House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee Part 2
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Speaker 3
0:00
And we need Sherry with us. Danny, that's moving really
Speaker 5
0:17
fast. Okay, we're back to start. That's start? Yeah, no, I think he's just doing a PowerPoint.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
0:23
Okay, since he's just doing a PowerPoint, Representative Wilkins and I, we're moving ahead. Let's go. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. if it pleases the chair I'd like to discuss my bill briefly then talk about
term limits in general and then go through my PowerPoint okay thank you
One Of
Unverified
0:41
okay my bill is 1002 HJR 1002 if you'll look on the second page basically what what it does is it changes the house from serving no more than three two-year terms and the Senate from serving no more than two four-year terms to it to
every member of the General Assembly shall serve no more line seven eight than 14 years and if the this will this applies to the Senate line 9 and 10 if they complete their 14 year term and the in the middle of a term then they will continue to serve out the rest of that term
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
1:37
notice the bottom paragraph 21
through 23 says none of this applies to anybody that's presently serving in the General Assembly
One Of
Unverified
1:48
Oklahoma has 12 years in either house or a cumulative total of 12 years this past weekend I spent some time with several Oklahoma legislators and what they have is is like for instance the speaker pro tem no the Senate pro tem the Senate
pro tem has served two years in the house he served ten years in the Senate and so he's in the middle of a four-year term but he's having to quit in the middle of that four-year term so they'll have to have a special election to replace him and so I don't I don't think we really want to go there but everybody knows that Arkansas has the most restrictive term limits in the United States and six years I've we've brought this to the ballot two times and
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
2:40
we've discussed this at length I've gone to a lot of different rotary clubs and and exchange clubs and spoke on term limits and this is not me but but
One Of
Unverified
2:52
I've heard this said many times that the first two year terms in the house you find in the bathrooms the second two-year terms you're marginally effective in the last two year of your of your third term
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
3:05
you're basically a lame duck and you get not a lot done
One Of
Unverified
3:11
don't throw anything at me when I was
elected I was number 58 in the in my class in other words there were 58 people elected in 1999 in in my class and turnover of that size cannot be good cannot be productive in any legislature this
One Of
Unverified
3:41
in the house at least a minimum of 33 and more like over 40
every two-year cycle and so you know we're losing a tremendous amount of talent and we're going through the population pretty fast as far as people that really want to run you know we've had a
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
4:01
lot of uncontested races lately and I really think that the people are not being served the current limits are far too short for newly elected members to accomplish their goals or are basically any goals it's really hard to accomplish anything in six years we've
One Of
Unverified
4:18
had a lot of people I'll show you in a few minutes these slides but we've had a lot of people come in and they'll see that the term limits they'll see what all is involved almost everybody that that's elected has come to me and said you know six years is just too short they were that you know I'm a Republican Republicans have always historically been for term limits okay but almost everybody that I know that's been elected in the house has come to me and said you know we cannot get anything done you know term limits are just too
short you know six years you just can't accomplish a whole lot we're losing a lot of experience a lot of leadership a lot of knowledge and a lot of institutional memory you know it's really hard to develop any leadership any any memory institutional memory the knowledge is gone for instance Mike Beebe he was in the Senate for 20 years before he worked up to number one in seniority you know the seniority is just something that's it's hard to develop
if you draw a bad number you know you're just out of luck you just don't get a lot done you're you're limited on your committees you're limited on your voting you're limited on you know a lot of the things that that really matter when we go when a lot of people will serve two years or four years in the house and then go to the Senate when we do we switch from one house to the next then
we lose all that all our seniority we lose all of our committees and we have to basically start all over again you know I'm a prime example because I've gone twice I've lost my seniority and my committees twice to start all over from scratch the lifetime limits is totally unnecessary no one should be restricted from public service forever and like for instance I tell people when I'm talking
about term limits when I'm fully term limited out next year nobody I mean I am the only person that cannot fill this seat except for a convicted felon me and convicted felon are the only people that cannot serve in the legislature again and so you know I'm compared to a convicted felon the current limits do not achieve an equitable balance between the time allowed and enough time to efficiently serve the public interest I've carried bills for 12 years I've
been here about 14 years now I guess but I've carried bills for for 12 and 14 years and you know finally some of them are
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
7:15
getting passed but but it's really hard to get anything accomplished the insufficient times to develop the contacts and the knowledge base to be effective legislature or some of the biggest problems the bureaucrats often have more knowledge they're more connected than the lawmakers you know problem is the bureaucrats are
One Of
Unverified
7:33
running the place now they they basically tell us you know this is what you can do this
is what you can't do you know we need to be telling them what what to do and we need to tell it you know they need to be working for us rather than us working for them in the past before 1997 or 1999 whenever the term limits kicked in the legislature saw many governors come and go and now the governor sees many legislators come and go and so that the power has shifted from the legislature
to the governor presently the governor controls basically everything he's the CEO the chief executive officer of the state you know as we've discussed he controls the budget process he controls just about everything that happens in the legislature incumbency is always a big problem because I always I always think you can argue with me if you want to and anybody anytime you want to jump in and argue that's fine but incumbency is always good for 10 to 12 points some
of you have beaten incumbents and and you know it's it's really hard to beat an incumbent you've got to go negative you got to spend a lot of money you got to work really hard to be an incumbent that's why originally that we started term limits however we've gone too far term limits are way too short as I mentioned before seniority back in the past BG Hendricks is a friend of mine and he said he was in the legislature for 12 years before he ever got enough
seniority to get on a budget he was here for 24 years but you know seniority is one factor the incumbency is another factor there's many factors involved in this but I think that you know I've been here 14 years I'm fed up I'm ready to go home and I think 14 years is a good number to go with Okay, we have these numbers on your desk.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
9:54
If you'll... No, these are the printed out numbers. Okay, this is not what I was asking for, Rebecca. Rebecca, stand up. Okay, this is Rebecca Horton.
