State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Members please be seated. Yeah. Senate state agency will come to order chair season core. The. Many any many members of the public wishing to speak please say and we're taking a bishy version anybody else please say and so we have a record. The. Senator haster you are recognized represents. Yeah. Thank you sir johnson so I think we all know that we've we're here on an issue that's very important it's very important that the state of arkansas be important our governor is very important to legislators as we can tell from a from a packed room it's dealing with some issues that are are critical to the success of our state and safety of our governor which is a reason you know we didn't get to this point yesterday we spent maybe eight or ten hours in caucasus alone working through these issues working through concerns that were provided from probably many people in this room after listening and hearing from the people of arkansas we diligently worked through this bill land by line page that age making adjustments to this bill from feedback from the people like many who probably likely in this room and from legislators and people although the restate we wanted this bill to be right because we understand how important it is and I feel very good about the piece of legislation that i'm going to present to members. So what I believe the most important part of this bill addresses is the protection of the governor of our console in the first family I don't think there's anyone this room that disagrees that their safety and security is critically important the the nature and volatility and politics is more than it probably ever has men. The deep. Our governor you needly. Is has been pointed in in a target. And we know that she was the first press secretary to every secret service protection because she's unique. She came to the state of arkansas we know that since she's been in the state of arkansas there are two people currently in prison and that's been public after having legitimate credible threats to her life. So we know as a legislature it is very important for us to do to follow the findings and recommendations of law enforcement to keep the first or the governor in the first family protected and that's what this bill does we believe continues to help fan ways to better protect the governor. So many of the parts of this prevent people from starting to understand patterns of the architects state police protection for the governor and I no doubt there will be questions about a lot of that but am almost all those questions will go back to this the ability to prevent someone willing to do the first family or the governor harms to lower their ability to understand patterns of the protection of the governor. So that the next thing that was talked about quite a bit was this deliberative process which I think you will see has been removed. Uhm what we want as a as a people of arkansas we want our government to work efficiently and fairly. And when we do not have the ability for the free exchange of ideas it hurts in the efficiency a bill you know it hurts in the efficiency of government so an example let's just say as we experience some of the state of arkansas tornadoes. And so if there's been tornadoes hit their significant damage out there that the governor cannot have direct communication with a with the secretary in charge of that without that being foiable some of that could be involving public safety at that time some of the could be involving starting to understand what's the most critical thing that needs to be done that simply just not does not need to be out in the public at that time so we can all understand that during situations that are crisis or emergencies we want the governor to be able to communicate directly worth with her direct reports in the secretaries. The. We have situations that we've seen even in little rock where a hacker takes over something and then everything discussing your voner abilities in your computer systems have to be public. I and so it puts you more at danger in those phone abilities when you can't discuss some things that I believe almost every archains and believes should be able to be protected you're certain vulnerabilities the hackers have been one example we seem to do public schools and we've seen some of our and we've seen it at some of our county levels in cities that that the hackers are real and we ought to be able to work on these issues are directly from the governor and her staff in the secretary without at being public there was a recent example in the you know of somebody committing some medicaid fraud in the moment the the attorney general's office sent that information to uh. To the office of medicare expenses generally became public. And we know that because well it would we know that was public but then there were lawyers already advertising for anybody that had used this particular doctor to try to find a lawsuit and maybe that's fine but the reality is we weren't even done investigating we were we were not done certainly with the prosecution yet all of the playbook from the government was public at that time and I don't think that people believe that if we get a bad actor about it operating souls areas doing those things in government like medicaid fraud all that should be public before before our defense or prosecution of them is a is available. And finally i'll move on to you know that i'll just you know those are so legal component of this alcohol just talk about attorney client privilege there's been a lot of discussion in the attorney client privilege area. I think that almost every one of the state of arkansas agrees that if we are being sued as a state are our preparations for a defense should not be made public to those that are suing us we don't operate that way out in the in in the general world in the business world in the civil world we should not have our defences that we are preparing for a lawsuit available to those that are suing us episodes had a completely unfair advantage i've heard someone say well once that's over the nose defenses or everything should be public well I would say an example would be the rate of acts just beat can't stay on saturday. But we have ten more games ahead of us. Okay we shouldn't have to open up our playbook after can't state to everyone else you know that that that example works there it that example works in the security with the governor that example works in a lot of areas that people understand that just because something is over doesn't mean we have to disclose our playbook in our in our and how we defend things or protect the governor. In with that I think i'll be prepared for questions like look. I think. All of these things the changes over the last two days I just want to close again with this. That this bill is drastically different than it was twenty four hours ago it is drastically different because of the feedback of the people of arkansas it is drastically different because of the ability willingness of the legislature to listen to feedback from the people of arkansas to listen to our colleagues to listen to people that disagree on these issues and we spend a lot of hours we worked really hard to get to a piece of legislation that I feel like the majority of the people of arkansas should be very proud of i'm happy to take any questions. Thank you we are this republic information we were on to take questions from the committee for a period of time then we're going to have public comments we're gonna get through all those public comment all those public comments. And listen we're not going to have a show in here if you show you will be removed. This this is going to be civil and we're not represent the people of arkansas. As as a responsible as we can but we will get through this list but we're on the beginning by questions from members go ahead senator data. Thank you mister chair senator hester ayer greatly appreciate a lot of the changes that have been made in this by comparison to what was originally introduced and I just want to focus in on will two two different things but first of all the deliberative process that has been removed that was what caused I know myself a lot of her in probably the majority of the. Constituent and other. Feedback that I received and so I greatly appreciate that that has been removed and bare and very narrowly tailored down to cabinet level only direct reports the fifteen secretaries so fifteen people can you explain or go into a little bit more explanation on. The current process versus what will be changed with that exemption afterwards like right now if if um the governor calls a secretary that phone call isn't recorded so that's not there for wireless but if if email or text it is. And so that would not be ever liable going forward. How about anyone underneath the secretary so if sectory reaches out to their their. Division heads or department heads if they reach out to anyone under their their jurisdiction and start talking will that communication still continue to be for liable as well as inner department communication say from one department secretary to another department secretary that's a great question I probably should cover more of that in in my in my opening statement but. Right now if if if the governor requests something picks up the phone and request something of a secretary. In secretary says they discussed something in the secretary since a report back to the governor. Ok right now that report is for that phone conversation up the what they have phone conversations is not avoidable because there was nothing produced. If the governor emailed that that secretary and said hey would you. Work on this for me not only is that is that email for your more currently what the governor was asking for but the work product is a is provided. Okay so that is what's currently available the email. And the work product would would be foil if they made a phone call clearly that phone calls not for you because we don't have a record of that. The only thing that would change in this example is if the governor emails a secretary and ask for some work and that is returned that work product is still foil just the email to the secretary requesting there might be some back and forth what do you mean about this maybe you should ask for this differently that debate or that dialogue between the governor the second he would not be foiable but the end result what is produced the product that is this provided to the governor from that agency would be foil still okay and then secondarily with regards to retroactive pause that's in here that's that's changed a little bit but why is that necessary what what is the reason for it being retroactive back to june twenty twenty two yeah so i'm gonna ask the commission i'm going to finishing finish entering your first question so i'll i'll also be very clear if the governor emails a secretary or when that signal to her response if there is ever anyone else that is not captain secretary of the governor staff so if the governor emails the secretary and the secretary response back but copies anyone else in their agency. Anyone else is included on the email or the dialogue that is all still for you the only thing that we are protecting is the direct dialogue between the governor's office in that secretary. Anyone else it's included if their c seat if there are then it is no longer foil and if the work product is produced by anyone else. That is poible what is return the only thing not voible is the direct communication between the governor's office and that secretary and I believe most are cancelled would agree for efficiency that the governor ought to be able to have open download with their direct employees okay the question was on white retroactivity. So i'll give everybody a little bit history there's nothing really changed with the way the arguments all state police protects our first family. What was going to change this time that has not been this case in a very long time as they're going to go from two protections to five regardless of who won the election the democrat of the republican. They were going to go from two protections to five so the state police started preparing. For what that was going to look like okay they had to have some new strategy some new plans may be different transportation I don't know because I haven't asked them for what those plans are I don't think that's appropriate. But they had to start developing new plans and on election night. We had state police at with both. Candidates. And they immediately started protecting the candidate that one. And so what was nightfoiable we are intempting to protect is their working documents the actual protection plans that were prepared for the families I don't think anyone I mean well anyone that is not crazy does not believe that that should be available to the general public. Thank you sir tucker thank you mister chair. Center as I want to start I want to talk a little bit about what you were talking about you and senator dots and but I want to take a little bigger picture at first. Generally speaking for special sessions of the general assembly but in the state constitution it says that it's an extraordinary occasion as require. Fair enough fair enough in in my experience and legislature my question is whether your experience is similar for special sessions there is really one key issue that's time sensitive that cannot wait until the next general session that causes the call and then other things that are added to the call beyond that are really clean up technical corrections type bills is that consistent with your experience I wouldn't say it's consistent market spirit as sometimes it is and sometimes it's not as much to so give me an example of another special session where so what let me put this into context first in this foyer bill I really can have four different items in my head want a security what is the communications between the governor's office and cabinet little secretaries on his attorney client communications and then one is attorney's fees is that fair fair. Ultimately what i'm getting to is on the security issue. I understand and appreciate the argument for that being a time sensitive issue that cannot wait until the next general session in january twenty twenty five my question is of the other three issues. The communications were trying to get owner's office and cabinet level secretaries. The italian client communications and attorneys fees what is time sensitive about that they cannot wait until the next general session in january twenty twenty five I think I talked about some of those examples I think if you ask the people of organization you want your government to work more efficiently they would say yes and I want it done right now I believe that they this some of these communications allows for more efficient government right now I also believe that if there was like I mentioned some like some sort of tragedy let's say there's a tragedy at one of our one of our public schools I believe that the governor should be able to have open dialogue with threats with what's happening with our secretary of education without that being voiable so okay so that's the communications between the governor and the cabinet level secretary first of all that has not existed since nineteen sixty seven correct. The communications being protected are not not subject to disclosure of the foy between the I can't answer that all the way back to nineteen sixty seven I can say it's not right now right okay but but you're saying that I can't wait until january twenty twenty five well anything could wait but I think the people of arkansas want us working efficiently right now okay so what about the attorney client communications in the attorney's fees what in those issues not wait until the general session I think that's it's even more of a compelling argument I think that we've got some really critical legislation going on right now for instance on the safe act with the people of arkansas do not believe that our children should be mutilated or castrated are we voted on that it's that is in that is in the corch right now and we do not believe that the people that believe that our children should be mutilated that they should be able to get our defense. In preparation for court I think that a vast majority of our kansas believe that we've got some really good legislation that are that this legislative body is put out that is being challenged in our courts and we believe that that for the best chance of success for that legislation is to be able to protect the preparations from our legal defence. Are those last who's involving the legislature is that what you mean. For the safe those lawsuits are evolving involving actions from the legislature right but all those communications are protected through the legislative working papers exemption from the legislatures that's correct yeah so that example doesn't really play no it does apply i'm saying that from the defense of the attorney general are turned in or or the governor's office that are working on a preparing a defense for those cases will they have working papers exemptions to the. They are working paper's exemptions when they dealing with just the governor staff but one that when they are talking with outside people involving this maybe outside lawyers that that is not protected ok i'm just not aware of any of anything but what will move on uh what about that's. Once again you know that's another provision that's been in place since nineteen sixty seven and a I think it's hard to see the argument as to why they can't wait until the general session of of legislature but but moving onto the attorney's fees was that sometimes sensitive or I think I think it it all works together right I mean any of the stuff is real in its ongoing we didn't have the attorney fees like this till two thousand and twenty one I saw from nineteen sixty seven until twenty one we had the work the attorney fees particular way and twenty one we made an adjustment and we've seen attempts to abuse that and exploit that I mean you know I which we seem to stuff in the paperwork or just public that people that even lose cases are wanting a thousand dollars an hour for their legal fees so you know that the former solicitor general for the united states of america is only charting twelve hundred dollars for their legal fees and we have people challenging on four year losing and wanting a thousand dollars an hour for their legal fees I mean so again we continue to walk down the road of like crazy and normal we we think arkansas should operate normal all right I want to give i'll get back to the attorney's fees but I want to go through and if if other members have questions mister chair you know i'll take a break in and you can come back to me but I want to go through each of those issues there are categories but I have zero questions about the security for the record I have no questions about that I want to talk about the other three the first one I understand that the delivery process is exemption was removed and that's glad for that and it was essentially replaced with this. Extension of the working papers to the extent there's communications when the governor's office the governor or or someone from the governor's office and capital secretary correct so I have a couple of have one clarification question is secretary of a cabinet level department to find and code or is that up to the governor house that determined. I could know we define what a secretary in code yes okay I just did now I was just making sure so here's where I want to get back to your conversation with senator that's I understand what your intent is. It's only communication specifically between the cabinet level secretary and the governor or the governor's office however that is not how it reads to me. I and I want to discuss that really the key word is the word reflecting. If i'm a castodian of of records for say the education department. And there's an email between two staff people at the department not including secretarial leaver. But there is an email between two stabbers and it says. The governor and secretary leave a discuss this and this is what they want to me that is reflecting a communication between the governor and secretary leave it at that point it's exempt under this language I understand that's not what you are intending with the way that this is drafted but at to me it's very clear that that's the way that it will be applied and I can promise you that if I were a lawyer for the state that is the argument that I would make and i'm wondering you know if we can do something to clean that up well II do not believe it needs to be cleaned up we debated that at quite some length yesterday I think would be very clear if it is involving anyone other than the governor staff and that secretary it is voible and I think we can ask a larger for the state if a how do you intend to interpret that just please introduce yourself yes mr chair according kennedy chief legal council for office of the governor senator tucker respectfully how senator has described it is exactly the intent of how this will be interpreted i'll also add that your question is very that specific in hypothetical of course better I would also have concerns that how would someone come into possession of an email between the governor's office and another protected party that they're not copied on or have in some official capacity how would that person be a proper custodian in watch to foyer that document from that party so I understand we're kind of hypothetically discussing this situation by the the reflecting language I think serves its intent to protect the communications between only the governor's office in the cabinet level and if documents between those parties do get dispersed out I would question whether or not that is a proper person to be a custodian of records for the four year statue on your last point whoever the custodiners amid to me every agency has their own custody and there's one person that that's designated as a stoning of records. Where there's the person on the email or the designating is still in for the agency to me that that's not relevant um and the other thing is understand that you individually may apply this long this way and II have no question about that but the reality is we're making this law for the entire state of arkansas for every agency for all time unless it's changed in the future you're not going to be in the governor's office forever our current governor will not be governor forever there are numerous state agencies who will apply this as they see fit into me this language is written pretty plainly too broadly apply to anything that reflects a communication between the governor or the governor staff and a cabinet level secretary and any exemption before it needs to be narrowly tailored if if what you're saying is and I have no reason the question that you're you're genuine in what you're saying it would be very easy to add in language that says. This only applies to language to communications directly to a cabinet level secretary only it's very easy to do and and it erases any doubt about the application of the intent of the application of this exemption but the way that it's written right now is very ambiguous in my opinion and very bright. The. I would your concern is not if we've we've worked through that and we we are comfortable with what it says based on what what we are attempting it is only the governor and their staff communication with the secretary on and I hear you but when this has been litigated senator won't be there. And corning won't be there. It's gonna be two lawyers on either side and a judge looking at this word reflecting only. Umm i'll move on to the next topic if there's anybody else. So on the turn client privilege. This section is also improved from from the original bill II actually I agree in principle that attorney client communications for pending litigation I should be protected I think the definition of anticipate anticipated litigation as good so we we have made an improvement. Really on subsection thirty the attorney client communications really divided in two subsections thirty and thirty one I have more concern about thirty one but I have one one little question about thirty and you really reference a senator has during your opening communications I would prefer for. Um once the litigation is disposed on that it could be retroactively subject to disclosure under four is that something that you considered. I would say that something that's considered and again this is one of those sections that bar based on great feedback from the people of arkansas we made substantial adjustments to yesterday which is making this such a a better bill but but no one get I don't gave the example of just because you finish you finish one lawsuit or you know we finish your football game doesn't mean we provide everyone else in front of us the playbook so no I mean what the results of those lawsuits will be public I do not anticipate that the that that that information that's not required by the courts to be made public would be. Okay. Alright with that i'd like to move to subdivision thirty one again we got ok thanks thank you mister. So subdivision thirty one. The. Yeah. That applies regardless during the suit. Can the prosecution. Get that in discovery. An attorney client communication yes you can get that in discovery to find out how. How the other said now. All right thank you yep. And and my personal opinion and you know as a litigator that's that's much that's my day john that's what I do if you have active litigation you are to go through the normal course of discovery in order to obtain information and if something is privileged on it because it's an attorney client communication that should be protected like it would be another civil discovery that's that's my opinion. So on thirty one this applies in a context when there's no litigation pending or no threat of litigation correct. For all time correct okay now I understand you may have a different interpretation. However my concern is that this is also much much too broad because what this does is it borrows language from architectural evidence for about two b where the attorney client privileges defined. And I have seen. The application of that rule in my practice in hundreds of cases and it's applied very broadly. Essentially to the point that if a lawyer is carpet on an email. Then it's not subject to disclosure because it's protected by the attorney client privilege. And i'm concerned with merely borrowing that language. It's appropriate in a civil litigation context in my opinion for it to be applied very broadly because in that context we want to protect attorney client privilege communications in this context it needs to be drafted as an early as possible just as all for your exemptions are and so we are taking language from the court that's broad and we're putting it in foyer and to me that's very problematic in our do you have a response to that or did you consider netmore narrow language on this point have a response to that you're concerned that there are bad actors and I would say there's absolutely bad actors but I also agree that you believe that this language that we are using the choose and civil legation is appropriate language I think that you know that it does not include someone just copying your ceiling a longer than it's protected at that point but you're conceding that some people are bad actors I would also concede that well I think what we know where's someone else to copy a lawyer seeking legal advice. They have to be seeking legal advice that they should be that that should be protected at that point and in certainly if if that is abused that's why we have a legal system and we have judges that can see both sides in address at a that point. I guess i'd like to back up just a little bit so the point we've discussed this. Why do we have to turn our playbook over the other side one more active litigation correct correct. From a just from a philosophical standpoint. When you're not an active litigation why is it necessary to protect attorney client provision in that scenario because there's no adversary on the other side. That you're trying to keep your playbook from. It's just the government while you're doing their job just like a government press person in order a Can always go to horrific situations but if we're talking about potentially school safety right and we're seeking legal advice on if we do this or versus that or take this recommendation versus that and seeking guidance on that I think we all you know that would be something that we wouldn't want out in the public and i'm i'm happy if you've got a better example senator it may surprise you but people don't tender like attorneys what right now right and even in the state there is a chilling effect for for state employees who want to do the right and the legal thing but then they're afraid to ask for illegal advice from their legal council because what's going to happen if I put this in writing and then that gets for you and am asking this question because I want to do the right thing in the legal thing but I don't want note someone knowing that i'm seeking this advice I think there is a chilling effect for the good actors in the state who want to follow the law because they don't have an open print protected mechanism to seek legal advice from within their own agencies but why is that different than seeking advice on a non legal matter for a state employee. On a nominal matter and non legal and while and i'm legal matter would not presumably affect the state and a legal way if a uh if a state employee is sending an email to their attorney saying we have a meeting that we want you to be added this time and place that's for your ball that's not legal advice that could legally impact the state but if it's four specific legal advice that needs to be protected. So if this is if this is the right policy performer. Which in your opinion it is. Then why is it limited only to state why we're not applying it to local government entities as well. That's a great question because I lost that argument I absolutely believe we should be plying the twelve a harrard our cities in our counties but i've lost that argument with my colleagues so you get because I don't have the votes that's why okay. All right so okay that's that's all my questions on turning client communications last thing is the attorney's fees. The. Everything that we have discussed on the other matters the application of the word reflecting. Whether something is privileged because it's an italian client communication or or at whatever the case might be. The first step in the four year processes that determination is going to be made back stodian. Correct who's