lower other people with okay I will know who they both low to people is I will protect representative right. But I want the right to know who's only ships I want the right to know the invoices I want to see that all the expenses in a doubt is which you're going to get in this report that they're going to give you which is then it's going to be basically spreadsheets and numbers you're not going to prevent me detailed invoices from the from a dinner so if the governor urge anybody understood a trim and they have dinner okay and it's a taxpayers are paid for I want to see that receipt not for the arms i'll stay police guarding them not for reimbursements for them but I want to see those receipts on who's whip are public officials that they were paying for it it supposedly retroactively coherently does give me a little bitter piece of man on it but I hope you'll understand this is and i'm still sceptical it is just not in my grain the trust government. In when you do the retro activity the first question goes in my mind is what are you heading. Now I appreciate colonel hager's explanation of that in okay but both my good says I just not going to trust you in and I think you all understand why so I think that or twelve it takes care of everything. I don't see the emergency if we're doing this is an emergency deal understand the security of the government but coral haggers already test that hey we've never released this we've never released this on anybody okay because mac campbell files a live suit which is his right to do okay okay so we're going to say now we're we're going to change the law because allows it was found okay we'll head when they last. It hadn't been even a judiciary yet so the if you want to say there's emergency after that to change language in the law I could get that but we're not to that emergency point yet and i'll go back to the same thing if that's truly the case on that or twelve exemptions in your saying okay we're going to get this new lob because we're concerned about their laws can anyone explain to me how there's not going to be a lawsuit on this law so if anybody here now would honestly I would really like no because I think we're so much better than we were usually I think we're really hidden in a great direction I wish I could get on board with this account so if anybody you guys can leave my concerns you know I would really love cause I would really love sit down here and say I support this so if it give me reason with that i'll be more than happy take any questions representative richmond you recognize for questions yes thank you for expressing your concerns about this but uh you also express a lot of opinions about security and I would like to know is that from your experience being on security detail law enforcement what is your background that would would put you in a position where you could say that this is going to happen or that's going to happen and and as far as the lawsuit everything we do down there seems to get sued so I mean this is just one more time so i'm sure we'll see some kind of lawsuit on this as well there's probably some money in it so it'll happen in user i'd be a great glad address in the opinion of state if you don't have melbourne which opinion I was giving you because I never coin experts so just give me the pay i'm glad answered the opinion the first opinion is the fact that having the names of the numbers and everybody that's on the plane and who they are after the explanation from the state trouble. You say that that you should still have that the assertion your opinion is pete not there's peace security don't alice was there as question give me a trip I just like breath marks right representatives and go in the extra question and then you give a nature well I asked the question and and then gather asked another question so that's from answer the first question as far as your expertise in security that makes you feel capable that you know better than the state police I have no expertise and security what I have is common they have rights as a citizen bid bitter guaranteed to me in the arkansas freedom information so before you take them I think you'd need to just tell me why you are because taking someone's right we're not talking about an appropriations bill will not talk about it budget bill we're talking about a bill that literally takes right guaranteed to citizens in the state since nineteen sixty seven I have a right to question that in my opinion in my opinion those records should be available to me not the records of the ourselves state police personnel but again it bond yelled on that airplane i'd like to know it follow up you recognize so your answer is no experience and security as stated that I have zero experience but also stated I have comments thank you sir representative dimenal recognized for question thank you mister chair sir i'm just i'm i'm sat here and listen to not listen to a lot of folks i'm sorry I can't get any closer to my market let's say that we don't pass this bill and we carry on the white things have been do you are anybody else in here that's against this bill when you have plans. Avoiding the security detail for the governor I mean really I have never had a plan or will have a plan to about a security detail i'm sorry did you know I bought to ask me question okay go ahead if there is no plans then why are we continuing to horrible over the last two days i've heard let's get this down to where it's just the security we all agree we want to protect the security so for themselves here we are and then now it's a well then we want to protect this part of the security