who's not a neutral party yes now you hope people are acting in good faith but the reason for your existence because we know that there aren't always going to be good faith actors correct that's so the first determination is going to be bad custody the only way that you get to a neutral arbiter of whether something is protected and the freedom of information act or not. Is to get to a judge right and the only way you're going to do that is by filing a lawsuit. Right the train and the only way you're gonna do that as if you have either you are a lawyer you hire a lawyer. So theater as you mention the attorney fees provisions were in place where if you substantially prevail in your foyer lawsuit since nineteen sixty seven the new shall recover your fees. We made a slight week to that in twenty twenty one and you made a reference to this earlier center after and I want to go back to what you said you said since twenty twenty one we've seen a tips to abuse that right that's correct. So do we change where are there actual abuses or just attempts to abuse I think i'm for more with attempts to abuse okay so what are we going many temps to we're changing laws based on an unsuccessful attempt to abuse. I wouldn't say based on that but I would say that as part of the equation okay now i've asked for specific examples and I have yet to receive one and i've been asking ever since this came up last week of an example where someone lost a case and still recovered their fees do you all have an example now. Yes yes the case was filed in judge fox's court room in palaski county it went through a trial over the freedom of information the case I judge fox dismissed with prejudice there were no findings after the case the defendant in the lawsuit willingly gave some of the records to the plaintiff the plaintive then went to the claims commission seeking fees I believe seventeen thousand dollars I may have the number wrong the claims commission denied his request and the plaintiff's argument wise because he successfully got documents that he was entitled to fees despite the fact the definite willingly gave those documents after having one the sit. And so that would be one and I believe that case is now on appeal. So that's one example of edefinite last to see it was dismissed with prejudice and is still attempting to seek fees but the but the planet didn't get fees correct. The claims commission said no. Though the claims commission said no but that is on appeal so we don't know what the final decision will be so we still don't have a single example of someone where they lost a plane if lost a foil out suit and still recover fees. Well II can say this we have an example of many many hours many thousands of dollars defending something that we shouldn't have to defend because like you said it will it is likely to not to not pay out yet the legislature's dealt with this and there are claims process two or three different courts have dealt with this and I think it just makes it a cleaner easier process rather than if you're acknowledging that this won't ever pay then we shouldn't have the process where we are wasting people's time because we want to have an efficient effective government what you're just saying then that we just shouldn't have four year I mean that's what that argument is but but that aside you made a reference earlier that um. Yes he. He did not say that okay don't put those work in some thank you thank you thank you for that mister chair my my point is and the and I should have stated better than I did is that it's a government employees obligation to defend foil lawsuits period and at that that should be the case no matter what changes we make to foil. And I shouldn't put words in your mail. Two. You made a reference earlier that someone requested a fees of a thousand dollars an hour and I don't know whether that's true or not but do you know whether that person actually you know got awarded a rate of a thousand dollars now it's to my understanding they were not awarded that ok so once again it's an unsuccessful attempt if it happened or we aware of any other examples where you know this has been abused. I'm not i've just I was provided three examples where. A loser in the in the case one hundred thousand dollars an hour for their time okay and lost ok so we moved we tweak the ability to recover fees and twenty twenty one from where it had been since nineteen sixty seven. And are. What this proposal was it's not to take it back to the way it was before twenty twenty one but to move it a long ways in the other direction and and that's perhaps my biggest concern about the entire legislation because while sue through the enforcement mechanism for four violations and not just the four year provisions being legislated in this bill but for every four year provision that exists the more without the thread of litigation for a foil violation what instant have do custodians have to comply with foy I don't think there is any and I don't believe that attorney's fees will be recoverable with this legislation passes as it is because you have to prove that someone acted arbitrarily or in that faith in all custodian has to do with say judge I didn't understand or judge I talked to our lawyer and they the i'm doing what they advised me and there's no fees so why the question is why are we not going back to the way it was before twenty twenty one and instead. Taking a penguin that went a little bit in this direction and then moving it way over here. Well look. You can talk about lawyer and legal fees much more depth than I can in fact I think most arcans are don't care a whole lot about legal fees and that's not what the pretty from prominence of this bills about but I can tell you this you absolutely can recover legal fees if you look on page for land two and three if the plain if substantially prevails and the position of that if then it was arbitrary or in bad face and I understand you're saying that's very narrow which is absolutely the intent we do not want frivolous lawsuits like being found like we were just talking about people lose and lose and losing them on attorney fees like if you think you can win and it's a legitimate case then a lawyer will take there but if it's not a legit legitimate case they won't the goal is to start removing frivolous cases and i'm happy to let already have add on. So senator in both of those cases in land two and three. Who is it a difficult determiner of that the judge the judge is the determiner of that whether those things are the defendant is acted arbitrary and bad faith the judge has to determine that not the state of arkansas correct yes senator tucker I want to go back to your. Determination that there's been no actual abuses it's my position that there is an actual abuse when attorneys lose the case and then take state time and take state money to prison that case to the claims commission knowing they lost no wing that they filed a case with the circuit court that they didn't have good standing in and then they're coming and having alc here that make a determination there and bad faith seeking these fees for a case they lost I think that that is an actual abuse of the system regardless of whether an I alc did their job and awarded the money or not I think even the presentation of someone who has lost a case and attempting to seek the fees is an actual abuse and that's what what we're trying to prevent that slows down the government being able to work efficiently and quickly when we are hearing these cases before a lc of of last four year cases what you're describing as someone who has no basis to make a claim in doing it anyway so how does that prevent someone from making a claim they have no basis to make because under the law the the the wording of the new law that goes back to the previous law that you reference is that the plaintiff passed you substantially prevail so if you do not substantially prevail you can not make a claim for attorney's fees but you could still make a claim just the same right. You'll lose. Correct so that that scenario doesn't really change with this legislation. Actually I am going to disagree with you two substantially prevail I believe that prevents you from from presenting the claim to alc especially when you go to position to point b which to mr chairs point if a judge determines that the state did not act arbitrarily and bad fees then there is no calls or grounds to file that petition with alc four attorneys fees so the question is decided at the court level before you continue to use these date money and resources. To go to LA l c. Okay I don't want to pass here's a bit with you but what you're telling me is someone who has no basis so the basis is already zero now they have somehow less than a zero basis they have no basis in winning a four years they've lost the suit so they have no basis to claim fees whereas under the current law they can lose and still go to alc and say i've lost but i've put some time in so I want fees up to a thousand dollars. Okay i'll wrap up here i'm i'm wondering them thank you I appreciate everyone's indulgence. Not only did you add in the language saying that you have to substantially prevail and prove that someone acted arbitrarily right back you also change shouter may. So a plane if could bring a legitimate lawsuit they can when that was. They can substantially prevail to use the language in the legislation. They can prove that the castodian acted in bad face and at that point still be denied their fees. Part of the wall as it's proposed here correct we're leaving it into the the court's hands as to whether or not to award those fees. And because the court would have heard all of the facts of the case and could make that determination better rather than the court being forced to award fees in a case that they've heard all the facts and I may determine they didn't award a fees is not appropriate. This leaves it in the hands of other judge who has heard every aspect of the case my concern here really is it's about access to justice. And if I want to bring a foil on suit after this passes I can do it you know i'm a lawyer but for you it exists for me but it exists for the average john q citizen and arkansas who may not be a lawyer or have access ready access to lawyers or have money to hire a lawyer. And the way that this is worked throughout history as they say I have a legitimate case with the way the law worked from sixty seven and twenty one you don't get your fees on a frivolous lawsuit anyway. So III still haven't heard an answer to the question why we're not going further than the way it was between sixty seven and twenty one but if I bring a legitimate case we win you'll get your fees and that's how you'll get paid in that conversation is going to be substantially different if this law passes moving forward because the lawyers are in the state are going to say. I'm just not going to be able to prove that faith sorry I am not taking the case and so the the foya violation dies with the court custodian who violated the law. Or like we're not going back to nineteen sixty seven because it's not nineteen sixty seven things are very different now we look at this legislation spend a lot of time what we think is very appropriate for today in the circumstances of today and what we hope works maybe for the next fifty or sixty years but that's the purpose of that I would say you know you're concerned about somebody they can't afford to lawyer I believe they have an option to seek are the ag's opinion on a for your case and get feedback from there I can look further into that are certainly by the time we get on the floor but I understand that someone that can't afford to order has an opportunity for an ag's opinion only certain public officials can request an attorney general's opinion like a met member of the legislature remember the public cannot request a during general's opinion and maybe i'm using the wanter maybe they can just seek the attorney general or some level of their help rather than just an official opinion. Appreciate their own understanding they can thank you center thank you siner king. If they commission chairman so you know in some of these things that you went through in my situations and deal with that want to keep coming back to this it seems to be one of the best examples of you know with age cease directors to mention the forestry commission back whenever I followed the four street director for emails and what it happened I mean have been through this past history of governor b overspent our budget we had a short ball and then they were directing agencies to use federal money which was illegally you had instant forestry employee that couragedly stepped up and told what was going on a foiet those emails between definitely the governor's office those are came out so if you're saying if you're walking through that situation. With the emails when i. If I forward those emails and it had governor staff people on those emails or it had the government going there's ac director on any of those emails what is the convoluted thing of all these people in a copy email that I would what would be what information what i've gotten what information what are not. Sir king that's a great question if it was anyone from the governor or her staff. To the secretary only it would be protected if anyone else was included it would not be protected so my guess is every email you requested back then would most likely still be available through for you I don't know what are you for you could brought that it's me we'll look into it that's been a few years ago that's been twelve years ago but I would tell you they are used to this bill and I would not have got the information. And thirty four people good people that did the right thing to the state of arkansas and the boy that stepped up. Would have never been vindicated in that situation. You know we have sexual salt cases that we have to deal with that can get covered up in this situation there is a lot of different situations in this that is outside the scope of just the little security part you talked about the phone logs the phone logs off even examples sometimes you know the burber come conversations you wouldn't get that in apple are but when you get the phone logs you get a communication in that level she dance another question we shut that off we had seventeen phone calls between that what you talk about and the result was a contracts given or something there is so many things that can happen I mean we got to think several years ago I didn't. I stood up and said it was wrong. This legislature not the ones that ran at the time spent sixty thousand dollars a taxpayer money to keep the department of justice getting legislator records to me that was just unbelievable in and outside a line of collins there was nobody else said anything about it. I mean the past history of this legislature what we've had with corruption and everything else agency people agency directors to start trying to act yet outside the scope of what's going on of the security detail and open it up especially with our bank pass history that we've had. II don't know why this is like a tragedy while we're doing it I mean the the sixty thousand dollars a taxpayer money that was meant to keep the face from getting the records of corrupt legislators conduct and brabs. The. And no one else made about settling a collins who are missed dearly. Said anything. So I don't know why we can we won't outside the skill when I ask you to ask questions on the bill so I ask the question on the phone while I would while with no one even the phone logs of a governor in agency director be a problem. II mean it could evaluate performance if I get if agc director did or did not do a lot of communication with the governor on a certain thing and we couldn't even know the phone logs. That would tell a performance record of it they only have two phone calls and it would have been a big problem why did you have more conversation why is the phone logs even being protected I mean so much is being protected the. We believe it's appropriate to protect the direct communication between the governor of their staff and the secretary so the situation of bill walker few years ago took on when he hired a definite interpreter that was scored as zero on the test once again apple are. I mean we're talking about protection people what about the death people that are going to be covered up and we're going to be in that situation you would have had a death interpreter in charge of communicating for a death person that scored a zero on it paid with stacked sake tax dollars this would be covered up in that would have never came out. Sit thinking I would be honest I just felt there's a lot of rambling I really can't follow almost anything your sand or the names I just don't know if you can ask me direct question i'm happy to answer I just gave you a direct situation that was in the news medio where four and covered in protected death people out there from having a depth interpreter and this goes outside the scope of that war we outside of the security details so much in this thing if it was in the security detail that's part but if it's outside the scope why are we outside this scope that includes these other things that I mention that protected the people of arkansas. You don't again i'm not familiar at all with whatever the case is you're talking about I do not know if there was a communication from the governor in the governor's office directly to a secretary that would have been protected or not but here's what we know we were we intend to protect the communications between the governor their staff and the secretary only anything else any other example my us you know earlier I ask you if you understand you know about the the forestry stuff you said you didn't remember any of their emails because it had been too long but then you said it would have been it would have been covered up under this for you so I don't know if you remember where you don't but like it only the governor their staff or the secretary is protected but my question is why are we outside the security detail we're outside in areas that were not in the security detail why are we outside the security detail. Because I believe that is important for our government to work as efficiently as possible and I believe the free exchange of ideas between secretary someone in their direct report is very appropriate and we want the free of change about it so we can get the best working product for the people of arkansas so housing in the security detail the last situation I used up a while and sector back culture west ward which gave forty eight thousand dollars to his friends and in a money that involved the governor's office that they signed up on if a wide him and clearly you can see through that what happened how that money got there why that has nothing to do with the security the governor in the family. Was it wrong route wrong for west war to get forty eight thousand dollars to that private entity in your opinion my guess as you're telling eighty percent of a story i've never even heard this is the first ever heard of somebody get my guess as it's eighty percent of the story probably is is all the story it was in legislative council who was brought up it was clearly debated in how led slightly councils in the legislative council found a very honourable man to be the man of integrity that did the right thing is my guess so but my question is why even in this sector of our culture that it has nothing to do with the security the governor's family which were all compassionate about why why is this covered in it while we throw in such a wide blanket outside the security. Sender king you're confillating two different portions of the bill the security of the governor has nothing to do with with whatever conversation or situation you're discussing about secretary ward so set the security of the governor aside whatever situation you're talking about with secretary ward if information was for yeared that came from a directorate agriculture or any of the employees that agriculture that's information is still available what will not be available is information directly between secretary word and the governor and the governor's office I understand that my question we freeze it but well what if the governor's direct in that sector back culture to and i'm not saying this is the case I don't think it was worth the sector of accords to direction the secretary you need to send this money somewhere here we need to know where there was communication if there was a link so that would not be covered if if the sector of accounts are told sector if this governor told the sector back home to use in this money you're used in this money then that wouldn't be the alc is not losing any powers to perform audits to figure out where and why money is being moved and in the difficulty and performing audits is the presentation is the difficult decent trying to find out the questions and stop it it creates another difficult road that we can't get to in the late legislative sessions that i've been successful in the courts getting that you can't get I mean with all the corruption that we've had and everything like that we need more transparency not less. That's just. There are their members. Oh back and forth rent there and. I mean i'm in leadership in the senate. The the government sits the call then we've got to deal with what to call is step for. And it's not just about security center king it was broader than that so we are dealing with the call that we were called down here new the all that back and forth you know I tried to work my way through it but we're dealing with the car that we we as legislated were called down here to do so. Thanks for the questions we will go on to public comments. There is many on this list that have signed up in the same column I will call you as as as the least years and I will call you whenever you're in the same column to come to the table together since you signed up that way. Reminder this will be respectful to to this price here and to the citizens arguments on and I want the public input in this process and appreciate everybody's indulgence. Over yesterday we were developing a better product at for the citizens of the state of arkansas and we want your input in into this process so we will begin with against it'll be recent brown and robert steinbow. Yeah. Whenever you come to the table introduce yourselves in your recognized I don't know you know the connection there but you're on the same column so you guys are going to get to I guess reason will go first since he will his name was on first and then mr standball so just introduced yourself in your last. Yes then in a johnson I appreciate you give me the opportunity as a member of the public to speak on my opinion with this legislation also thanks and her hester for allowing us to be able to meet here on behalf of this legislation you like I said my name's respond a college student right now at ular i've lived in arkansas whole life and pause born and raised and II find that even with the contention around this pash pat passage of the legislation that it it's very important that us is the public gets to speak out about it because ultimately where the reason why that the legislation is being brought forth in the first place right without the public there would be none of this I wanted to address a couple pieces of legislation that II find that I disagree with and and the first being the security purposes I think that. Obviously everybody in this room can probably a test to the fact that we want to see the governor in the first family protected at all costs I don't think anybody disagrees with that as we've even heard from some of the senators here today II do believe that transparency transparency in public accountability are not the enemies here however in order to be able to provide that security for the governor in the first family as you're all where the the bill's provisions are very extensive but it's one thing to protect sensitive security details to another use it as a smoke screen to shield government actions from public scrutiny I find that very controversial as do many in this room likely the next piece I would like to address is the lack of federal transparency you know how a lot of members here in the legislature would likely argue that federal transparency is not how we would like it to be however we find herself sitting in a situation where state transparency is being limited in the same ways that we would like to complain that it is such at the federal level we would like to complain how there are things that may be the president would be doing that we would like to know more information about and we find a lack of transparency and I find it a maybe a little bit hypocritical that we're going to be able to allow that kind of transparency to be done away with at the state level I would also like to you know talk about these candidate conversations while I find that can it conversations a good thing in certain occasions to be able to have those kind of conversations without people being worried about them being I guess you know if you want to consider it stocked or whatever you know but at the same time you kind of take on that response ability when you're elected to a position even as a important as governor of the state of arkansas and so I think that hiding behind closed doors is not transparency. And in fact it's in a front the principles of democracy here in the state of arkansas. The last thing i'd like to bring up is a future misuse of this legislation I think that I speak specifically to those who are in favor of this legislation when I say that while you all may believe the current administration has good intentions and i'm not going to say here nor there whether the current administration does or not but I would assume that all of you believe that they do. That we must all consider the possibility that future leaders may not and that this legislation is not just a fact the current sitting governor but rather as we've already heard a little bit about today this also affects every governor moving forward in the state of arkansas unless the legislation is changed in the future. And II think that you know regardless of political affiliation that needs to be of a pertinent concern and I really just want to end with saying that you know we shouldn't be sacrificing transparency in in the process of providing this additional security if this was truly just a security legislation for would not be in line with this it wouldn't be being taken down in the process of this and in fact I think that you would probably see more support around this legislation if it was purely security matter as we heard from senator king just a moment ago II do urge you know that we that we reconsider and and I want to close with you now a very popular song that's recently ben written and and released has a line and it says these richmond north of richmond lord knows they all just want to have total control and unfortunate reality is that I feel like we're seeing the same thing here in arkansas this very day beginning thank you for you. The questions from members. Recently. The. We took out you talked about federal transparency we took that out you understand. The working papers as part of our foa now. And those working papers are already protected in her goat governor's office in or already. This this extends it to the cabinet secretaries which is fifteen cabinet secretaries. Originally it was a lot broader than that in and I agree with you it was it was a lot different situation and and what you talked to but you and any other any other that will come up here. Don't compare what's on this black and what page to what was yesterday. We are here to deal with the call so to limit it to that one's one thing would not be other call so I mean that's our jobs is it is a legislative body and that's what we were called here to do we thank you for your test money is there any other questions. Thanks sir if you would just introduce yourself and yourself. My name is robert steinberg i'm a professor of law column is for the democrat is that in the author of the treaties on the freedom of information act I appreciate the significant changes you made to the bill from the last time from the last version I want to talk about two provisions that remain and I want to clarify facts i'm not here to give you opinions you got your own opinions and you're elected to express your opinions so let's talk first about the attorney's fees provision. Most of the changes to the tourneys fees provision as senator history appalling points outdeals with repealing a provision enacted in twenty twenty one. It's not an important provision take it out why is it not important because it was a reflection of case law so it put in statutory language case law but there was a huge change in the provision dealing with attorney's fees page for and we've talked about with senator turker. Paid for line three and four. This bill aires a new requirement when you go to court to get attorney's fees. The old rule from nineteen eighty seven ish. Has always been that you must substantially prevail that that line and there is not I mean it's been moved around that's why it's there but the concept of requiring winning in the languages substantially prevailing is not new and it's correct. When a citizen brings a foyer shipped. If he substantially prevails he may ask and receive attorneys fees that effectively what we've seen when we've discussed tort reform as lose your pace when the government loses it pays the attorney's fees of the other side that's the conservative principle in tort reform was your pace. The addition of the language it says in addition now after winning the point of march that the government was arbitrary or acted in bad faith is amount is a standard hill it's ever est to overcome to virtually impossible to overcome because how do you do it. How do you decide if court tucker isn't turning over records to me that he's acting in an arbitrary fashion or in bad faith I pick him because he's my senator incidentally i'm a republican by the way but none of this I live in his district so whether by choice or not he's my signature he's a good man as well uhm yes sure right now a is not in their ad. A is in there in substance yes and it is it and is it in the law a the notion of substantially prevailed I know i'm talking in our laws right now that's what a in our laws that notion is in our lock because you crossed out and what you was not changed in twenty twenty one not that was that changed in twenty twenty one day that came about sixty seven into twenty eighty twenty twenty one what twenty twenty one was this notion called the. I forget the name of the the real come to me the catalog. Can I theory sometimes the voices in my head are quite loud in the counter please so there was always a question if I make a record to request and the government doesn't provide any government by the state local uhm in this happens much more on the local level and it does on the state level so all just just slide a sign but then if I may and. For all the things that you do just at the state level this is one that you should really consider that division but coming back so I bring a lawsuit I show up to court and on the courthouse steps they say we give. Right and they turn over the records to me. Yeah. Throughout the country because most of the country has similar laws they reflect this notion that will I substantially prevailed right if it wasn't for that last they wouldn't be given me the record. That's a catalyst the lawsuit was the catalyst you know chemistry to create the outcome and then I get to get attorneys in fact this was such an important point that in the federal foyer there were some language coming back twenties or more years that caused concern that the catalyst theory wouldn't be applied because of a wholly unrelated case that conservative republican senator from texas introduced a bill to say I know no no. Substantially uh uhm uh prevailed that is the catalyst theory applies to the federal foyer so that's been the law across the country in fact it's been the law and arkansas people got attorneys fees for cases that didn't go to judgment but settled for years then the university arkansas are decided that wasn't the law and they put claimed it and they ran iraq when there took to court and said there's no such rule in arkansas. You know the old joke about as being behind by ten years that's behind by thirty years. So that was their argument and that's why senator down sullivan in center clark tucker. Wrote a small bill to say no no no it really does apply. You want to take it out take it out now. The addition of the language it says arbitrary or bad faith means effectively. A litigate doesn't get his attorney's fees even after winning because it's virtually impossible to prove and it's the opposite of the standard that conservatives have argued for intorpreful which is lose your pays that's it there's a great so here's here's the outcome. If john queue public loses. When it sues a hospital from our practice he pays the hospitals attorney's fees. But if the big all government loses after it wrongfully with holes documents and that loss is either by turn and over the documents on the court have steps or in a judgement he don't get it till after you proves the defendant was arbitrary or active in their faith and it's twice as heart was having proven entity was arbitrary actively bad for it's one thing to prove an individual how do you prove an entity did that it's virtually impossible so I think the only change you need to make if I humbly may suggest is to remove on page for lines three and four. That's it for just has one word that's the only change everything else have had now let's talk about the two cases I wish counsel for the government we're still here because I think two of those ca- I know two of those cases were my cases. The council for the government not only managed to conflict the two cases she also managed to thoroughly mistake them. So let's talk about the second case first the second case a client came to me and we sue the plastic county sheriff democrat who was alleged to have some improper relationship with someone running a gambling debt and so my client made four for your requests. On the court house steps literally literally the defendant provided me the records mind you by the way defended higher one of these high dollar law firms he county we're worried about you know where the stuff costs government a lot you know what costs government hiring those high down the law firms to represent them in foil losses on and so that high dollar lawyer providing me the records for two of the four claims on the courthouse steps. So when we walked in the judge fox instead those two claims are resolved he said okay that I dismiss with prejudice meaning it's over you can't we file there's nothing to refile. So those cases. Contrary to what council for the government said we're at last those were one entirely those two cliped or one entirely then I asked for attorney's fees. I didn't ask for a thousand dollars and I wish folks would actually read the filings it's never had play and game a telephone because what I wrote in there is that in my private practice which are having engaged in for money in years. I asked for a thousand dollars in mister chairman i'm worth every darn penny of it are you assure you but in my private practice it shows me in my public practice I don't ask for that and we asked for either two hundred and fifty dollars or three hundred and fifty dollars an hour that's a going right northern car and I welcome uh senator tucker to to tell what the the rate is because I don't practice generally for money in arkansas so that's what we asked for and the judge said okay hold on when we put that over here for a moment because any other two claims he ruled against us. Judge foxted he was wrong and we appealed those other two climate not the money claims those are not appeal it's the other two claims so those go up on appeal in judge fox says let's wait for those cases those two claims that are an appeal to come back before I go look at your request for fees so the fees request is not on appeal I didn't ask a thousand dollars and I didn't lose that a try factor of being wrong on the fact. That is important a function of fact that we are rushing this process I might hear to talk about that. The second case is the case in which I wasn't the attorney. In that case to place before the twenty twenty one change. So interestingly what happens if you show up on the court our steps and they give you the records. And then it's against the state instead of against the municipality but you can't go to the judge for attorney's fees because you can't get money from a court you can only get money in our concern against the state not a local area from the claims commission this is that notion as i'm sure you're well aware of of southern immunity. So we went over to the claims commission oh i'm sorry when we tell you a little about the case cases that I was the client I didn't seek attorneys for is my coy my attorney did I was the client I had made a request for a records of affirmative action at the law school actions now but behave II made a request for records of behavior that the you are supreme court has now said is illegal. That's why the year supreme court cited me. In the opinion saying affirmative action is illegal. My name is in justice thomas's opinion and the the research that I did there might to the records that I thought from the state. The university in particular the vending of the university excuse me the vendeen of the law school the same deal by the way who wrote an email right after trump won the presidency issuing republicans and trump three days later he was out of that being shipped three months later he he was at law school yes sir. Ma'am please shut that lad off there thank you. Uhm that deem. The. That dean refused to provide me records of as I say illegal affirmative action that had been provided me twenty me twice before by the loss. So he took it rather extreme position what you say. So I sued the university council who's now the chief council of the the entire system met with me instead he was a little aggressive in his interpretation wasn't any gave me a bunch of records now on that one unlike the case against the democratic policy county sheriff. In the case against the university they didn't give me everything I wanted but they gave me most so now there's an open question did I remember the language that has always existed substantially prevail how high does that stack need to be for me to substantially prevail. I say I substantially prevailed they say I didn't so we went to the claims commission and we said you're tell us if we substantially prevail well a few months or so before then the the claims commission came up with a new rule and they don't publish their rules so it's a little hard to figure out and they said I don't know you can't ask us if you substantially prevail you gotta go back to court and ask them if you substantially prevail sir. Yeah this bill yes sir i'm sorry if you didn't think it was it this i'll get your telling me a history of court crap I don't want gotcha okay the these people are in here to come and and and set before just like you are fair enough let me let me summarise in one sentence the court crap that the attorney for the government said is all wrong that's all now when we so all you have to do on the attorney's fees provision is eliminate lines three and four from page four and you will restore it to the way it was before twenty twenty one the other provision is the eternity client private now as a senator tucker pointed out there are two sections on the attorney to a client privilege the second section is very large. An unlike a tornado high privileges that exist when we deal with individuals even companies when you deal with the government. It's immense and the government has attorneys every division so i've described before to the sugar in the sum that what will happen here is what happened in penn state. When jerry sandusky was raping children they brought the attorneys in early on at the university. And they should that's the right thing to do. And it went on for years and if that occurred here in arkansas with this new provision and somebody made a for your request that set in provision in the attorney client exemption now put in in in the bill would preclude turning over any of those records. And I dare say what about our kit right the first provision regarding the security for the governor is about the safety of her kit what about our kids cause that's what that risks. So their history is right that there is a balance here right and you have to give up something to leave open this information to the foyer you have to give up some efficiency I agree. The difficulty is. Governments never terribly efficient. And there's no market check on government the only check on government is transparent so it's a fair chip trade I would propose that we give up some efficiency for that transparency because otherwise I guarantee you the same problem will happen at some point in the future and by way of example and my final point I as I mentioned right for the democrat is at and I wrote an exposer of what's going on at the central arkansas library system I did so by making a for your request on the local level and they turned over a whole bunch of records all of them would have been covered by the attorney client privilege though I recognize this law doesn't change that. But if you think the only place that there's wrong doing is that the county level or the city level in that necessarily at the state level II respectfully disagree so that's the challenge here how do you want to balance efficiency versus transparency including transparency that effects the wellbeing of our kit with that i'm of course available for questions alright great question from members. Seeing non thank you gentlemen thank you sir so jennifer lancaster lori justice. I can't if you. Please introduce yourselves as speak first yes my name is lorry justice and I represent myself. I am not an attorney just to citizen here a member of the republican party have been a republican for a long time and i'm very active in the party itself i'm very unhappy with what i'm saying with this bill this is not what we are we believe in transparency it's in our republican party platform this is not transparency. It is night and. I think if you look around you I was here last night I was all of the people who was here till seven twenty. When senator hester came in. Everyone here last night was against this bill there were republicans in this room there were democrats in this room and they were independence in this room the only people in favor of a change to our four year bill are the bureaucrats in that is it the regular everyday voters we do not want foya gutted this is the third attempt. In recent history to change our foyer bill we had two bills our session now we have this. What is the problem with foya are government needs to be more transparent to our citizens not less transparent this is our tax dis- where the taxpayer does it our money. And I keep hearing talk about the governor with all the respect you don't work for the governor. We elected you to represent us the people. And so i'm going to keep it brief i'm just going to ask you to vote no honest and leave our foya bell alone many questions. So lorry you said you were here last night to speak against this there's no one fall until two o'clock i'm sorry this bill one file until ten o'clock no no this bill wasn't filed but i've read the other bill as well and I don't want to change to our for I want our government more transparent not less transparent I want to leave the bill alone leave the delivery do you see the difference in this bill and the bill I have read through and I have seen some differences minor differences and actually yesterday I was you're all day yesterday and senator haster explained there were going to be some minor changes and the bill which is why we all waited around two read the new billing to be able to speak about it that didn't happen and I don't I do know that the new bill came out last night at nine to a near whatever time it wears and I just want to say that I II don't understand why we need less transparency and I understand where you're hearing about the governor's security and all of that kind of thing and I don't think anyone wants the governor to be threatened unfortunately when you're a high profile politician that happened sometimes but the governor has a lot of security she certainly has more than you have and. I think the governor will be will be fine with the security that has provided for her I hate that we have lunatics running around threatening anyone. But I want our foyer to stay the same I want us to be able to know what our government is doing at all times where the people we find it thank you do any other questions. Please man thank you mister chair you brought up the governor of security and there's. And on my opinion there's always a fine line balance between complete end double transparency which. Thank you. Most people will agree that that is something that the government should be open to and security plans processes procedures routes things like that do you think the security plans rounds procedures that the state police employ in the governor's executive detail protection detail should be open for anyone who wishes to call I think on pastro trap past travel I don't see a problem with it future travel no I don't want to know what she's going to do and I understand sometimes that needs to be kept secret but anything that's happened in the past there's no reason someone can't know who is on a fly that doesn't put her areas well if someone is on a flight who. The processes and procedures in the past indicate what the future is what their plans are I don't agree with I don't have to know the names of everybody where the phone numbers or the addresses of the officers that are protecting the governor personally I don't know why that needs to be public information and displayed for the public to see to go target those officers I think we need to protect the governors. No only family but also the app the officers and their their lives in their personal families as well that someone might target them do you disagree with that. I don't think that people need to know the addresses of the officers. And the phone numbers of the officers but I think a list of who's on a flight. Is not our past fight is not going to put the governor in any danger. Especially considering that the security that surrounded her at all times. Thank you. The. Reds in your pressure. So much my guess is you are not a professional security person you know a lot okay professional security people believe that when you can pattern how many people are on a flight how many year staffs and how many years state police it absolutely puts a governor of potential risk when you know they have one or four or three as a typical state please traveling with the governor or if it was none sometimes uncertain trips so professional security people believe that it it is something that is imperative that we do not people do not know how many state police travel with the governor typical travel because of patterns that's what they tell us at what we're going to do based on what professional security people tell us is accurate. Okay and there can be some people to believe that we should open her up for some potential liability I don't agree with that. Any questions see none denfer if you will introduce yourself please turn your marked off. Good morning my name is jennifer lancaster I am an attorney I am the president sling county revoke and women i'm also the republican parties chair of the second congressional district I am speaking today in my own capacity i'm not representing anybody um information as the currency of our democracy a well and form public is the core of our democracy and this bill does not bode well for our democracy our state model is that the people rule but the people depend on access to government information to monitor and report on what is it's happening in our government so that we can make reason judgements about our leaders. But you republicans no less indirect contradiction in direct contradiction to a republican party principles and platforms are taking away or access to information that allows us to know what is happening in the government that we find. This bill is not just an assault on transparency or accountability it's also an assault on a republic. I'd also like to speak directly to the issue that was just brought up about the governor's security if the governor and if you are were truly concerned about her security we would see a a proposed bill with a very narrowly tailored exception for her in her family security and I imagine that that would have bipartisan support but what we're seeing is that that is being used as an excuse to pass sweeping a sweeping bill that is effectively getting foyer for the same reasons that we're given by my colleague senator tucker we don't agree on a whole lot obviously but he is absolutely right on this as is professor steinbeck and i'm sure the other attorneys that practice in litigation and will know these things they're going to be speaking to this as well so I would encourage you to please quit trying to mislead the people where much more than you give us credit for if you're truly concerned about her security pass ace a simple bill excluding the details the security details for her children and her family and we will we the people will happily support that i'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you ma'am you understand as a republic. We are the people to. The people have elected us we are called by the governor to this situation. To do what is on the car. On the call is not. Narrowly focused. Understand yes I understand that so if we if we did a bill that was narrowly focused to security. It could be thrown out because it don't pertain to the car. You understand that. The call has listed foyer and it has listen the governor went on the record saying that this was for the security of her family you all are using the exact same excuse here today that has been the main multiple things so it needs to be at i'm just asking that you are candid with the people we are we spent all day yesterday behind those stories that is our job there's legislator. That is our job. To to get a product that is better for this date and what that is what we need is legislators yesterday you can call it behind closed doors. Whatever you want to call it that's how things are done. Is to get this better product you see the product in friend of you. Was not. Something just crazy wicked. And I am and i'm not going to accept that to be put out in this committee it is not crazy wicked what was done to get this product in front of you today lovely if you're putting words in my mouth I didn't say crazy wicked but I would also ask who is it truly better for the bureaucrats or the people this this is better for year government. To function. This product is better for your year efficiency of governments of function function. And I mean you in put a black cloud over what it what we've done in the last day but i'm not going to accept it as as a chairman of this community and and and is worked all their yesterday on trying to get a better product for the people of arkansas. That is is close to the through the four year as we get outside of the federal federal things that was in that original meal. And this is this is the arkansas product. Is there any other questions. Seeing none thank ma'am we will go on to. Is it pamela boyd. And coral but watton now. Go down there. I'm just going down the list. The. Yeah. All right we we will go as the least paneler if you would introduce yourself. Turn to my phone you gotta push sorry panel boy i'm president pillars county republican women on a commissioner with the advantage also second chair of the second congressional republican district i'm here today because i'm a little concerned about all the bills that migrate but the one that was put out this morning four years a crucial element of the public sibility to participate in our democracy and provide oversight of government policy. It helps stop the blow and them out fees and that we should when I read the first one and then I read the second one and then I read the one that just came out as far as I know this morning at like nine thirty five it's vastly different than what are. Bell says the original one from nineteen sixty seven and when they're pongrah with with their rock villa the current wind allows the public or as the citizens to inspect in receive copies of public records of government agencies unless so makes it reception to them and I guess that's what this laws doing is making an exception to just about everything the law also requires most of meetings of government bodies to be public the sheer desperation exhibited by legislators. For this freedom reparation act the old one is just. It's telling. When it says to me it makes it retroactive to a specific date and hinder details about specific travel dates. They've already happened. We all know are the german filed the. The foia to get those things and I don't think there was an email freezing some what he was asking for but I know now that he was asking for it a. It takes away our right insurance informed sitting right and provide a check against corruption by holding the government accountable I was here all day yesterday i've been here all day today and I listened to a senator berated the citizens. That were here last night. Not because they said anything wrong. And of course I understand that that's you know what they thought or when I thought I didn't see anything wrong but you know they had definite concerns about it and he gave them a two or three minutes I guess maybe fifteen several people said but they need to say and he just kind of stormed out. It's generally provides the foia general provides that any person has a right to request access to state into records or information accept to the extent the records are protected from disclosure by certain exemptions and I understand that but this law which on TV look like it was to protect the governor and I certainly don't have any problem with protecting share she is our governor and she's everyone's governor but my question has to be. Why are we getting the nineteen sixty seven law I still haven't actually heard that when I looked at the if you ask for a question yeah so would you explain how we're getting well you've taken every. Main player in arkansas government. The secretarious day the attorney general the live ten governor the treasure all the way through and you've made it where nobody can get anything on any of them. You know everything's a privilege communication according to what this bill says and i'm just so a concerned about that because this is not about governor sanders protection. Which is which she got on tv and said she said her family been threatened twice I believe that one man in whatever she was okay wherever it was. Is up for his sentence seeing this can be five years in two hundred and fifty thousand dollars probably with the networks it is but you know he wouldn't even in the state I don't know about the one that was in the state if there even was one in the state I don't know but every political person that gets in the i'm light is subject. To these crisis. Well I don't appreciate is your acting like we're the crazies because we're not. Well and you're shaking your head no but I mean i've seen it and heard it and I was upstairs in the gallery the other day in a a center of came up and talked at one of the guys and said these people are just nuts were not were everyday people I served twenty two years and us navy. Partially in intel and I also work for d i. And not even are top general satisfactories that are governor does right this minute. But i'm not taking away from that I whatever she needs that she should get but all the rest of this needs to be left exactly as it is so hard on this those working papers and what you're talking about is not extended they were about it is the governors office. And the cabinet secretaries. That's what this meal. Those why the cabinet secretaries the for fifteen cabinet sectories that communication email text whatever that's that that's all it is whenever that can sector address is somebody else then. That that's foiable it's not getting. That those cabinet secretaries sent by appointment and confirmation of the senate. Those cabinet secretaries are a member of her extension of her office. That's what we've limited in this built. And I understand that but those people are an elected there like you and I their citizens and anything should be left open to what the people need don't take away our rights the governor staff was a citizen. Every one of us are serious. And you know that we have we have working papers the same as the governor's office has working papers this extends her working papers to those cabinet secretaries. Which is an extension of her because they all sit because of her report and in our confirmation. That's that's what the minute to each dention them of what we've done yet but all the senators and reps are also extension of the governor's office no no man. I am I represent my district. I'm not an extension of the governor's office. In the legislature worked all day yesterday. Working on a better document for the citizens of the state of arguments are we are not an extension of the executive branch we are the legislative branch but if you feel that taking away for you we are not taking away for you you're taking parts of it and why. That that makes this more efficient government. Is there any other questions. Go ahead center. Thank you mister chair. It you'd said something that I just want to make clear you'd mention the constitutional officers like the literate governor and and various other ones and out of your copy of the bill in front of your not but imagine skim through it to try to find where in the bill you might have gotten that information and it may be it was in the old bill i'm not sure but. With regards to the exemption. Regarding security services provided for the governor. Lieutenant give it only place that believe lieutenant governor attorney general secretary of state auditor of state treasure state so on so forth judges and. Those are only mentioned under security plans. Security you're right I don't have the planning or provision of security servers services provided to the governor or the rest of those and so. I think the exemption that you're referring to I just want to be clear it's not referring to working papers it's not we're working to referring to anything regarding records of documents or expanding that and shielding anything that you would get from the secretary of state's office commissioner state lands or anything like that. It is only narrowly defined to the security plans and unfortunately we live in a day and age where even members legislature whenever there's a controversial bill that comes up have death threats there some some bad people out there that uhm the state police provide security plans for some members of the legislature. Even during session because of threats that they receive and so I think it's nearly defined to that it's not regarding any additional protections for working papers in the the draft that came out yesterday I was not in favor of are the the bill that was found with regards to the deliberate process exemption that was being proposed that's not in this bill so just want to be clear that and I found it thank you I would ask senator haster if I could it's out what that means it's just a security. So. I was responding to text measures I have no idea where you are talking about it it's. Page two lines. At the end of the page that. Page airlines thirty four through page of line four of page three. That's referring to security services for the the constitutional officers the governor in addition to the constitutional officers that's as question. Just that that's referring to that. Yes and there's no other provision that is to a stop for years from any of these government agencies are these cabinet positions no just those constitutional officers for security only. For security only for I guess I understand like if they have communication within their star that's not voible if they have communication with the secretary or the governor's office that's not voiced direct but if their staff beyond their secretary position. It is protected. Yeah. Again i'm asking and said only for security or set for everything it it is for everything I gave plenty examples about that okay he just said it wasn't so that's why I am asking. Or what she's asking you is in regards to the lieutenant governor. The ag. On that to the setting in that specific session security okay no i'm asking for the whole thing not just that specific section well that's what you're referring to is you're saying that this bill opens it up. To cover the working documents of all of those officers and it doesn't it's only related to security plans to protect those he just said it wasn't. Yeah. I'm reading the plane language of the bill map part i'm reading the plane language of the bill well and i've got an infront of me and I am too and in that section but II have not had privilege to printed coffee so you know I was asking senator hester did this include everything or just security and he said not includes