way and i'm just i've listened to it i'm just kind of blown away are there I mean we we have a room full of folks here who are planning on this and pass running out here and foying the security detail is that the case in my answer now it's not my case I have no desire intention of therefore one the security detail because there's no reason to want it's example under total twelve second year I know reason to but if someone wants to excess the right to follow for you they can if the information is exact under act eight seventy nine which mission recurtion was instrumental in then they're going to have to respond it the records are sampling cypic specifically exemption the record to do that exist cost and it rebert so if somebody wants to say that right they certainly can it does it mean they're going to get so few if you if you send it's if we walk out here tomorrow to your point on your question if we walk out here tomorrow in this build in past or whether it's still passes you can get a thousand if the wealth request for security detail. But it's example now if you don't like that exemption you can challenge it in court so nothing preverts somebody from doing that but I will make the point under carol twelve it's already example thank you for the questions from committee members saying now miss game thankfully test boundary down for the committee yes i'd just like to say a do appreciate everybody's efforts and works today thank you so much for this okay thank you committee or any well in the money of signed up speak or against the bill and in miss anyone in the room okay seeing non repaired debris you would just have say the thing of the table replaced you rarely recognize to close with your bail thank you mister chairman and committee I just want to thank you all for your time and for asking the questions in closing I really just want to thank everybody for the time and attention and and energy and effort that you all have given to this topic over the last several days I know there's been many hours on the found and in meetings and in discussions and I just appreciate everybody for your candor for your hard work and without him close to the bill representative ray has closed with the bale replacement do you have a question representative makes already recognized for emotion motion to pass we have motion of do pass any discussion on the motion replaced you plenty the planning recognized for discussion on a motion thank you mister chairman I really appreciate everyone's work on this and I just want to be clear especially representative miller with your question and that that I think everybody is all in agreement that one hundred percent of the security plans should be protected. My fear is when we're taking rights away from our candidates we need to be doing that with the smaller as all this possible I can't quite get there on this bill because I think it protects things that are ultimately not directly impacted not directly related to security so while I want this governor and every future governor protected I think this bill goes a little bit too far in terms of taking rights away from our kansas so I can't quite get there i'll be in now pretty covered you recognize for discussion on the motion thank you mister chair has been a long three days uh feel like we've been here a few weeks. I wanna say I am thankful for where we are today I am thankful that the government that governor listened to the legislature and she also listened to the people of our console and for that I want to commend her I am happy with where we are today with boya and I think that people of arkansas have let their voices be heard and they have one today and for that reason now we'll be voting yes in favor of the question on the motion saying committee we have emotional representative makes per pass all in favor say I would say no there are seven graduations the bill is pays committee members will be and research until their staff to know just watch for the call the chair for us to reconvene later this afternoon. You would go ahead and take you say which will get ready to get started. Chair says the corn were back from race says call the meeting to order we have one are among the days agenda it send it beyond a representative right committee members as you know this is a flying bail that we ran this morning had test money on but uh representative right mike his presentation in europe recognized to present senate bill team thank you mister chairman colleagues is the senate bill ten this is a mirror image of the bill that we heard this morning. I appreciate everybody's questions and comments on the bill this morning and that's that's pretty much all I got. Yeah. Any question for the committee members represent the plan you recognize for you first of all fifteen questions there no questions from committee member representative scott you recognize thank you mister chair this is what I already asked them I don't know if he found out the answer where the four year test force was on this one they've got contacted me okay thank you for the quoting from committee members. If we have someone signed up speak for against the bail if you have different testimony or something you need there from this morning just rejand our recollegiation of the table if not. Saying none representative ray you recognize to close when you are close for the bill representative ray has closed with is bail we have a we have emotion for a do pays any discussion on the motion saying none all in between say I all oppose now the zavic graduation you ball is passed thank you committee. Community members thank you we are adjourned.