everything so you know of all the people in the room today i've probably had more dealings with security of high officials in my career in the navy and with d I a. This. I know there were organization police cardboards and that take care of the governor security and I have no problems with them not telling me what route she's taken. To go to the airport I have no problem. Would no one tell me how she gets here from her house while I do a problems with is if it is as senator hester says that limited communications between all the cabinet heads and their immediate staff there's a difference between cabinet heads and elected officials okay officials so elected officials that are referenced in the bill that were talking about not all I know I mean elected and a point so that's a different let him get finishes and in in there so what you're think you're conflating both of those sections of the bill. The second section on page three. Lines five and six. Refers to communications with cabinet level appointees. And only their communication between the governor's office the governor self or her office and those secretaries so that is direct communication that is. Mine's foreign five and six item number twenty nine is referring to specifically the communication. Prior to that though the stuff that's related to the. Elected officials you go back to the previous page. Says records reflecting the planning or provision of security services provided to a the governor or b and list the rest of the elected officials right it doesn't have anything to do with communication between those officers are within those officers only the security planning and procedures so I just want to be very clear that the exemption on there that i'm referring to is only for security details for all elected officials and after communications within their officers. And I think that the uh protection of a sarah how can be senators extremely important and i'm going to just reference the lines from before I don't have any problem with that I do it that everybody in the group that you just read and I think that foreign should apply to everything else except for her security provision so the rest of the elected officials do not need security if there's eligible threats if there are political throughout ches but this perceive notion that everyone that serves in our government. Has these threats it's not true i've talked to some of them may not have any or some haven't no but there are some that have and they can we'll go round around the rest of the votes in the room I can be able to send it to some am that was thank you for your service for a country two years so that was my previous question when I was rambling was given situations i've been in for that had nothing to do with security that would be covered and protected long time ago so there's so much outside of the scope of the security of this bill and that's what my rambling was on those other situations that I gave the back history thank you sir thank you senator king we're gonna go on to carl if you would still introduce yourself in your recognize. I'm called watson from jefferson county i'm not a lawyer ur not overly educated I speak plain english sometime with a hubility accent but I do have some hot of a background myself in security private security and in state security I used to try private security personnel in. Hi value asset protection and personal protection for have value clarks uh I don't believe one bit about the. Security of the governor and the the staff and now being part of the the four year. Part myself uh because four year is not a crystal bar. Four year is a look back and see what took place in the past it's a check in balance for looking at what money was spared. The taxpayer money was spent in the past. For you has nothing to do with what's going to take place in the future. Anybody that does security detail knows that you don't do the same thing twice the same way anyway you're not take the same route every time if you have a threat you're not going to do exactly the same thing with the exactly the same number of assets every time anyway so you're going to change your plans you're not going to tell everybody will ahead six members of my detail this time i'm going to have six members the detail the next time I may have six members on the table this time I may have eight the next time you're not going to do things that way. You're not going to travel the same route you know we'll have the same mint number members on the table they're not going to be the same members on the team every time so that has nothing to do with that part what what people are talking about ears. The. You're taking away a valuable tool in. What amount of money was spared for. This particular item or what amount of money was spare for this particular item that's what they're that's what people are asking about why are you trying to take that tool away from the public okay that's one of the things that people are asking that has to be disclosed with a state please in this legislation exactly and so that part of it has to be categorized monthly on a quarterly report and exactly so that's not even the issue the issue is the issue is all of the other parts. The people are asking questions about that those questions are really not getting answered. As to why do we need to cut the legs out from under the table of. All the rest of the parts of it the people are not paying attention to which years. All of the the emails and the documents if you have a conversation with someone face to face or over the telephone that's one thousand. But if you're discussing government business. We're not talking about american express okay membership does not have its privileges if you're elected to an office you're elected to a position to represent citizens of the state of arkansas. It's not like you're put in a place where old will now i've got membership court. That's but all I can say about thank you so many questions appreciate your testimonies you are excuse. Her. It is one o'clock. We are one two three four five six six people in. There's six people into this page that this page in this page from this page in this page. So i'm gonna ask to keep it concerned. And keep it to the meal. Keep into the bill. So so there can be your dialogue in and between the members and the testimony and and the people can test fire. The. So we have two. And the gains neal. Gladner if i'm close. Yeah. They were. Is there a isla. All right. We will go in order elizabeth if you. If you will if you will introduce yourself and you recognize. Hello thank you for having me here today mamalize against I am the president of the arkansas press association as well as the publisher of the arkansas democrats that I will keep my comment short everyone agrees that the governor and her family should be protected. If the bill was limited to reasonable safety provisions it would have the support of the apa and our newspapers. However this bill goes far beyond personal safety the additional modifications to foyer have nothing to do with protecting human lives and everything to do with protecting seat government from public scrutiny it includes provisions that would take away our canson's rights to details about how their state government functions and spend tax year dollars I urge you to take the time talk to to talk to your constituents about these changes in and consider how this bill would empower a bad actors now in for generations to come I hope you're about today is with the people thank you. The. Questions t. Thank you mister chairman and members of the committee my name is neo galadner I appear here today as a representative of the arkansas broadcaster's association I also serve on the four task force but I should be clear that I do not speak for the task force. In my role here today. I'm sure you've all heard the saying that if you like the sausage or the law you don't want to see either them being made I can't speak to sausage but I can speak to the law I love the law quite a bit and I want to see every bid of how it's made and I would be vehemently opposed to anything that reasonably that restricts my ability to understand how it was are made including rules from committees and government agencies I want to know the thoughts and reasons that went into the final bill. Who should be taxed who should be exempt. What should be regulated on what should be left alone and what went into the arguments that brought to us the the final product who received a tax fear funded contract and who didn't and why. I like to cover four points all on the bill and i'll attempt to be brief and happy to take questions let me start with the security for the governor in the other constitutional officers I have yet to talk to anyone including the strongest proponent to the foia who want to release any information that would endanger the safety of those individuals and their families not just now but for future officers as well. But making that retroactive and including who flew on a tax payer funded aircraft and who is contracted to fly those airplanes I don't understand why that would be in this bill I take senator hester's point. That if you go back and look at things in the past you can develop patterns if you're an evil door. And so I would be fine if the bill were structured in a way that we're more specific and said. There were not even say how many state police troopers are on the plane that's a security matter. But who were the non state passengers on that plane and what was the purpose of the trip. That should not be a secret that does not prevent a provide a threat to the governor to say who flew on a plane in november of twenty twenty two for instance. Second I quote from the bill records reflecting communications between the governor is or her staff and the secretary of the cabinet level department why in the world would we think shutting down that much transparency is a good thing I understand the argument that in that's what these are these are subjective arguments I understand the argument that that makes government more efficient. That's not a good enough reason i'm sorry II would say that that. As others have said here today government is not efficient. We all say we want government to be efficient. But. Reducing the things we can see through foya is about convenient. It's not about in my opinion it's not about efficiency. We want to know who spending money who said what to what to who and things of that matter and so even the line of the governor and in this case her cabinet members and future governors in cabinet members. Those things should not be exempt from the foi wish we should have access to those things as well. I'm trying not to repeat things that were said earlier today apologize for the pause. The the section about cabinet secretaries I think is too broad i'm not sure I fully understand or understood senator hester your explanation earlier today I think I did where I get lost in that explanation is if a member of a cabinet secretary's staff communicates to the cabinet secretary that's clearly still foil correct. The. The. I think I understood you say that. But communications between the governor and her appointed cabinet are not subject to foil and where I get lost as if the cabinet staff send something to the secretary and then the secretary then sense of the governor is that for you because somebody else's hands touch that communication. The. Yeah. So i'm happy to answer all your questions off line with this is not a you're able to speak for against the belka questioning is is this for different time but when you're finished on each other and answer quickly fair enough and and it doubled my intention to go against the rules of the committee so I apologize on the attorney's fees. Senator tucker mister stanbach said things much better than I could the bill as written as I understand it now says may instead of shall. Shall be awarded as reasonable at turn office the effort to limit that I think would have a chilling effect on the freedom of information act limit attorney's fees in the way they can they can be collected you know football coach lou holds had his durate rule. For the people of arkansas the way we enforce the due right rule is by the use of the freedom of information act. The court to become the refuge the referees and we should want officials from school board to the governor's office to be subject to foi as the corch rule and to do that after you have to have an attorney and many of these things that are so important happen in. Small areas in school boards and in city councils and city boards and not everybody who reports on those things have the ability to hire an attorney and if you make it almost impossible as as senator tucker pointed out to prevail on attorney's fees youi and essential limit our access to the friend with information act finally for from years on the task force I have come to understand some of the hardships that the state faces because of the freedom of information act when the bills pass. Originally no one could have envisioned the digital world we live in now and how many records exist now and and the work that has to go on. There's things there that do have to be addressed I would conceive that but this bill does not handle any of those matters III find the bill to be a bit of a not crafted and a transparent way I am encourage you to. Though no one this measure send a message to the voters yes we want you involved in government we are open to being held accountable and we trust you tell the people of arkansas trust them don't restrict them. Thank you sir thank you thank you sir. We are we go to secretary allison brag. And. Second two allison rang. Gim hudson. The sentroduce yourself and. Iraq nows. Good afternoon committee jim heads and sector dfa i'm i'm not going to take too much time we all been here for a while and a lot of people in the interior. Need to talk to you as well I just want to can just really focus my remarks on this protection of the governor's communications with cabinet sectors are being one one of the fifteen of them. Do you want to know you have cabinet secretaries have an existed until the transmission bills passed in two thousand nineteen so they didn't always exist when for you is in place it is there are new position within state government my suspicion is is that if you we were talked to most of you you would have made the assumption that there were s privilege between the governor and her senior advancers including the cabinet secretaries governor staff who work with her her office but also yep thank most of you to soon. That would that protection would extend to the cabinet sectors as well and that is not the case so for example if the governor calls me and has a conversation with me or not the member of the cabinet about some matter of concerned her. Well that's not for your bob because it's not it's not a record is just a conversation likewise if we would have a meeting in her office and have that conversation and also isn't. Take that same meeting and if I order scribble a note to her and hand her piece of paper in expressing a view on something she take that now when she put it in her file that's part of the working papers that's not affordable as well. But if she were to call me and say i'm going to send you a text and I want you to read that text is going to express a matter of concern to me. And I read that text and I respond to it. That would be for your. Is the exact same communication is if we were having a verbal conversation. But because you know these devices were invented just a little over a decade ago when for you was passed and envisioned this sort of reform of communication which is used by everybody here every single day. And I suspect the younger that you are the most likely you're going to be communicating primarily think texts and maybe email and less making a phone call and so in a large respect what this is a bow is allowing the governor who leads the team above her biasers her cabinet secretaries to be able to communicate affectively to hurting. But just those direct reports. And so just to be very very clear what are communicate to my team within department of finance administration my chief of staff my division leadership and their report ease. I do not have a working paper's exemption meaning everything that I communicate to my team is subject to for you and what they communicate to me as well is subject to for you. So we're not creating a new category of a working paper's exemption I want to really hit that point very clearly. When i'm talking to my team and every other cabinet members talk into their respective teams that is subject to for you I just heard the the the previous remarks I want to clarify something as well there is nothing about this clarification it is going to shield. Any purchasing decisions and the expenditure state funds. The people this state should understand and take comfort in the fact that if a decision is made to spend tax payer money that's going to pass through a numerous set of hands before I money money goes out the door sometimes are going to come to all and ask you all for permission to spend that money. So firmly believe completely agree we're talking about spending money making procurement decisions entering into contracts spending any sort of or public funds have transparency. And a lot of questions I get asked about there that's what we do and we do it every single day and I think the team at the evening does that very well. So if that I was turned to relate you ask any questions you may have thanks sir in questions from. Seeing none appreciate it sir thank you mister german er go back to allison brag. If you would introduce yourself and you're recognized. Please push your button thank you mister chair and members of the committee I appreciate it alison brag and the states inspector general and are appreciate you'll let me be here today to visit with you about this bill um other than being the states inspector general really mark qualifications to speak about this bill are from my prior experience before I came to state government earlier this year I spent ten years at the us attorney's office as a federal prosecutor and in that capacity I was mostly involved with larger scale criminal investigations investigating things like drug brains or gang activity and things that required a strong law enforcement response. In based on that i'm really here to discuss the security piece of the bill and what and the speakers both for and against this bill have stated that they don't have a problem with. Certain measures being taken to keep the governor and her family safe and it's wonderful to hear that consensus because I think as our candidates we can all agree how important that is. It really comes down to the details about how we do that and so in ten years of conducting these federal investigations a lot of what I was able to participate in were organized arrests of multiple defendants at large scale multi agency federal operations that involved all different agencies including FBI DEA atf and the arkansas state police and when we participate in those types of activities almost always there's what's called an operations plan or colloquially and ops plan and all that is is logistics logistics of the operation what are we going to do how many people are going to be there are we arresting eighty defendants that have been indicted and a federal drug conspiracy are we going to do that all at the same time how many officers do we need which officers where where are they going to be are we going to do it simultaneously who's going to be prepared What type of technology what type of equipment will be used all sorts of very detailed questions right down to which officer knocks on the door in which officer is standing behind him. These types of security details are not limited to federal arrest operations they're really implicit and almost every type of security endeavour undertaken by the arkansas state police and that includes the governor's executive security detail. So in making any information available about these activities including past activities it weekends the effectiveness of security in the future that's one point that I think people do get mixed up on is what's the difference in releasing past information about past activities where difference does it make if we know who was with her last time what difference does it make if we know how many people were on a plane or was any security on the plane what makes a difference is passed actions predict future behavior and that's true of law enforcement as well this establishes a pattern so maybe there's nothing necessarily problematic about releasing a list of passengers on an airplane but what problem that creates is a precedent now there's an expectation that every single airplane the governor is on or have a list of every single person who was on it with her what if next time there are seventeen police officers with her because that trip has been called into question of security we don't need the public to know that that's not safe even worse what if there is a trip being taken in the governor does not have security on the plane that day we can't create an expectation that that list will always be released because it only takes one time for it to really matter one time for a bad actor to have too much information to compromise this security of the governor and her family including her three small children so I would ask people to really reflect on their concerns about the security portion of the bill especially providing past information about security because it is past information that officers take into account to create their plans for the future and the more information is available about those plans the more possible it becomes for a tragedy to occur and so I appreciate your letting me be here today and please let me know if I can answer any questions thank you is there any questions. See none. Appreciate your test money thank you next. Read. Current hagger. Yeah. Yeah. The. Introduce yourself in your is our corner my caker in the secretary of the department of public safety indirector of the arkansas state police so i've got a few prepared statements first being that it's it's not fear that I have to follow secretary brag I hope I never get but in that position again because she was able to articulate that. A lot better than i'm going to be able to we just want to follow up on a few things first for my background abu the argue so stay police for twenty seven years work for local department for one year before that their twenty seven years it's important to know I spent fourteen years. In the getters protection units. Five of those years proxy five of those years was as the commander of that detail. Would also like to point out that was for both republicans and democrats and I was actually the commander of the detail under democratic administration longer than I ever served and your republican administration. As a commander. I'm not a political person this is not a political job i've i'm not a risk remember any party. I've never given to a political candidate i've intentionally stayed neutral my entire career. I have so when I look at these issues that is strictly looked at from the perspective of security and protection in that from any type of political perspective. The last few weeks especially we've seen a lot of. A kind of fire thrown at the state police about our motivations on certain things I just want to clear up a few of those. As far as the information that was requested a vice in the most recently tired of the. Uh while suite it's been filed and allowed the information that's been put out. And it's been suggested that we're trying to have something here that we're doing something different. And just want to be clear on that. We have never released any operational details at all ever not one time in the state police that we are aware of I feel very comfortable saying that at least in the last three decades that does not happen i've talked to my predecessors there were detailed commanders before I took that position then we have never one time releasing that information. The uh we have always released flight logs and and you could argue the points of her some made today about the deflight records we've always released that. The reason some of that information is redacted is secretary bright pointed out is it's not who's on the plane it's new it's it could be just as much of who is not on the plane and there are times that we do have different levels of security on that plane there are times that we may not have any security on that plane you know as we talk about in our will we call it pitching a catching for detail members put together on the plane she's received by detail members on the other side of that depending on. Uh where she's going how many stops she was making that day things like that that's not information that we need out there we we don't need people to be able to pattern in look at how we are conducting our everyday business and be able to pattern that so. We've never hid the expenses of the aircraft we've always given that up we've given it up to her this time it's not a secret has it's been said before she's the given of arkansas she's not the governor of a little rock she's going to have to travel around the state uhm for those that are seeking transparency and suggesting that she's doing something wrong and that she's using the aircraft in their responsible way I would challenge you to for you the aircraft records from the last administrations a promise you she is using at a fraction of what it has been used by pass administrations so just to make those suggestions you can say anything there's really no way to remit that but to make those suggestions it's it's irresponsible and that's that's just absolutely not what's taking place here. As four years are as forced what is forwardable for us is you german well known it's been pointed as but it about everyone steps by myself include a non attorney I won't try to get in the legalities of for you. But I do know that we're not required to produce. Or create documents to satisfy for you what has been requested of our department and what we have always rejected. Is doctor miss that we currently possess that are financial in the reason that is the case is because the only thing that we possess the only record that we keep would be credit card receipts for airline tickets it would be hotel rooms it would be meals it would be things like that it will chip off how many members of security detail we have traveling with the governor and in your particular time and again more importantly when we do not have that same number that number has always flexed and we had a former governor for a very short period of time that actually had a tactical element. Following with the governor because the threat level if that particular time was so hard. We have opportunities where I have even though they're playing clothes you can tell you can look around a room pretty quick and you can tell who's a member of the generous protection detail but we also have people occasionally that are in the crowd that are members of protection detail that are not in a sudden if they're working in in different capacities. So we can't have that information out there we can you know if if you look at a trip and you're able to conclude that on this out of state or on this trip out of the country on this creature of out of town they've got this many detailed members they had this meeting we can't give up information that would that would have basically tipped that off so that's the reason that we have never uh turned over those financial documents we've always have resisted that we've always used the exemption of twelve eight one away this is statutory responsibility to provide a security for the governor. That in my opinion is a lay person that can have gap muddied uhm in twenty seventeen when there was a law. There was added as a substatute of that that original statute that included the digital information video things like that from the governor's mention. Am from that poor point forward when the following manual was written when it refers to the exemptions of four years it will draw you back to twelve eight one await and you're immediately drawn to that substantiate that was added. Implying that that's the only thing that is exempt from for you that's never been the case and it goes back to before twenty seventeen that we have never one time we've been pointed multiple times we had never one time turned over any documents that was sacrificed the security of the governor. So that is the reason that we would like to clarify this law that's the reason we would like to clean that up to where it would once and for all year away from answering these four year requests and finding ourselves in the position that we're in now. With that i'll open up to any questions that you guys would have been me going to talk about. Yeah. Thank you mister chairman thank you colonel for your service and over a long career to arkansas since really grateful for all of your work and sacrifice. When I hear your testimony and again I really don't have any questions about them. The security provisions for the bill absolutely the government and her family to be safe as a as everybody in this room does when I hear your testimony. It basically the wait the way it it lands on me is that the security provisions that we have in place right now are sufficient because you've never turned anything over related to an operation and you don't believe it's voiable and. And so I guess i'm just a bit confused as still. Why the need for the change given the fact that the practice has been then you know governors always been safe and secure and we've never turned information over related to operations the reason that we've been sued and were appearing in place you can a circuit court at nine o'clock thursday morning because it's it's great enough it is it's this addition to the statute is that it enough great area that allow suit is now come forward need to clarify the people in this room the people that seek transparency our media partners we are is transparent as we can possibly be and we have no problem with that but it's the people that are acted this bloggers it's the people that are sitting at home and they're trying to use this information you know is the irony is we've been accused of saying that we don't want to turn information over because we don't want we don't want to embarrass together but yet the information it's being sight from us that's exactly the reason they want the information is to try to embarrass together to try to manipulate information to embarrass the governor or choose this political leverage the things that the records that have been released there's nothing to embarrass the governor of out she's done nothing with her security that is any different within the other governor is one of the other members mentioned earlier. The preparations have been made regardless of who won the election both candidates have three small children so there are more resources that are dedicated to the governor's detail now because we have far protected and that too but beyond that and and that would have happened regardless of who would have been elected governor but to answer your question the reason that we want to clarify that now is because it is great enough do we have we are in a lawsuit currently and we are constantly having to process for your request. For people asking for information that we're having to process and have to I guess have our legal staff go through in the security staff go through and look to see if it's anything it's going to cause an operational issue we're just trying to clear that up once and for all. The. Okay. Something else you said just then sort of structure me which is that and I don't think you mean to say this you may not have said it this way but again it it may be just the way that i'm hearing it. No we don't create four year exemptions and i'm i'm sure you agree to prevent embarrassment for people sure what what we do for to security for elected officials absolutely one hundred percent but I don't think anybody supports creating a four year exemption to prevent embarrassed now and that's absolutely no in believe me my wife I believe is watching she can tell you speak frequently it happens on a daily base to sell my point in saying that is that that's the motivation behind the information request that that is not our motivation for holding that information. With its it. Again my only responsibility my only task is to protect the governor and her family as it relates to this issue so we we don't care about information. Being embarrassing to the governor she did not hire me to be her political consultant. We do not want to share information that's going to compromise security that's the only thing that we're looking for my point is that that's the the people that are seeking this information that's their purpose a lot of times not legitimate media not probably a lot of people in this room but into that point just one example the divorcer that that for wide the flight logs there is a. Mistake made. In the way that that information was sent to him a technical mistake that is over my head and it was redacted he was able to unreduct that information and immediately released everything on there. So he doesn't know why we hold with certain information and he doesn't care obviously because he released all of it so there was nothing about those flat logs that that were embarrassing there's nothing about that that was your sensitive task about anything in the past it was simply that we don't want to start that president of the flat logs because again the past predicts the future it predicts future operations so. When you had these people that are taking this information and they're so careless with it I don't believe for a second he's a physical threat to the governor I have no reason to believe that with the information that he's asking for but he is more than willing to put out for anyone that wants to look at it and he's showing that repeatedly there are people out there that are going to take that information that are looking at it and they are absolutely willing to use that information to. Make it then attempt it to govern and and that's the reason we have to hold on to it thank you appreciate your time and I very much respect your expertise on this much more so than I have thank you yes thank you I said matt I think maybe open testing at some point that I know there are at least two people that are in prison for threatening to govern incredibly threatening to governor can you tell me how often you're dealing with threats to our government first family. I would have to refer to the current commander of that detail to get that specific but I can tell you that. It's not even comparable to what we've dealt with in the past and we routinely have have security threats towards our given right now again you're she's coming from a job where she was afforded secret service protection because of its red level that she has she's she's a polarizing figure. So that is not dine on a somewhere back up and savings per year I was elected to the executive board of the national government association that's the board that overseas basically in it it sanctions the every state governor's protection detail it's it's overseen by secret service so i'm very familiar with the other practices of the security details around the country because I served in that capacity i'm also very familiar with as you shouldn't say very familiar i'm somewhat familiar with secret service practice you know as someone that has a lot of friends in the a end that we do a lot across training with them. They would never assign protection to anyone other than the president vice president or that some of their normal perview had that not been warranted they they are sound that protection because she had a legitimate threat whether she should have or not whether people want to believe that or not that's the only reason that she had a security area spare secure service detail assigned to her because she had a legitimate threat. It's just now fast for she's the governor of our state she still has a legitimate legitimate security threat we've received them frequently. We've already had two that had been adjudicated we've got more than an investigative process. So yes the threat level I would say is substantial and that's why more than ever I would I would be just concerned with this information when I was given her baby's detail commander as a democrat as I am today sitting in in my capacity or if I was her detail commander. Uhm currently and not the director it doesn't matter as we can care less about that we can care less about politics we can careless about any of that what we care about is protecting our governor and and that's the reason yes the the threat level is high I can tell you that. Thank you carol is really questions no answer thank you mister chair thank you for being here. I've got a couple of different questions here just and you may not be able to answer this so if I understand if you're not able to with regards to active litigation but what information was requested that caused the current one litigation I can't quote the exact for your request for it basically yes for any financial documents that are related to the security of the generous detail and I believe it has specifically about documents and reference to an overseas trip and again we don't produce those documents we don't we don't produce a recount of it cars six minute dollars for this trip the only documents we have are going to be receipts credit card receipts for a long time it's me also tail rooms things like that all items that would pattern the amount of security the traveled with her anything related to security plans. I'm sorry so security plans where those requests are playing the documentary results I was requested and specifically that's correct and so I guess that leads me to in a what would happen if those security plans were released like what scenarios can you envision that compromising your security even even if security like is only released after the fact that the past behavior that we heard about does that give an indication of what future behavior is going to happen right it would make it very very difficult moving forward to. Release the details of a trip. So begin it's hard to explain that the the best analogy sender hester you know that talked about. Could fit me giving up his playbook because it can't state games over with but he still has two more games to play so it's the exact same thing for us we do change things up from time to time each event each staff each location that she goes to. The security for that advantage may look different depending on where she's going to threat level for that advantage. But if that information gets out there and we ever establish that for instance where we can release that information. You can pattern the you can pattern together's movement you compare in the security for the governor's movement and it would be very very difficult that we're not a secret service we don't have the ability to lock down here space lock down being used like down every single person that comes in and now people expect their governor to be accessible. And it's so we have to always have that fine balance by that increase the threat level the officers as well it would increase the threat of a governor of the officers it would increase the manpower honestly if if that information ever got out there we would absolutely without a doubt has to be increased the resources that we currently have. And to try to negate the amount of information that were sacrificed. And then you referenced. That due to it whatever technical issues some information that had been redacted yes was unredacted after the fact. And then was broadcast out there so. That has been demonstrated that that's any confidential information that's even released in a redacted form if it's found out in any way shape reform is published exactly what was that information can you say was the aircraft locks it was it was the information the passenger manifest it was redacted in in just to be clear on that. We have always said and been very open about together's uses the state police plane. So if the governor uses the plane we will release that record and we will show that she is on that plan. What we don't want people to know is who else was on their plane or it may be just importantly as who was not on that plane again for security purposes more times than add the detail members they don't know who else has they they may or may not know who who was on the nor do they care your care it's not about politics it's not about embarrassing the governor it's not about trying to protect her. In any way other than physically protector we just we cannot have those records out there. To wear anyone can look at the have of more sinister motivations than just simply trying to embarrass her. Thank you. During the questions. See nan thank you colonel thank you doug elms. This introduce yourself in your working person thank you senator's money was dug homes i'm a resident of rogers arkansas for more than forty years i've been in the business of protecting people I was a police officer here in little rock when it was called the most dangerous city in america spolicity in america I provided security on president bill clinton's campaign and other politicians on both sides of the house. I was a founding member of a walmart's executive protection team then a founding member of their threat management team for the entire global enterprise of walmart the largest company in the world today i'm the principle consultant at safe haven't security group were a threat management company based here in arkansas due to the serious nature of threats against now governor sanders I was asked to manage the threats during her google notorious campaign and I can tell you was like nothing I had seen before in my history. Governor sanders is not typical governor of any state she came into this office as one of the most nationally recognized political figures. And during her time in the white house as was mentioned she required secret service protection which is usually reserved for the president vast president visiting for dignitaries. I am a citizen so i'm offer transparency and as an archaeologics period I expect that as well. But I do believe that our current foyer laws go far beyond reasonableness in disclosing dangerous level of information about not only the governor but other person to me elected officials who may be under under protection by the state police. Uh never in my time protecting people would we reveal precise organizational structure about the principle of security team their names their backgrounds their addresses phone numbers. Or how many people were on an assignment I don't think regular kensions would want their personal law security information about their own house alarms and cctv's disclosed to the public. But I think the arkansas for your law today does exactly that. Sadly we do live at a time that's a divided environment in there is violence in our society that comes in all forms crime civil unrails political unrest in other words and those create threats to our government officials. Last fall a man was arrested near russelville after following the governor around a multiple cities during the campaign stops then threatened to. The nature of stalking itself is to gather information. To assess security for vulnerabilities plan and then make an attack. So exposing security measures of the governor and other constitutional officers in the judicial branch would expose them to higher threats in as a colonel said would require additional expense and security measures to protect against those threats. The. I do believe it's time to update these laws not just for us governor sanders but the governors that come into office after that. For multiple years and also for the continuity of our government. Thank you thank you sir your questions by answer. I won't thank you for your security I mean when you're detailed I don't i've never done that but have no one's people to have and it's very proud for to take care of somebody's family or do whatever an understanding of our issue some of the people is is not the security aspect of this part it's the broad part that goes out that's just to be clear about a lot of opposition but thank you for what you do I know that's very difficult. Is there any other questions. Thanks sir. We are twelve down we at sixteen ago uh dean deem trip tremisky travinsky. I get it. The. Introduce yourself in your recognize. My name is dean trevensian assistant whose director for KARK infox sixteen i'm also here to represent the arkansas broadcasters and association a couple of things I just want to touch on that hope that I don't take too much you turn. One of the biggest concerns with this bill is the speed at which it has moved. And the time frame in which it moved it came in yesterday everybody was here through the dark and I it changed radically in a good way you guys take good work i'm proud of that I still think you have room to grab I still think it's a little broad. One of the things it's brought is the word comments for the speech specifically to the security. Because comments is a big word. It can mean a lot of things. And. We've all focused on the security nobody's questioning securities of our governor. I've been in seven states have been doing this for twenty seven years never wants have I gotten a security plan for an elected official and yes i've asked multiple times it doesn't happen it's not released it's not a question have I asked for it absolutely because I want to see if somebody is going to give it to me. Because then their lies a loophole or a problem that needs to be fixed the other thing that I can't seem to find is that there has been any direct threat tied to full eye. Research to a governor. I have done research I have looked. I googled i've searched everywhere in search I have not found one case where for ya has led to a direct threat to a governor. What I have found. Is worth foyer. Has prevented parents from learning what happened to their kids when they were gone down in schools mister has your doctor bound school security in the need to have one on one dialogue with her. Admins you all remember you've already. That was a train rack. Probably one of the worst this country has ever seen. Parents didn't know what happened to their kids for thirty days because texas law would not release. We're not even put the sunshine on the time at which these conversations are releasible. At this point it's open ended. So if that were to happen here. In the police department didn't respond and there was communication between the chief of police or the the asp to the asp and the governor about that nobody would ever know. I have three kids. All in bent in schools I promise you have something happened I will want to know what happened to them and it said that I have to say that because there's no guarantee nothing is going to happen to them. That hasn't been addressed yet. I appreciate you taking the rules of deliberations out. That was huge. That was a great move it means a lot to me because that was very prohibited. Attorney's fees are tough. Domestic to mister haster's point when people don't have money to pay for an attorney they come to me. The. That's when I find my voice. That's when I asked my questions because somebody is brave enough to speak up but doesn't have the money to do it so they come to me and we solve their problem working for you has done it many times. We removed a circuit judge for the way he treated individuals on his bed. Those documents were released under four. We hold people accountable taking that communication away from us taking the ability to see that away. Takes that accountability away. Salos are bad in government and that's what this bill does it creates a silo I can give you an example between department heads at a local level. To mr cabin. I'm to police officers that decided to chase a thirteen and fourteen year old kid after being told not to buy this battery by their by their commanding officer. This was pulasky county will rock petite pursued those kids. Those kids ran from place because they were scared. They ran into a tree in one of them died. It was covered up. It was not released in the police report. Nobody wouldn't know and in fact mister cavan didn't find out. Until I think about a year later. Maybe longer maybe short but a rough time. We wanted to know what the mayor now. Mayor wouldn't release it thing. So we asked for the little rock police department cell phone records misking we asked for the lower police departments on records it indicated to call between the chief of police and the mayor of a little rock at two in the morning after that young man had died. What this builders is takes that away. Takes our ability to figure that out a way I get that's the local level and you all are at the state level but I guarantee you I get so many denials for service on foyer for just a police report. That local officials will take this is gospel and we will have to fight it in court to win I can do it because I have a company behind me. Direct communication between the the governor and her cabinet members. The mayor in the chief of police a little right this would be like the governor in the in the chief of our consultant police that is not what this build is. This is the governor and the secretary the and the chief and please asp is not it's it's the the colonel higher. And the governor's office that's what's protected in this is not the mayor and achieve a police that's that communication is still just i'm using it as an example of that communication being blocked at a state level understands that's the analogy it's not a I don't be it's convoluted enough between the bill we add in the bill that we got and I don't want to put it perception to be that it goes in that level because it does not go to get and you still have the same rats to so I could foy the chief of the asp on records and get those after this bill is put in place. As far as I know I mean is as long as it's not communication between him and the governor's office so the governor's office would be redacted from that the governor's office would do it that communication would be that's what i'm talking about that's the analogy i'm making between a mayor and a chief of police it's the it's the governor in the asp in the chief the asp but don't bring that to the mayor level and confuse the public that's what that's what i'm asking you to do in your test I will speak but it is keeping it for the record it was an analogy and not a a is case specific situation and understand that keep it at the level that the bill recognises. And that's it for me any questions. No I had senator. Thank you mister chair I was going to ask that same thing on how it related to this specific bill and i'm glad that was cleared up I did have a question on you'd said something about comments in the bill when you first started and I can't find the word comments is it that the word that is added to the security detail. Line and my I might be confusing last night apologize yeah I can't. Find the word comments anywhere. That is what you said wasn't it come yes it was it was the work comments I believe. The. It was the one word that was added to communications my bad I said comments communication same thing just as broad that is anything not a specific security plan. Not all right thank you talked about your kids and and I have three kids to an end with the security now years couple sessions ago these german before I was here and ladies are they made a so you could foyer because of active shooters the schools and because we don't want the I don't want their safety plans out there so I mean what my statement is that's the exact same thing we're worried about with her security is we will we don't want people to try and find governor's matches don't want them to find the plans or anything like that I respect that i'll go back to my personal experience twenty seven years seven states have never received a security plan for an elected official period. In arkansas as well i've asked here hadn't gotten it soon. Yeah II understand what you comments of relate in the mayor to the thing in in and a governor in a sector position but this is even deals far outside of what a security situation or even a situation that may involve the you know situation like you remission in this involves other agencies as involves you know DHS involved secretary bag coacher this involves so much more that that's the problem with the scope of this bill and I appreciate your analogy of trying to relate that to their costs by past experiences was the same so I appreciate I understand what you're saying in that regard thanks sir the questions. So you man thank free testimony senator johnson yes and i've committed i'm committed to being here to hear about we use tell us how many more how many have spoken how many more other to speak were thirteen I have spoken and we have fifteen left almost halfway okay thank you. Wayne beach. Yeah. You are at the half way point yet fourteen and in fourteen. Yeah. The. I'm well beautiful. Just represent myself here. The. The. The. You know I wonder where we are afraid each other. Why don't we trust each other. And i've come up with the coles examples as as I was listening to some of the witnesses talk specially the last one. We just had a governor that had a son. That had been caught three times. Break in the law and we don't know that I wonder if what communications were between. They speak here and the governor. And how they're doing flight. The prosecution. How do you. That offer. That are regional. The. I want to know we had twenty one million dollars that was missing our dhs. And the answer was we don't know where it went. The. We had fitted fifty two million dollars of medicare expansion vouchers that come up mission that we have to pay for. And they don't know what they were and we need those to get reimbursed by the gap we had at twenty seventy two million dollars by member right southward package. That still hasn't been launches but keep up with the people and people that moved out of state so we wouldn't have passed also service top i'm wondering has it has that software ever been launched was in body overhead account will be children's instances. And then when we had I know that john requested. The head of the dhs to show up and answer the questions in she just refused I mean there was literally lived on and when when the call insert. A letter specifically asking her to show up. And she just did. Sir. Stay on the real time but don't try and say that these are examples of why unless you can guarantee me that you don't have. A communications between a governor or any of those other department here's the sector her cabinet. You can guarantee me that their integrity is beyond reproach. And they can't. We held accountable or they can be hill accountable how we don't know that those conversations happen and I use that DHS and the dasp examples that you're start well. You know. One of the things that I really think is out I just wonder how many people in this room see the see there the safety issue is being a red hearing to try to change the four year issues and then a start looking at the secret service up in the looked up there in there young opposite capital it in federal level and what their restrictions are. And what they can't release and typically if you just look at just the. Just a security issues I agree with those but conversations just like. Mr hudgetton government and and probably the head of the other i'd like to know what those conversations were and I know your sir those are I mean i'm just saying i'm just saying that those conversations have never been for your more face to face conversation have never been each other but between section between this is on tape there's no record of a faced face conversation unless it's electronic or a mimo in the past you'll written mars and be a phone call I mean those things just please if you've got issues with a specific parts of the mail please the stay there I just think that in my opinion I think that separating the two issues. It is probably your best email for. Alternative and as there's there's my opinion I think that and we will start using using these very specific security issues and trying to sharp laid him over into before you will and try to make the fully bill more like the and I understand you've done a lot of work and trying to get rid of the some of the issues that we were concerned about. But I just want to make I just i'd just like to see these two issues as separated thank you very much is a request a good like a free time a dismissed beach I understand what you're saying to try and apply this back situation to me we look at honor bodded in that situation in the republic it's all what records on that and can't get on and then you turn around and former generating zero questions so I just appreciate how you are. Give the analogy of that about like we're open in an **** up because you look the former governors sign in his situation so you see that as a problem that when you start going into this it could open up to more you know in and we talked about we've talked about you know phone calls aren't really good employable type deals and we don't want our officials to have to go well into the long out here and and make a phone call or something like that and talk offline we'd like to keep it in a document type form. And i'd like this for mine concerns to and I think the. I think if we can we can make sure that these things are and like my form I would like to see some thorough oversight committee with nd within our legislator then actually go and review they have the authority to go when review those those up it's investigated out mrperiod beach it's in here are it did nothing in in in this bill. Takes away from the authority that we you have legislative that and that's that's good that's what i'm saying those are that things that i'd like to see I know you all work your tails off there has been some interpretation issues and thousand times interpretation and try and do. The same how one of what is. In here this moment. You know one of the things I see to is that this this male is even the scary bill really doesn't it does if there's a bad player after they're going to do something. Yeah. What is the. He should look at the names on the on the sign up shooting and look how many are guessed it and how many are four and who they are for what one in what positions are in i'm just wondering his government really the efficiency of government is it really worth jeopardizing and losing our or write to no worry governments do an in our name. Um and in in and out on talk about the. I'm here in our conversations you know regarding proving in tent. And I think center tucker talked about this as well and leaving too much room for interpretations. There seemed to be a common thread that i'm running across here that I hear am just wondering if we need to go back and make those little more specific netsork and overall tired and an as all I really have to say. I can I can talk about later but i'm not going to do it now thank you thanks sir. Oh **** covered. The. The. Yeah. Thank you paul introduced yourself and I will step away from brief time. To take care of some business. The. Yeah. Thank you committee I appreciate all being patient with us in this. So I guess I want to hit something that I may not be qualified to talk on but I think I think I can make a reason the tony client privilege is one of those things that on the surface it seems like well it's a good idea we should we should protect. The state from having to reveal that information as that's a kind of a safer thing. But. There's two issues one of them is that i'm paying for the attorney when the state is hiring attorney taxpayers are paying for these attorneys and so that makes a little different than when I hire an attorney. And. And I am paying for it and so i'm entitled to that secrecy but when i'm paying for a government official to use an attorney that makes it different so it's it's my money I think i'm entitled to see what they're. What the what they're doing I would actually like for them to record theirs there they're speaking as well I can have a that information. But that's kind of the smaller issue I think the bigger issue with this attorney clamp privilege issue is that the role of the state is to achieve justice. Not to win sometimes that means winning but the general role of the state is to achieve justice. And one of the best ways to achieve justice is for information to get out and so. If the playbook is a secret. What are they hiding is it does it is it's so fragile is just a so fragile that they need to hide their tactics. No I don't think it is and I think justice is a strong robust thing that can withstand scrutiny and it should with train scrutiny and it shouldn't be something where we need to hide a playbook to prevent. The defendants or the. Those who were being prosecuted we don't need to hide from them so they can't discover the arguments that are going to be used because again justice is robust in strong it doesn't need to have its tactics hidden the role of an attorney when they are working with government is very different than the role of an attorney that is working for an individual. When an individual hires an attorney that attorneys job is to win. Not justice attorney's job is not to achieve justice that attorneys job is to win so if i'm. Dead guilty of murder or theft or whatever it might be and maybe the evidence is stacked against me I should be convicted. My attorney has a job to do and that's job is to is to went help me win when the state hires an attorney. Their job is to a cheap justice not to win. Necessarily it could be the wind but it's that their main priority is to achieve justice. Couple of other things here. I won't be laborate long the issue about. Recovering costs i'm. I'm coming torn about the idea of the state even recognizing attorney's costs but one of the things that does bother me is that if I ever follow law suit I have to pay filing fees. And if I win but there's no evidence. Of. Bad faith or maybe arbitrary behavior on the part of the castodian then I can't even recover the filing fee from what I gather I think it cost about a hundred and seventy dollars just to buy access to the courts and so if I have to play out II i'm pay the filing fee to get to get access to the courts and then the then I win. II may not be. Even to able to recover my filing fee. Because there's maybe no evidence of just bad behavior is just kind of incompetence or whatever it may be i've had some experience with that with a a county official their environment. I think that's just the the reality but it shouldn't mean that I have to pay even when I win to obtain justice. And that's a problem with our for their court system I think that needs to be fixed not the legislative problem that that that filing fee could probably be removed for these cases. I think that's all I have thank you for your time. The. Any questions from the committee mr carbon didn't want to know what organization you are speaking on behalf of get lady justice lady justice thank you for cast money mister calvard next time we have blake ross. The. The. Mrperiod ells please just introduce yourself for the record you may proceed thank you senator tucker and members of the committee my name is blake ross I am a lifelong arkansan i'm a former member of the media and i'm a passionate supporter of accountability. Let me first say how much I appreciate the vocal opposition and responsiveness of my state senator senator tucker I consider clark to be a friend and i'm proud to have him as my senator. I take two particular issues with this legislation content and process. First content now I used to thank that the only two things that could united democrats and republicans in the state was love of our mothers and all things argents are raiser backs but the last few days seemed to indicate that the freedom of information act is a pretty solid third choice. I'm glad to see so many of my conservative friends is outraged as I am. In a functioning democracy the ability of the media and the public at large to hold elected officials accountable by ensuring they are conducting public business in the public interest is sacrisant arkansas and like claim to precious few things that we leave the nation on but having one of the strongest foyers in america that over the last two decades has ended many political careers have elected officials violating the law should be a point of pride. And yet here we are. I've heard two arguments from supporters of this bill one the existing law is old and requires an update. Now surely if a for your law that is younger than some of this legislature's members is old enough to constitute a reright than our state constitution which is a hundred and forty nine years old must be in desperate need of an update. To say nothing of the fact that in five days the united states constitution will turn two hundred and thirty four. The other argument is for security of the governor and her family. I take no issue with the principle of continued protection for the first family. My issue here is seeing as security details are protected already as we have heard from prior testimony changes being made to foy seem where security is concerned a solution in search of a problem. Then with process now I will admit I took one look at an elsa study book during my undergrad and decided it would make a fantastic doorstop so I am certainly no authority on constitutional law however I fail to see where tax cuts and shrinking government accountability falls under the extraordinary occasions lined out and section six of the arkansas constitution. Further the increasing usage of article six seems in direct contradiction to the constitution establishing the state legislature as a part time entity and what's more regarding process I or do I think any member of the public that was here last night have forgotten senator hester's comments regarding his intend to extract the bill from committee regardless of the outcome of this vote in committee since he assured he has the votes to pass it through the full chamber so while I am indeed thankful for the committee to allow all of us to arrive here and present comments I believe there is a consensus certainly among those of us speaking today that this process seems nothing but a dog and pony show. Perhaps a better use of the legislature's time would be learning how to translate eighteen republicans in the latin since regnett popular seems increasingly irrelevant. The speed and disorganization with which this body is so gliefly careing towards obscuring government business from the governed under the guise of government effectivity. If the last twenty four hours of this process or any indication I do not believe any amount of twinking to foyer is going to fix this thing. I will say that I used to be filled with are and hope when I walk the marble halls of this building. The echo of foot steps would hit my ears as I pass paintings and pictures and I couldn't help but imagine a time when tightens and legends of arkansas politics walk these halls. But the last few years i'm filled with anxiety and frustration as it seems that footsteps today walk not on marble floors but the next of our most vulnerable. With the merion of issues that clear that the millions of people that call this state home on a daily basis is this the hill we're going to die on. Is this the extra ordinary issue we truly face. Yeah i'm only thirty can you please not make a cynic out of me. Please do the right thing and put against this bill thank you. Thank you mister as any questions from the committee. Miss percussion. Please introduce yourself for the record proceed thank you senator tucker members of the committee my name's join my catch in i'm a coffounder the arkansas transparency in government group and have given a significant portion of my time to to defending the freedom of information act and legislature and also as a practicing lawyer by the way ninety percent of that time has been on my own dime. Because people every day working people can't afford to hire a lawyer to try these cases. And that's sad and i'm going to talk more about that. I do want to thank the senate for doing a way with the deliberative process exemption I think each and every one of you for that. We don't want to be like the federal government. I don't want to be like new york or california. A federal government that uses that exemption over eighty one thousand times in not in two thousand and thirteen. And is used it over sixty thousand times every other year and that's secrecy and that's not good and maybe that's why we have some of our problems on our federal level so thank you for what you've done in that regard. But. I learned is a pretty young kid I think from my mother is it if it walks like a skunk in its mail vacasco it's a scar and so we've we still got a smell in this bill and I want to talk about that in and I heard the last speaker talking about process you know we didn't have to spend yesterday waiting around after amendment after amendment because this body created a four year task force you all are familiar with that a four year task force that that's for your bills and others several people who have spoken who who are on that task force and unfortunately this bill did not hear from the sponsors from the task force and the although we had a meeting yesterday morning which would have added many of these issues because words matter in his senator tucker said on the this cabinet these cabinet discussions words matter when we are. When we use and in section twenty nine records reflecting communications that needs to be abundantly clear because with all due respect our governors not going to be here in in in in the future uh senator hester's not going to be here so the only thing is going to get result if we just can't trust you that that's what this says so that's what the purpose of a four year task force is but I want to talk specifically about how I believe that what legislators need to to really really reflect on that's left in this bill and senator tucker hit on that and it's the attorney client privilege. You might you might call it the cc your government lawyer exemption because is as much is the bill you got rid of the exemption you got rid of I think you aren't here center senator johnson don't thank you for that the deliberative process exemption because it's the been called the most abused exemption. Uh in the federal government and also uh this attorney client privilege will can and will be abused there is no question. If a state agency commission board we've done some research in there somewhere to the tone of three hundred and thirty four of those bloated government should asa in arkansas so what we're going to give them is the ability to see c your government paid lawyer or include your government paid lawyer when you when there's something embarrassing illegal or unethical than then cc your lawyer c see the government lawyer in this will never see the line of day and that's concerning me I hope that you can see where you say this this will never see the latter day what are you speaking to. What i'm speaking to is let's let's take one example of what i'm speaking to i'm speaking to gerry sand dusky i'm speaking to the assistant now not no let me answer your question hey I want to answer your question i'm the chair I ask you specifically what are you talking about whenever you said. This the it's unclear as to what you're referring to not a allergy or just tell me what you're talking about this will never be discovered sexual abuse of miners government waste and fraud and abuse because if there is that and there's documents out there that the public trying to get all a government bureaucrat one of these three hundred and thirty four agency all they have to do if there's wrong for conduct is include the lawyer in that and we can talk specifically senator johnson about let's look at section and thirty one of the bill which says that records created or received by an elected or appointed state officer a state employee a state board aboard a commission that would be privileged under rule five o two b of the arkansas rules of civil procedure why don't we all we can also call this this amendment using the attorney client privilege as the mac truck exemption because anyone who wants to hide government abuse or some other abuse will include their lawyer under five arkansas rule of evidence five o two b and that is a broad exemption as senator tucker has talked about. So they would not be foiable any longer right. That's correct in in what is that that would not be for that would be all wreckers emails text messages from government agencies that they see c to their to their there's their government paid lawyer that would be all of those type communications that could not be disclosed to the public and that is senator is a it is a very very broad in in troublesome and one that could clearly be abused in and I think it's it's what's left in this bill that citizens uh should be very concerned about and I think it's it's one of the pieces that citizens are concerned about and I wanted to get to my example that I just talked about. Pence paint pennsylvania had a very broad exemption just like this one and jerry sandoski was the football coach and assistant football coach at at penn state university and he abused young person after young person after young person in they use this exemption. To to keep out of public's eye what was going on. And that could very well happen here. Senator I used it I used the freedom of information act in a case recently because I tried a lot of these and you probably heard of it it huntsville arkansas. I use the freedom of information act to get emails regarding sexual assaults that were that were occurring on our young people and when I look in the eyes of the of the mother of the youngster who was abused time after time. In a in a locker room. And then i'm able to see what four year can do. That's important. That's extremely important and it can happen on the state level just like we saw. In in in a pennsylvania. So on on a personal outside of government how do you get those documents if you don't in a personal business if you're an attorney then transit to fat or or proscute some body or put them in the lasting how do you get the thought those are information without without for you whenever you're in a regular trial not against government against the regular individual how do you get those information look II was asking for when when the parents contact me I was asking for those records uh those communications regarding the sexual assault before the lawsuit was even contemplated so that the parents could get some sort of closure and find out what was going on there then answer your question sir I may have at least i'm i'm talking about in a regular suit how do you get the information that you requesting through you know that you get in foa in the state well in a in a lawsuit I mean clearly we have discovery that that we're going to we're going to get records but uh uhm you know look so you use you want to use the f o y system to circumvent discover we're serving your your confliging and you're confusing two separate issues i'm not talking about the work product uh privilege here i'm talking about attorney client privilege here I don't want to do anything what I want that what I want to do is for the public to be able to scrutinize what what government is doing and I don't want a lawyer to be cc budget jerry san dusky tie and and then the public not be able to see that and you know what happens then it might be one of our children that is being sexually abused because this conduct went on for two years again that was on a local level. But we can certainly see that it can occur on us on it on a state level and and that's yes that's just a take economy of college take the abuse that we saw people go to prison for seventeen years. What about those documents just just put a government lawyer just so this is the I asked you a question if if this if if we did not have sarah sanders as a governor and maybe it was a gave a news and tie would you be a little more sceptical about this bill i'm i'm comfortable. I'm completely not I appreciate that I appreciate that I think it's a matter of efficiency in government and an appreciate it well it when efficient seeing government is a code word for weekending for yeah i'm not don't put those words in my mouth well that is that I mean I will I want I want to you know that the transparency in the forum and we have worked hard to to keep a large protoch transparency but the the this government should should not be you start through four year in in in suit that's just my opinion so senator king question. You're saying the huntsful school situation is spot on a about abuses in we get we have other we're talking about families the governor were all concerned about that we should be concerned about other families and the abuses that that I mean I can remember the u foundation scandal insurance their gear hard tried to hide the records in personnels I mean did the idea that we're going to go through this like I said the transparency part we don't know what we don't know we don't know the situation is going to happen they're going to know that in many times would you agree that you know government lawyers that represent school borders still paid bar tax dollars this idea that this is like a civil case it doesn't apply because we're still using their people the parents of the one situation were paying tax dollars to these people they were trying to cover up the six of abuse so this this idea this civil thing in government is two different things in our founding fathers were pretty clear about that about how government is different sure are are founding fathers said I want to quote my hero patrick henry when patrick henry said the liberties of the people were and never will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them and the transaction of our rulers and our three hundred and thirty four state agencies can and will be concealed from us senator king when they notify their government paid lawyer yes you mentioned lawyers and I want to talk about attorney fees because one of the things I don't see in this bill is attorney fees restricting the high price government lawyers the ones for example in huntsville that charged twenty nine thousand dollars but I want to talk about a case you know I want to to and I want to say this before I do this for yeah is not a conservative issue and it's not a liberal issue and it's not a republican issue and it's not a democrat issue it's a freedom issue bottom line patrick henry said it best I want to talk about isla camble versus the faded bill school system right now. Uhm that's a case where ala campbell senate for your request to the uh failed bill school system asking for documents related to critical race theory she sent the document twice and they claimed that it was not clear she then called me and said why don't you try your hand at drafting one if you want to and I said i'll do it a share will so I drafted one she sent it to him and you know they sent back the same response that it's just not clear so what we did we file the last sea senator johnson and you know what two days later you know what they had they produced about ten thousand documents of which this courageous lady went through every single one of them we had a hearing on that she did learn that there's critical race theory going on which is an issue that that I know that republican in this body are concerned about again this is an about republic and her democratic about freedom and my opinion but so we we got those darkness so let's talk about attorney fees isla camble like everyday citizens in this room probably can't afford to pay a lawyer to three hundred dollars and again i've i've i've I i'm i'm not looking for a buck when I try these cases but um but what what I was told is you need to start collecting an attorney fee because you know why that's the only teeth that four year has it's the only ts miss cambo at the end of that they turned over the records and we were able to collect attorney fees because we substantially prevailed however you know what the arguments of the fate the lawyers were the ones is mister stanbard talked about the ones they hire outside the higher the big silk stocking law firms that charge no talent how much we know little how much they charge but she was the judge dead award attorney fees in there but the question would become would the judge award attorney fees. If we had this bill probably not because they would make the case very persuasively as good lawyers do that the defendants conduct in the denial of these ten thousand or so records was arbitrary and bad faith though they would say we were not arbitrary and we were not in bad is that is that an assumption that you're putting on the judge and assumption yes it's an assumption that that I am based upon my experience of trying these cases is that based upon this law attorney fees would not have been awarded in that case and they will not be awarded in any most other cases and it's a it's a his european union and you're some all of these are my opinions and and and i'm in it all of these are my opinion in share but we we need to understand in my opinion and we need to comply with what the attention intent. Of the nineteen sixty seven lowers in its said it's vital to a democratic society the public business be conducted in an open and public manner so there so that we can see the performance and the decisions of the folks we've elected planned and and I think that that should be the gold standard for which this legislation is a valuated and I hope that that that you will limit this bill and night alert uh the the with respect to state agencies thirty hundred and thirty four state agencies boards bureaus our hope you are not let this this examption get our state for your law because I think that's exactly what it does for the exemption that i've talked about the attorney attorney client exemption just includes this c saver your government lawyer and the public is not going to see anything and we do our business and public that's outside of the internet of the nineteen sixty seven law and quite frankly I think with their brocco fellows rolling over and his grave right now that for his fellow republicans I don't know that his fellow republicans what was congress what was what was our congress whenever that got past it was not republic that that's exactly right a republican a republican governor who said this was a crowning jewel of my administration passed a transparency law with with democrats like my good friend clark turkey and in that that was impressive and it's been it's been intact since nineteen sixty seven and how important it's been we've had we've had our stumbles with corruption but I can assure you you turn you turn government bureaucracy three hundred and thirty four boards over over just. Just let him CC their government lawyer will see an increasing corruption. In most government officials are are honest ethical straightforward people but there's always bad apples and. This is and i'll close this this law and this law is a billion question i'm sorry you're still in questioning i'm sorry about that regarding thank you mister chair uhm. So I i've heard you say a couple of times referring to sandusky and the the criminal behavior there and as I understand it of course I haven't studied. The specifics of that case so II can't speak as i'm a authority on it by any stretch of imagination but. But as I understand it and i've received communication that that uh penn state was not or it was exempted under their state for law so it's completely different scenario than what you're talking about just in general it wasn't covered under that at all and now not not not now in general no they were covered by a broad exemption that exemption exempted this top of conduct so now not generally it was not well i'm i'm saying I can't speak to the specifics of the case I can just put that there as far as. As far as context. On what you're talking about they change the way they were doing business in two thousand and eight and they tightened up there there are exemptions and they they make government more along more specifically to the eternity client privileges what i'm going to talk about and I was just leading that for this because you. I mean II read the five o two b portion that refers to a timely attorney client privilege i'm sure you're fairly familiar with it being managed turning. Uhm but as I understand it um they'd circuit 1984 us versus hover or math said the attorney client communications lose their privilege character when. Lawyer is consulted to further continuing or contemplated criminal or fraudulent scheme not slowly solely with respect to past wrongdoing so as I understand a trying client privilege. It wouldn't cover illegal back activity you understand it wrong I think so so if if you have a client as an attorney if I have an attack I have a client like jerry san desky who comes to me and said i've abused child after child I don't think I don't think that i'm all run out in detail and everybody about there. And I think that that hits at the heart of the attorney client privilege in the trust they have in me. Okay. Have answered and we just don't have enough time to answer we we have enough time we've had enough time and if this bill would have been brought transparency just like the tax bill was the tax cut bill and this deal could have been bettered in the four year task force we wouldn't be going through as the last speaker said this dog and pony show this where we're we're so yeah it if if this bill could have been very this is the most important in my estimation in my opinion and this is the most important piece of legislation that's come before this body because it heared at the foundation of our democracy if we don't have the right to know we lose our freedoms and you understand that senator king we lose our freedoms knowledge is power period well and I think that like I said this bills for a special session in my experiences should have been filed a month ago where we convented and have time this is just too quick and I think if you look at the aspect of what we've had in previous years that I even know of the idea that a governor governor staff can email the secretary include a legislator and in all certain and it may be that legislative longer no fans I mean I add do you know this is just opens up everything I mean just look at our past few years here about what's happened this is just a dangerous present on this that has nothing to do with the overseas security well II wouldn't I would agree with that that I don't think this this bills about the governor's security I think we all agree that the governor's security is paramount and important that I particularly thank that we should be able to see the governor's expenses if she's flying on a government paid airplane I want to know exactly how much she may be be charged in the tax payers I want to know if she's flying around with a political consultant I won't know who's who's weather II think those are fair things and is this not this governor because as we all know and I think this is an important point the next governor won't be someone that we respect greatly like sarah sanders the next governor may be. As someone we don't and who would. Maybe not we we might want to look at look at that and we should be we should have the right to know. The turkey. Thank you mister chair mister record you know how many no votes there were in that four year bill in nineteen sixty seven zero zero zero I want to make sure that one thing is clear because it's a very important point in and there were some questions between you and senator johnson about it. There is two exemptions relating to a turn client communications the first one has to do with a litigation context correct correct and the second one. Has nothing to do with litigation contacts and that's what court in kennedy from the governor's office confirmed during her testimony this morning that's right so when I want to make sure that the members were here in the room and and others who will be voting later understanding is clear as in a civil context there's no discovery outside of litigation right so there's no way to get those communications even ask for those communications outside of a litigation contacts right correct so what you're talking about and what my larger concern is is subsection thirty one which I think you have apply described as the cc your lawyer tax and so that's applicable even when there's no lawsuit pending that that's right yeah or you have to do in my experience and litigation when you when you are privileged august produced. There's a two line before line I mean a from line in ACC line in so long as the lawyer is just merely copied on the email it's listed on the privilege log and i've never personally seen a judge compelled production of that and discovery just won't happen you know and and what's going to happen is is going to have to be more expensive lawsuits uhm but you know I want to thank the senate also for in it's probably what was happening yesterday but which should have happened in the task force a month ago a public body by the way one that the legislature created I want to thank the I want to thank you for at least taking the time to to define what anticipation of litigation is in in putting some parameters on that I think I think that uh that was that was important and I and I think. But we have to understand that there's a difference heard senator history talking use this playbook analogy what we can't give up our playbook well there's a difference between joining me catching getting the playbook of another private lawyer here enjoying mccatch in the law you're in a getting the playbook of a government lawyer and that's that's that's the key the public has the right to know and that's what the legislative intent said so my opinion is is that you should have men doubt the nineteen sixty seven legislative intent if we're going to if we're going to pass this bill just do away with it too do away with the legislative intent which said that it is vital to a democratic society that public business be done in an open in public manner because this is the very excited mister was very broad and beyond this now so that's not this fiction and fixed relief you from comments that is beyond this meal what you just said no no no you know no not no sir it is beyond this bill you want your what you're referring i'm referring to that to the law sir that taught the the entire legislative and ten of the legislative intent or sixty seven yes it's beyond this go for this bill I appreciate your comments and you are excuse thank you what we'll thank you senator johnson I appreciate that and I appreciate the committee for hearing me and in hearing my comments. Next is jimmy calvin. The. Yeah. Yeah. The. Shelf and your recognized name to make and i'm here to represent the citizens of arkansas. Want to start by saying I don't want to talk about. What's in the bill I won't talk about what the bill's going to do. It's going to take away right the decision to this day have been since nineteen sixty seven every new exemption. Takes away right. The sin and proper bill it's not a budget bill not a bathroom bella de avil which you're going to sad is if you're going to take rights away from me. From these people. That warns healthy discussion because I can think of no greater decision than you'll make is to take away somebody's right. That had been guaranteed in this. In every example you add does that I don't understand what the emergency is to take away my rights. In the in the bill. In the emergency part says it is found in determined. But the general certainly that not doing this is risking the peace health in safety of forwarded to our candidates that's me bets them. You want to take my rights and freedoms away. But could it if you don't it's going to give risk it's going to give risk to my. Peace in health and safety now it hasn't since nineteen sixty seven. But all the certain it does but other than it does then and by the way it's you're saying it's an emergency. Basically the bill is saying that I are risk to myself and you're going to protect me from me to protection period you know what I need protects in film any protection from you. The people need protection from the government. We are not the risk. Government is the risk in this just this build just proves that we need for you to protect ourselves from the government the citizens need for you to protect ourselves from you and when you take our rights of way to do that you leave us defenseless. For year is one of the only tools citizens have to protect their so from government through oversight. And you want to take those rights away. Now I want to. Go back to what center history city talking about protecting protecting right this bill protects this bill protects this now with this build those that's had. It hides information from the services. Senator here I can't remember his name he did I want to clarify some too when he talked about police officers and he told that nice lady that you should their address is in phone numbers and names about their well let me go in clarify something right now I have two signs on is a far far more is put yourself sir in their information they're their name their addresses and their phone numbers is already exact. And the officers it around the governor's security detail i'm a so in their spirit sand to special unit so in it though you if there are read eximp you can get their names if I was under the cover under cover exemption so I want to clarify that I also want to state that yesterday last session usually on the bill your street on this field today new other then I private contractor and government officials do you have one citizen signed up in favor of this bill what deem have one a hearted government contractor i've seen the officials but just like last less regular session all i'm saying is citizens there are cands and duped talk about the product that you want to give them they don't want it. You talk about the product you've put in a product down here for the people right for the says they are telling you they don't want your brother. They're making it clear. So I would ask that you listen to them. Now I will say this as well what's going to happen a day or tomorrow eventually we're going to find out. Who in the state legislature where it be reverended centers we're going to find out from each of you. Do you represent citizens or do you represent government do you represent citizens or do you represent governor sanders now I will leave you to finish with this. I'm not attorney anything like that didn't go to college barely made it there as raised down beyond ham church road lonal kenny. Dark road dusty and money and we learned a young age back then rose mill good in the nerd now this bill not smell like roses I will also leave you with this interest in i'm very upset because I watch you today when citizens appear with their passion absolutely disrespect them and I would ask that if you want to bully somebody building me and leave them alone. I will conduct this committee does that include me in disrespectful most me off again are you over there i'm on a speed now go ahead. It is major as this committee chairman to have a respectful conducted and and stay on the meal I have a loud much limity to many speakers including yourself and if you don't respect that I don't I don't I let you talk about all kinds of stuff that we are destroying for yeah which it is not we are we are a representative of public each one of us are citizens and the governor is it with as a citizen we are a self governing body and that's why we are sit here as representatives of the citizens and if the citizens government is being abused by the system that is to protect the citizens then it should be taken care of the communication the communications are different in nineteen are two thousand and twenty two then they were in nineteen sixty seven there is there is no self phones there was no text there was no email and and these abuses have the paper was removed they were gone for years that all you had news lose the paper so don't don't don't say that to update this system to at to this new thing that is being abused for the citizens of arkansas that we are taking away you're right that's our job and that's why we put in this thing that legislative council that's the work for us. It removes nothing from legislative council are legislative audit and latest sight of on it we can dig into money and whatever we want to contract in legislative on that is your representatives in senators job to help to hold those those agencies accountable and this does nothing to do to do that we are doing not and will not accept that i'm trying to take your rights away in f a by updating this legislation that was passed before hours born and and say that I have bullied somebody whenever I have went through every name and and try to let everybody speak and try to make this is transparent I didn't even have a bill free for everybody last night there would have been a agreeable to the body and and that's why we did not hold a meeting it was at the call the chair and I and I never called it because we went with the legislature one ready and that is our job is to get this right and and I feel like we have done our job is is as updating everything that was on the call that the governor called us down here for appreciate your comments and I was born and and raised on a dire road and asked and and I am still proud of that and thank you for your comments yes let me say this your window any mess questions are you not going to allow them to ask me questions you know that's wrong this disrespectful here being a bully that's all your man i'm trying to get through this list no you're taking away right you're taking my people's rights in your being a bully these people you're trying to meet a stuggle work with me after. Scott grey. The. The. Irish seventy one thank you senator i'm scott grey with the sling county republican committee I appreciate your indulgence in this prolonged hearing let me first say that no one is opposed to protecting our governor or her family. Transparency is the corner stone of our republic and for those of you who are republicans it is a plank in our party platform over the weekend I heard a lot about polarization the term polarization implies democrats versus republicans left versus right but that isn't the case here this issue has brought together democrats republicans libertarians and the media all in the fight for transparency. The real polarization here is between the government and the people as platform republicans we only want our elected republicans to follow the platform of the party that spent time and money electing them while we do appreciate that substantial changes have been made it's pretty telling when both the right and the left now that this bill is problematic in fact everyone speaking for the bill today is either on the government is on the government payroll or has been in one way or another understand we are up you're asking for more rights were only attempting to protect rights that we already have in this case rights that we chiefly had since nineteen sixty seven contrary claims otherwise this bill isn't about modernization and technology but it does make for your request more difficult for citizens of course government is streamlined when the bureaucracy doesn't have to deal with taxpayers we have a problem when democrats agree more with the transparency plank of the republican party platform than some republicans urge you to take a step back away from the technicalities in the carefully crafted language and ask yourself do you represent the bureaucracy or do you represent the people I urge you to scrap this bill and pass the maybe version. Thank you thank you there in questions. Seen and appreciate your just among. Yeah. Tony rose. Tony rose. Clinton lancaster. This. The introduce yourself in your yes sir I thank you senator johnson i'm clinton lancaster I i'm just here because I don't I don't like this bill and II wanted to tell you why first i'll before I do that I wanted to think you for that you're in a tough job today can conducting this meeting and hearing everybody's strong opinions I think the only way would be more controversial the hearings if you want to change the name of the razor back to the you know puppies of the poor or something and senator hester II appreciate your passion on for what you're doing it's very clear that you believe a lot that that what you're putting forth here's what's best for arkansas and i've heard today a lot of a lot of people say yourself senator johnson and senator hester that you know people want government to work more efficiently well government of the self is pretty inefficient as it is and I don't know that changing this would really improve that efficiency ratio but I do know that it would it would change to the transparency ratio and I just as a citizen of arkansas I would rather my government be more trained parent than efficient because I can at least know what's going on. I wanted to talk about the governors security i'm concerned that people want to hurt the governor i'm i'm concerned that people want to hurt anybody and I think that it's right to protect the governor II don't think that that protection I agree we shouldn't be given out the routes and we shouldn't be able to see how the state police is doing training to protect her I don't even want to know the state trooper's names I like the state troopers even when they write me speeding tickets on the interstate and so but what I do think is important is knowing who the governor is associating with when she's traveling I think that if she's on a plane to europe with wrong to santas i'd like to know that and that's kind of what I think. As far as the other things that are on there some of my main concerns are the working papers exemptions were talking about the cabinet secretaries so I think we're all overlooking at what's called agency theory and just if you forgot I am a lawyer agency theory says it's got to has got two prongs to it an agent must have the authority to act for the principle and that the agent act on the principles behalf and subject to the principles of control so this is how I think the supreme court would interpret this they're going to say if that cabinet secretary forwarded that email to someone that works for him for her then in their doing that in that capacity that privilege that that exemption is going to cover that because that's the agent and that's not clearly spelled out in the bill if you the wall is at the supreme court says if they've made a ruling you know about it and so you would have specifically made any language that would have accepted that so if you're going to keep that I don't like it because II want to know how my government is functioning I want to know what's being said that if you insist on keeping that I would really strongly urge you to add more language to make sure that the agency theory does not apply because if not you're just going to delete the whole thing it I don't think it will function like you're expecting it to do. I think that the attorney client language it's in there i'll tell you i've been in the litigation with the state in fact I lost one yesterday against the state and and that no point could I have attempted to get on that could have attempted but I would have never gotten what the attorney general and the secretary of state talk about what that advice was or anything else you don't have to create a statute to exempt that because that's already how the judiciary interprets that and the same thing is true about the work product uhm I have I have never been able to get the work product of any other attorney much less the government even when II do a four year and I don't do a lot of foys very often so II don't think that we should be in the business of fixing something that's not broken and I finally on the attorney speeds issue. And nobody in the legal industry is getting rich on four year cases okay nobody if that was the case you'd have billboards up and down the interstate did tell you the best for your lawyer and all that stuff I will tell you that it's always possible like like senator tucker said and II agreed hold whole heartedly with senator tucker's statements today if you have a problem in the summer is abusing the process you have a remedy for that already it's rule eleven of the arkansas rules of civil procedure a motion for sanctions if that person has brought a frivolous lawsuit the judiciary already interprets that but the catalyst effect is correct i've been in a foyle lawsuit with some county clerks who didn't want to provide me anything until we got to the courthouse and without that ability you know it's just not something that's enforceable so II would just ask I have reviewed representative of maybe he's bill I believe that it is within the call of the governor and II support I think senator king is a cosponsor I like that because there's less initial accomplishes the same protection for the governor without having potential problems that come in and so with that II thank you all for your patience today and for the work you do for the state and i'm closed and we glad to take your questions you said there are you know your question was the older. Yeah. Communication between the governor in a secretary. And if that was forwarded to you say a director and you I mean what there are this bill there's. Is only a communication between. The governor and the secretary. Is pretty privileged. Whenever that information is shared from the secretary or that that's that's at from the secretary to. To somebody and agency that's that that's the same that that there is as discoverable that is foiable. That's I mean that that is not between those two offs that's not between the owner's office and the sector is officer then if that's not the case. Tell me a moment since you asked. The rules will see several procedure you said that if if there is abuse happening I was told in her while ago the I can't compare. What in civil war. When government is fair that that case being protected back attorney clap privilege. And a civil procedure. Those are alls are developed by the court trade yes sir the supreme court so this body is not going to rely on on the rules of sale and procedure whenever I was even told while ago that it's not applicable when I tried to compare you know what happens in civil processes to abusing foa process to get into the arm you know aren't legal possibilities for any government. I mean where it's a nasty thing what we're doing here. And and that's just part of self government and listen if i've got to go home because i'm drander. Trying to make our government more up to date and then a bill that was passed whenever I was before hours. Many all go home happy and m m i'll be more informed from the job I did for the citizens of the state and and. I appreciate your testimony other questions. Up the siner johnson i'm not out to get you just so if I see your kroger i'm still going to waive I just I would encourage you to look at that agency theory because the reason why is the secretary is an official office and so the law applies differently II understand what you're trying what your intent is i'm just concerned that you may not be able to accomplish that and that's that's my concern but I really appreciate you listen thank you sir thank you. The next year's allison grey. The. Yeah. Introduce yourself in your recognized. The. My name is allison grain i'm a regular user effort a concerned republican citizen and one who believes transparency should be pair amount in every level of government we all want our governor and her family to be safe from true threats best b nine is not the way to accomplish that this dangerous bill doesn't apply just to our current gap airplace to any constitutional officer and certain many bureaucrats who might want to high documents whether now we're in the future arafat law supports the most transparency of any in this nation as it shouldn't arkansas where a monitor was the people. Hour lighted officials should not be operating in dartness or hiding anything from us when desire of the right to know not only was taking place in our state government but also the methodology behind it. Why should we settle for less transparency in the redistant in the nation. The client that are for your law has not been updated since this creation is fast. It has a daily regularly invet at eight seventy nine was passed just this spring republicans hold the super majority in arkansas so most of you know or republican party platform states we firmly support transparency and openness at every level of government those elected appointed employed in government work for the taxpayers of the state it must provide public information one request and in line with arkansas free number of information act. As republicans any republican vote for this bill as written is a flagrant violation the republican party of arkansas platform that's off. Thank you maybe we'll not agree with you and I will really I respect that you remember there's no reason to same thing. You don't give me time to speak our republican party platform says the transparency and openness every level of government those elected an appointed employed by the government for the taxpayers the state most provided public information when requested in lan with a free information so. There are boating this law governors the transparency but as it says that which. By which that platform is developed changing that law is not against our platform updating that law and making it more relevant to today's situation is not beyond our platform and I appreciate your comments thank you very much I respectfully disagree thank you very much. Bill is it capture alright. The. Yeah. Sorry about the long line does introduce your sovereignty right now yes so my name is bill capsi and the director of the arkansas public policy panel and the citizens first congress. And we represent over fifty organizational members and thousands of individual members throughout the state I have a couple over. Observations on the testimony today i'd like to make and then have some prepared remarks like to go and i'll do it quickers again the good news me watching today I think you have actually several easy fixes on your hands. I think the bill is not necessary would risk it would go away but if you're going to pass a bill I believe you can change the security section so that only the security detail is exempt from for and we get to get information on who else is on the plane if the governor's flies with sam water and the types and family or some other fat cats trying to make some deal the public has a right to know that I totally agree we do not need to know the whole send her security detail or any of that kind of information seems like a reasonable easy fix that protects the governor's safety and gives public access to the information they deserve to know on who else is on board it's out air force one what would you care where do you call the plane at anyway uh who's on the plane with her we have that rate second thing that I think is easy is you can clean up the legal representation section the senator tucker was pointing out there is a loophole there that is going to be giant in state government in the future maybe not this governor because the her attorneys that there said they won't do it someone else will and I believe there is an easy technical fixed the language that senator tucker could give you. That just if it's not your intent to drive a bus through it then take senator tucker's suggestion to make that whole tiny year so it's just the purpose that you have seems like a super easy reasonable fix that regional people could agree on. The third is the attorney fee section should just be eliminated and i'll tell you why they are organization represents a lot of low income or cans and we have had the repeatedly sue state government local government not sue threatened to sue stay government local government officials to get access to files that were rightfully ours and we've used those files to do all kinds of cool things where we cut states the state and local authorities not doing exactly what they needed to do it is and kee tool but without that threat of our speed able to sue those folks would have ignored us a guarantee it and so that ability for low income people to have legal representation to sue to enforce the free information act is essential and this bill curbs that dramatically. So those are my comments about the kind of reflecting on today I think you got some easy fixes on your hands I still don't think the bill's necessary when you get into my other comments. So generally we oppose his bill and do not believe the amendments made and redrafting the bill solved the inherent problems of expanding state secrets without extraordinary just cause we also object to the chaotic and rush manner in which this very serious topic is being considered many are kansas as you can tell have passionate views on government transparency and seat secrets and this proposals should be considered in normal order in a normal legislative session to maximize public input so we can work together to resolve whatever just concerns this bill seeks to address a rush special session with normal rules suspended is not the time or the manner to address this respectfully. So when is the last time in your life that your life was made better by a politician or government official showing up and telling you they need to keep more things secret from you but I don't think it's ever happened the the friend of information act is the bedrock of democracy and one of the few areas where our can't where arkansas leads the nation instead of lags democracy works because it's based on the people's power to monitor what their government is doing it is always it is all of our duty to ensure that government is always responsive and accessible to the people at the panel in the cfc we've used as they mentioned for hundreds of times uncover weak enforcement of health economic environmental protections voting problems all kinds of things are happy to give you more details offline if you like like this we have used it on republican officials democratic officials nonpartisan officials it is not a partisan tool to us many consider us to be a liberal leaning organization but I know many conservative leading organizations also use for in their role as a government watch dog it is essential for all of us. We all take care of our democracy by preserving and defending all of the mechanisms that allow us to be active and engage citizens it is the public's absolute right and duty to bring government officials back in line and they fail to do their jobs when the act in that faith when they are corrupt or when they abuse the power of their officers. Citizens in government are partners in the enterprise of creating healthy communities that partnership only works and citizens have transparent information about government uh through the checks and balances of foyer. Foyer not only exposes problems it's also a powerful determined. To the specifics of the proposal again we think that the governor's staff and frankly governor staff governor's family and frankly all state employees should be safe this rush proposal goes far beyond the safety though no one here testified in favor of any of the other provisions of this bill not a single person you've had a few witnesses say the safety stuff was important and I respect that there is a better way to do the safety things if the governor needs more staff more man power more resources to protect her family she should get it right now but this bill does not address for safety concerns we need to have a normal process you need to have a committee look at that you already have a four year committee that you're ignoring II just don't understand how how this process is addressing the safety concerns that are totally legitimate i'm a father of two if my felt my kids were being threatened your shares alright and i'd be up here demanding something happen so I totally totally get that. The uh the the other changes in the bill though shrouding the cabinet officers who run nearly every state agency and secrecy when they talk with the governor has nothing to do with security and is an unjustified paragraph by the executive branch again there's a way to fix the attorney client privilege issue I hope that you'll take that but overall this is just bad policy creating stake state secrets. Government officials even when their senior executive members only hold the power of their positions because we the people have granted it to them it's the whole key of principle of our democracy we expect them to exercise their official duties in the public interest and in the public eye. We expect to be able to transparently monitor their work the arkansas strong for. I'm in a close by asking you a political question had those of you the vote for this legislation how are you going to respond to your constituents when your primary opponent or your general opponent runs a mailer a radio ad saying that you supported a state secret's bill that removed their right to know what their governments doing because you sure that can be those ads are coming to those are you the vote for this though the II totally get you don't think the bill does that but that's how it's going to be thank you for that threat in your I am not the that's not coming from me sir that was not a threat sir that will our organization will not do that I promise you but they also promise you that there are others that will remember. Seeing non thank you very much thank you. Duly mcdonald. She reduced yourself direct me hi my name is july mcdonald i'm from fault are counting. Um I am with progressive arkansas women and I want to thank you from hearing it for me and all the rest of us today. I was here all day yesterday like so many others I had testimony prepared yesterday that focused on sp seven. Um i'm pretty sure everyone else here has covered that in the changes that were to be nine I would instead like to talk about the process of watching this and fold and how that affects this bill. Am I been here in benefits since at least two thousand probably. I'm believing government I may be one of the few people in this room who's willing to admit it had even when I disagree with its actions. This is institution vs the house when happens in this building it matters. It means something. Yesterday a mockery was made of that. There is a joke that goes something like. The most feared words in the english language are in from the government and i'm here to help the reason that joke is widely known is because there is no one. In the electorate in the electorate who wins less transparency and accountability from government. But that that's what you are proposing you say this doesn't got for year and many governmental officers are excluded however just as it's been disgusts. With the additional very carbon copy on an email of any turning or one of the offices that aren't now exempted from four year. Then that communication is no longer affordable. And therefore it's hidden from us the citizens. Yesterday when senator hester threatened to extract this this bill. Someone told the senator to pull the bill if he he had the votes and deal with it they can't sequences. So passed this here or extracted. Deal with the consequences of ignoring the will of virtually every archains and and really and general every american about accountability and responsibility in government. This issue. The possibility of changes to four year has you nine and all of the political spectrum. There have been. Many republicans here to today i'm from progressive arguments are women in we represent a broad swarth of their political spectrum cheap. Um. But if united that political spectrum against such a measure and for that. I applied you like the job I did not know something. That could unite as that way anymore however despite that worthy accomplished accomplishment I ask that you vote against sv nine here and if it is extracted to the senate for thanking thank you very questions. Appreciate your testimony. Joshua were silverstein. To reduce yourself in your recommendation my name is josh silverstine and i'm a law professor at the university of arkansas little rock we match bone school of law however i'm testifying today in my individual capacity not on behalf of the university I want to also extend my thanks to senator johnson I know this has been a difficult hearing to run white virtually everyone testifying today i'm adamantly opposed to some of the changes in SB nine in particular the limitations on attorney's fees which I believe will got the arkansas foyer I think senator johnson's been right to ask about how that will happen and i'm going to try to elaborate on that I also think the attorney client privileged language needs much more careful drafting and will do serious damage. In order to save as much time as possible i've tried to greatly pair down my remarks and I want to know that I strongly endorse the testimony of several who have already testified I including join the cution robert steinbock clint uh and jennifer landcaster and they'll cops the I think they all offered excellent top talking points and also agree with the comments of senator tucker has made. Uhm I want to also address the important question that senator johnson raised earlier about the call of the session when it comes to the call of the session the legislature can go beyond the call but they can go narrower than the call so this bill could be greatly paired down and it would be consistent with the call of the session would not be out of order constitutionally on the issue of attorney's fees the reason that changes so problematic is it effectively applies to all records that are otherwise subject to foyer attorneys generally get paid three ways they have clients who with enough money to pay and by the hour they get a contingency fee or they get fees from a government pursue to statute the first two don't apply here you can only get a contingency fee when you're seeking money from someone and these lawsuits aren't seeking money they're seeking documents in addition to several attorneys have already noted most people don't have the money to pay an attorney to engage in any type of foyer lawsuit so even in circumstances where the government clearly should turn the records over so the case is clearly meritorious there will be much litigation that will not be brought if attorneys fees are not available and by changing the rules of that it's not enough to substantially prefailed you must also show arbitrariness or bad faith and also changing the language from shell to may that is good a greatly reduced people's ability to bring cases lawyers will just generally not take the cases and we all know that litigation creates incentives and without that incentive government agencies many times acting a good faith will be much less likely to turn over records. I also want to talk a little bit about the attorney client privilege. So as you send her talkers identified section thirty is really not that bad the problem is with section thirty one and I want to explain why that provision will create so much problem in the government context though doesn't in the normal civil context of senator johnson noted and that's this the vast majority of things are private companies and private citizens do not concern whether they're a band with the law or not they're just simply engaged in their business and so if a large company like a former client of mine say down chemical started copping their attorneys on everything they do that wouldn't make the documents privileged that's established but almost everything that every government official does and doing their job is implementing the law so when government officials start copying lawyers on their documents they are plausibly seeking government advice that's why the broad attorney kind privilege provision written here is going to shield so many documents and why things like the penn state example of the brought up that's what makes the government different from the private sector in terms of the attorney crime privilege I actually think there's room and there should be some type of privilege in the context of litigation but the way this provision is written this carbon copy problem is a real one in ways it would not be in the private sector also on a address of an important point that sender dotson raised which is what about when it comes to criminal activity so it's important to draw the stinction between past and ongoing criminal activity if a murder comes into my office and says I just killed somebody that is a hundred percent covered by the attorney climb privilege but if a mer- someone comes in and my often says I want your help killing someone or I want your help engaging in some illegal scheme that's where the crime fraud exception steps in in the attorney climb privilege no longer applies a lot of what happened in the penn state context that some people have raised was passed activity and those documents weren't covered because of the word exact produceable under foya. Because of the attorney client privilege. Throughout the testimony please. Pennsylvania higher education is exact from four years there that not as much and that is not my understanding no but steinbook would be the person to ask for sure on that but that is not my understanding i'm not aware of any state in which higher red is a general rule as exempt under foyer so it was very cloud privilege in pennsylvania since this is the third time it's been that is my understanding that it was the attorney climb privilege that was the exemption that created the problem of the documents thank you my pleasure so there's been a number of specific examples brought up a things that we all realistically don't want disclosed one of the examples was the arkansas raiser back's playbook which by the way is already exempt under the competition privilege that would never be an issue I think senator tucker phrased it best when when there was a particular problem we want to draft a particular specific exemption there's some disagreement about the precise scope of the exception for the security of the governor I don't really have much of an opinion on that I think it's reasonable I think you can argue which a little too brought a little too narrow but that's the type of exemption that should be drafted. If there's a concern about people asking for attorney speeds when they've lost which i'm pretty certain has never happened and I know no one's ever recovered when that happened the answer is to add to the sanctions for frivolous lawsuits colon lancaster already explained that rule eleven would prevent would lead to sanctions for anyone to make sure frivolous argument but if you're worried that rule left and doesn't go far enough passed bill that says if you ask for attorneys fees who you've lost you are per se sanctioned frankly i'm a wall professor I would have problem if you said those lawyers should be disbarred for asking for fees when they have clearly lost the case that's the type of specific exception that I think you want to put into place i'm going to skip over most of the rest of their here's the only other thing i'll say i've testified before this committee many times and i've tried to avoid using skies falling rhetoric because they just generally think it's an effective and is not true. I've used some of that rhetoric today because I think there's a really good argument that if this bill passes the sky will have fallen when it comes to government transparency I don't like to use the big rhetoric very often I like to keep my powder dry to when it matters this is the time what I think it matters I think this pill is extremely dangerous to government transparency as a result of government accountability and as a result to our democracy in our republic and I take any questions that you might have and thank you for letting me testify again. Second testimony under all eleven so many times it says the. As the courts ever use rule eleven and sanction. Uh lawyers it happens all of the time it used to not happen very often and then in nineteen ninety three then media the rules of civil procedure to make it easier and so lawyers get sanctioned all the time it happened to multiple lawyers in the litigation over the twenty twenty election multiple lawyers were sanctioned many were reported for ethics violations so it is not the most effective tool in the world and so if you want to do add a little more protection I would support that but it's a general rule since the nineteen ninety three members to the federal rules that most states have adopted rule eleven is now a very effective tool when it is regularly used to sanction lawyers for frivolous conduct no but you can supplement them in the terms of the statutory context you're right the supreme court in most states sets the rules but also no states the legislature has some authority to build on those rules in particular contexts and so if you wanted to put in place additional sanctions I think you could either do that yourself especially in the context of foya but for example you could write that sanctions or per se required in certain circumstances it's like the inverse of attorney's fees which are allowed to do and or you could ask the state supreme court to look at this and amend the rules if you think there's not enough but I can tell you rule lemon is used all of the time in state and federal court it's a very effective tool thank you senator narton thank you mister chair so you said with this particular bill the sky is falling. I know. There is a lot of people working on specific language on the. I said the i've said it's before today the deliberate process aspect of the original piece of legislation. Was very concerning to me and I think was probably more concerning than anything i've seen in this current version of the bill what specifically are you referring to that the sky is falling rhetoric is justifiable and it's regardless of it I think that the biggest problem is the attorney's fees provision I think the old deliberate of process provide which i'm very glad you eliminated and I thank you for doing so the way several others have was the second biggest problem and then I probably ranked the attorney client privileged problem third the reason why the deliberative process in a trade client privileges are not as problematic to me is there still only concerned subsets of the documents the problem with limiting attorney's fees as much as you have is that applies to every conceivable document available under foyer and it's going to dramatically increase the decrease the ability for litigation to be brought which will dramatically decrease the incentives for governments to comply with for your requests that's why I think the attorneys fee provision isn't even bigger problem the deliberative process exemption was with that said I think reasonable minds can differ as to what was the bigger problem between those two so with regards to attorney's fees there was a suggestion just to go back to the pre twenty twenty one language if that was. Done. Obviously that was in a fact for. Seventy years happen along it was is that. Would that still be the sky is fall definitely not and I grew up my colleague rob steinbow could testify to this earlier that if we went back to the pre twenty twenty one language he feed be fine i'd be fine and I definitely don't think the sky would be following there. That pre twenty twenty one and you'll make they said this substantially prevailed is still in la but there is some other. Some other court ruling that went beyond just the subsubstantially prevailing. There allowed. What was it are you from the catalyst in twenty twenty one that's as what changed that change that price is outside of our laws among yes and no the notion that the catalyst theory was already a part of our constant law wasn't like a common law rule that was invented it was a court interpretation of the statute it was their understanding of what the word substantially prevailed actually means which makes sense because in most states substantially prevailed is understood do include what what professor steinberg called the catalyst theory meeting if you don't fully go through the case they give you the documents on the door house steps you've won with the statue did in twenty twenty one as I understand it is take that interpretation of the language and make it more explicit so it wasn't a substantive change it was more to establish the pre existing understanding of the law in f- unformer ground to eliminate any other possible arguments that it's that the catalyst theory isn't part of substantially prevailed. There were there has been a change even outside of our written law. And catalyst not the catalyst theory the court sometimes get statutes wrong so i'm sure that if you go through smokes as a first time i'm sure if you go through professor steinbuck's treatise he will give you examples where the courts have misinterpreted foyer in ways that he finds quite problematic but the catalyst theories I don't think is one of them the cattle steeries and established understanding of the free substantially prevailed and one of the reasons for that as if there's this idea and law that you can't do something indirectly that you couldn't do directly and so the idea here is you can't directly avoid responsibility to rock and let you indirectly do so by surrendering at the last second before you get into court so I think the catalyst theories are very possible reading of the language substantially prevailed all right so it's interesting. So i'm confused about this retroactive part immediately in a federal government more publicized cases people are still trying to get records from something it may previously I mean this is coming back retroactively is this a scary step that we're taking I mean i've always been told that we can't go back retroactively I mean just think of something that bad happens it could be covered up two years and then all send you found like it could come out well now you can just keep retroactively be going back and covering up stuff so it's an important question senator king and since you mentioned it earlier i've been looking at the bill and trying to fair but exactly what the implication would be the general rule of farm in all of american statutory interpretation is laws are perspective unless the legislature explicitly says otherwise so the legislature has put in this bill at explicit reference that the law will be retroactive but there's also a constitutional limit on retroactivity the constitutional limit is that laws may not retroactively alter substantive rights it can alter procedural rights retroactively but not substantive rights for example once a person has entitlement to property that is a substantive entitlement you cannot retractively take their property what i'm unsure about is whether an entitlement to documents would be considered substantive or procedural I think the better understanding is that it would be considered substantive and so what that would mean is that any claim for documents under the foyer prior to the adoption of this bill could not be retroactively overwritten but I think whether you entitlement to documents as substantive a procedure was closer to the line it's a wouldn't be a lot of money that the courts would say that this is a substantive change in not a procedural change but I think the better readers that the entire romantic documents is a substantive right unless it would be on constitutional to retroactively change it and so that would mean future for a request after the bill. No problem but any pending for your requests like the one from the blue hard report couldn't be governed by this bill I think that's the better reading but I won't predict exactly what will happen if it goes to court so looking at this and i'm saying outside the governor of scope with security in that's which is not so issue they say agency awarded a contract to somebody to recent communication to in a government or staff governor secretary and it all sudden forty two million dollars is shifted something. Within this time frame if you all sudden said pay on a fos something and find out something you still think you can get that document I mean course we all would never know to a court rules but you could still get that court document between that secretary governor staff on a contract sometime if if that happened to the retroactivity goes back to I think january one of twenty twenty two anything between that date and the date the bill was adopted I think any documents that would otherwise be exempted by this bill. Would be considered substantive right that would be unconstitutional to deny someone access to those things. But we still don't know until the supreme court exactly I have never seen a case that adopts or analysis whether we're foyer falls on the substantive process distinction for attractive repurposes so I can't stay with any authority what the answer would be so they only the only portion of this bill it's retroactive. Is the security portion section for is not no no section for nine thirty on page for if if that's correct and that would be the only thing that would be at issue here and and again I don't know I would not be surprised by the result and I don't think either interpretation would be unreasonable of the of the constitutional requirements. Thank you. Thank you chair and when you go back to where I was at before so you talked about the attorney's fees being the number one or maybe it was the number two that's my number white delivery process was too and then the attorney client privilege or the the yeah item thirty one correct I don't have a much of a concern with thirty correct okay so thirty one how much of like. Sky is falling on number one. You know we're in the clouds and number two and then maybe half the sky is fault III think that but my colleague rob steinbook for many years now is going back ten years on this just about has done really good job of explaining in his own work how dangerous a broad attorney client privilege exemption can be in the government context because almost everything government does is law and so I really defer to his expertise but I also substantive we think he's right from what i've seen again and the private sector attorney climb privilege pretty nerrow mount of things that go into that in the public sector almost everything because almost everything governments do was implementation and so I think it would be extremely problematic bordering on devastating to have that in there but thirty with regards to litigation the turning client privilege related to you not active litigation type I am very sympathetic to thirty I have long had discussions with rob about whether we should do something like thirty because i've never seen an abused the the foy abused in the context of litigation but it's a theoretical possibility I would rather take some more time send thirty to the foy a task for so they can really vet it through their process but I can definitely live with thirty as written thank you my pleasure they are the questions seeing thank you thank you so much senators. I'm sorry but I cannot read this one. Donnie among trash grobbins are got. We're getting close don't be surprised and will try to keep the short this yourself in your adonnish fraudulent points at county arkansas just here's a citizen a printed this out about mid that last night so I should have the latest copy of this senate bill man i'm i'm on a my context as how amazon. The county level state level for you to use her and I just look at the bill and I just want to address some of the shelves say concerns I may have one of miss is the cc thing we keep talking about I know that the car amount for the cc is for the three hundred and thirty four agencies or whatever one afraid of is that that's going to propagate down to county and city level because they're going to look at this and say well they're doing it so less tried and we know that donny. What is that tell him negotiator lawyer at those county level which I can't see all the counties I currently have three or four counties strangely northwest arkansas that do not like me to have election records and that's what they use hate talked our turning in it I can't have to stop it there when I talk to the citizens and other thing is is thank you said it just narrowly plans to one section which is the retroactive part a lot of a lot of people concern like why why does it have to go back to that day why not just start now and go forward and I told you I don't keep the short the sake way last week was when we got that a special session was going to happen the citizens were acceptable that but friday night the the montreal of its about the governor security detail which is only utility by her and then it's segating into now it's going to include fully and their link in those two together most people I think today are frustrated both sides of the linkage of those two aren't a list to some amex military I was in iraq and all signal saving I know about convoys on all about risk management I know about not letting their playbook get out the people get killed you don't have to foyer the movement of the governor's aircraft now I don't know she's on that aircraft not whose parliament or how many state troopers might be on there. But you the public and go out there right now and I can tell you where that aircraft deciding I can tell you when it takes off and take words going because a flat plan has been filed where there be visual or instrument instrument flat rule and I can tell you when it lands I can take also in route the speed down to two and I can even have picture the aircraft and that's not a laugh picture it's pictured aircraft so I found that interesting so that's something maybe an salary to make comments is who ever got these risk magic plans you don't have to follow you at the moment aircraft all aircraft have tap sea transponders on my phone has many applications where I can track aircraft so that I found that kind of interesting you're looking at a tree in the force there but you don't have to forward the movement in aircraft now I can't tell you who's only you know how much feel they're burning all that stuff so I told you I keep a short i'm just giving you an overview of how the citizen who is a user for you. Views this bill and of course i'm not going into the minorities we've done that too much today and II do thank you for your time it's getting late thanks sir this this piece of legislation does not apply to there yep thank you any questions or the excuse. Seeing non criticizers like thank you. The john toll. The. The. Is introduced yourself near how well my name is john toll and the born and raised our kansan from lonok. I. A recommend the four year task force representing the broadcasters among the i've been appointed by attorney general griffin for the working committee as well which is which was formed as I understand a trian. In deal with issues between persons who are on the government's ad in people who are strong advocates of four year trying to see whether there's compromise and I have i've had great hope for that committee our apologize because in advance can we be looking down on my phone I didn't have an opportunity to make a copy of the bills I have a red light and I was on a important mission about anniversary present today which which seemed important to me but a senator's out I want to talk about the language and restrict it to the language i'll also note that I have operated a four year hotline since the early nineteen nineties so my love of four year goes across party lines and like most of the lawyers that you have heard from today I don't make money from four years it's a passion but i've had for thirty thirty plus years. But words do matter and I want to start with a barkansa code twenty five nineteen one oh five which is the passage which is a section of the four year bill that is exemption so I just want to make clear that we're talking about exemptions in the idea that four year have not changed since nineteen sixty seven is just not true there are every year there are exemptions that are brought before the legislature which is the whole reason that the task force was actually formed so it has been updated in many respect an attorney general griffin at least had the idea to to see what other issues are out there to see if there was any common ground that we could find but with respect to senator king's question about proposed exemption twenty nine. Which reads records. Reflecting communications between the governor or his her staff in the secretary care of secretary cabinet level department words do matter lower years and lawyers you have heard who have spoken have recognized what the problem in the wording is it may be your intent to limit that to direct communications but I represent to you that and a opinion it does not limit it to that it does not say that if a person is carpied. That it is example from four year so our respectfully believe that although that may well be your interest that language provides anybody can be copied on it it can be as long as it is a reflective. Other communication directly anybody can be copied on it with respect to thirty and thirty one I respectfully disagree with the professor who spoke a minute ago because I think both of them are a problem. I have numerous friends and and I should also say that i'm a i'm a defense lawyer I i'm a trial or your I use I use attorney clark privilege all the time in with risk with respect to my friends who represent government entity school boards etc there is a provision already there's an exemption that applies which is get an order from the court you can get an order from the court if you're in litigation from the court that's hearing that that exempts you from four year. And so I again at I don't fake. We need to add exemptions and lesser really need it but the real problem is in fact thirty one as as you have heard. All you should have to do it have a cc to lawyer on a communication and it would be exempt under proposed exemption thirty one and in that is a huge problem again at i'd do this all the time we have we produced documents from my client with respect to discovery and if a lawyer is c whether he drafted it or not it's going to be example from discovery under the attorney clap privilege so thirty one it would allow that to be exempt as well and I think that is a is a real problem because anybody is going to do investigation isn't fact going to have a lawyer involved and they're going to be cc are not going to do it in my role with a heart line I have advised at least four instances over the last several years where people have used four year to determine whether they have been improper relationships with between teachers and manners we would not end they were uncovered and we would not have been able to do that in those parents would not have been able to find out the facts if they weren't able to obtain that because a lawyer had been seased on it. And I don't I don't think that's intent of the legislature to allow other that sort of activity to had those are my main concerns about this i'm happy to take any questions and I appreciate the time the top in questions. Thank you sir thank you ashley. Okay senator johnson is this the last I think this is the last. Introduce yourself so I know what the last name my name is ash nearly i'm just gonna go ahead and apologize and I signed up five hours ago I don't know how much I were need water and a snickers right now so some going to try to stick to my notes and just for a for transparency I do work for the arkansas public policy panel heard my bus bill speak earlier and he spoke more towards I guess the panels perspective by I am really here to speak as a lifelong multi generational arkansas. With family ties in sling county where I grew up and also in cross it and around the national area national arkansas the values of education and self governments were installed in me from an early age. These values are part of what lemme to work as a local and state print journalist. To practice to the best of my ability principles of truth independence fairness humanity and accountability i've received threatening calls from block numbers while on the job i've seen in some of the best and worst of what my fellow citizens from every walks of life including those in positions of power are capable of as a female reporter and activist I have been verbally in physically harassed all while making barely livable wage so not in it for the money i've struggled to balance the work I so value with my own safety. I've seen close friends and colleagues pressured to change jobs move towns and I brought their families and pay for their own personal bodyguards. At times due to credible death threats. When governor sarah how can be sanders talked friday. About the death threats her and her family have received. I am I colleagues were empathetic. And this is coming from the point of view of someone who will only knowledge i'm not a public figure me people might know my by line but and hopefully we all can be. Err sympathetic to the need to protect children regardless of what we think about their parents politics or the wealth or power of their families. I believe in insuring that the first family is safe from potential harm while in public service. At the same time using this pressure as a misleading talking point for this week's. Yeah. Remount hero well I just state of attack on arkansas strong foyer is wrong and I will say there is a light. That makes me want to leave the state by I am very proud to be in our hands and when it comes to our strong boil us they help protect every citizen's rate to know what their government is doing. Journalists and other professionals who use foyer to compell information from our government are just doing what any arkansas has the rate to do it also helps uphold our fundamental democratic first amendment rate to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Arkansas our candidates have a long use and benefited from our strong for your last staying and formed and covering mistakes secret deals and grabs for money in power responding to for your request may make public servants jobs seem less efficient it's true as sanders and and yall have also said but transparency is in fact part of the government's job. And you guys work for us. Upholding the strength of this la is not a partisan issue and this has been talked about and there has been statements from different county republican parties plaskins lean included publicly condemned the older version of this bill I haven't had higher to see who all has continued the one that came out at nine thirty two pm last night and. Okay so i'll skip to go over things that have over the people's power. Our democracy and i'm I will have to reiterate with someone else had earlier I so strive not to be. Well it could be perceived as hyperbolic by I will just say this is a slivery slope and people's power in our democracy rights away and dies in darkness. By and you know I grew up christian and slightly even allocal sold to say the light of truth that dispels this kind of darkness. Our foya already has appropriate public information exemptions and place when it comes to at least how but actually pertain supporter security ongoing allegation and personnel matters. Of our public servants any further protections needed and i'm not a security expert either must be addressed through other means. The safety concerns. May very well be legitimate but there's his talking point is as people pointed out a red hairing when it comes to our arkansas freedom of information act this proposed amendment is at least in part and I believe an intimidation tactic against those with less power than our governor but who have the audacity to work into her and other government officials spinning habits. If passed it would create I think would create new exemptions and could very well help further shield government officials committing the unlawful activities that our governor is currently being accused of our governor and state police department of them being held the car accountable for such actions. This still holds true for the latest version like I said again made a public. Prelate yesterday evening. Yes foyer can be webernized in a way. But from what I have seen in my time when it is an eye just. People unwilling to follow it it usually is the truth is simply that some government officers aren't properly trained a quipped or well start enough to handle the case load again weakening our democracy is not a solution to these problems. The party platter I won't reiterate the republican arkansas super majority's platform that i'll just end with I and those who spoke before me many minimals spoke for me our hair exercising an hour rate of practice. A form of direct democracy. And speaking to our right to hold you all our elected officials accountable. Please listen to the people you serve and vote against this and any bill that weekends our freedom of information. Thank you. Your testimony is requestions. Seeing none we appreciate the public and testimony today and indulgence. In our efforts to to make this uh. Legislation. Uh something that's more balance to our candidates and and update the situation that we have been put forward and and then that we have been called to I think everyone for their testimony and we are.