One Of
Unverified
10:11
Her grandfather served in the house many years ago in the 90s, and she's the one that came up with this PowerPoint presentation if any of you all ever need a PowerPoint presentation for something like this well she can help you with it okay looking at the numbers on your on your desk if you if
you add it all up there are 20 members that have spent over 14 years and you'll see my name is one of them and then that's that was between the years of 03 and 12 or 13 which is the last 10 years between okay the okay the people that started serving before the enactment of term limits there are eight that served
over 14 years and these people serve like like Jerry Bookout served 37 Tim Woldridge 16 Jay Bradford 22 buddy Blair 18 Jody Mahoney 34 Irma Hunter Brown 24 John Paul Cavs 44 Bobby Glover 28 so you can see a lot it was possible to spend a lot of time in the legislature and and the good thing about term limits is the bad guys are gone but the bad thing about term limits is the good guys are gone you know many of these well almost everybody I've read with great
legislators they did a great job and to send them home you know it's not helping anybody especially it's
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
11:42
not helping the state of Arkansas so then in from 1997 to 2001 there are 38 you know this is when term limits kicked in 1997 there are 38
One Of
Unverified
11:52
people that serve over 14 years so if we if we cut term limits back to 14 years we'll be cutting back you know a lot of the people that that have served many years and let's see I've got a one of my last slides here shows you
the number of people that will that will be spending more than 14 years okay we all know the basics of the term limits I don't need to go over this do I I'm sure okay okay we've had about 29 members that have basically served two years and then quit you know I don't you know I don't know why they quit some of them I know several of them that just served two
years and then quit but they see the the mind-boggling the job that needs to be done you know the challenges they see the short time amount short amount of time that can that it has to be done in in six years and they just say no I'm not interested this is not for me I'm quitting I'm going home so we've had at least 29 members that served two years and then either quit or got beat for
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
13:18
76 people have served four years this is just in the last 15 years 76 people have served four years and then quit 42 of them are still serving so that's 34 people 34 people served four years and then quit the last 10 years
One Of
Unverified
13:42
15 years and 198 people have served six years and so
there's how many is that 171 171 people served six years and then went home these people are with eight years
Speaker 10
14:01
of service 10 years service okay I'm just going through
Speaker 15
14:18
these I think John Paul Capps, I served with almost all these people.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
14:24
And John Paul Capps served 44 years, I think, wasn't it? He's a great man. Good friend. Okay, now we get
Speaker 10
14:33
to current members. Okay, you can't read that very well, but, okay. There'll be an eye test later.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
14:57
Okay, this page, these are the people, if they serve their full term, if they're not defeated, if they continue to run, there's how many people are there? How many? Yeah, Senate members, that if they serve their full term, I can count.
There's over 20. Okay, there's over 20 that are presently serving that will serve 14 or more years. I think Lamoureux will serve 21 years. if he continues to run and continues to be elected so
One Of
Unverified
15:48
this won't affect him because he's presently serving but this would my bill would keep this from happening in the future in the future you could serve 14 years in either house
or you could serve a cumulative total of 14 years if you serve two years or four years in the house and then went to the Senate you could serve the rest of your time there if you were elected to the Senate decided you didn't like it down there and wanted to come to the house I wanted to sit out and then come back to the house the total of cumulative of 14 years I had a friend in the Oklahoma City area and he was in the house for like six years and then his Senate seat
came open and so you know he was you know he was in a quandary of whether to Run for the Senate or not, but being six years in the house He had already had quite a bit of seniority. He already had his committees. He already had his committee work done and He knew Everybody that he was working with so he just decided to stay in the
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
16:54
house For the first last six years rather than try to switch over to the Senate as I stated
One Of
Unverified
17:01
before the President pro tem of the Oklahoma Senate he served two years in the house
then he went to the Senate and he will in his term next year in the middle of a term and so they'll have to have a special election in that well I know it'll be a I won't guess they'll have to a special election but anyway they'll have to have an election to fill his seat and then they will serve out the rest
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
17:23
of a two-year term instead of drawing for a two or a four so with that I'd be glad to take questions committee members do I see any questions
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
17:40
representative Wilkins representative Alta speaking as a third-termer who is a lame duck
and really has no desire at all to come back but I do recognize the fact that we are suffering particularly in the house for lack of experience and When I first got here, we had members who had served for a while and were much better informed than a lot of us are now.
And we seem to be making ourselves weaker and weaker as time goes on. And that's absolutely no reflection on any new member, because we've got some great new members, I think. but I do think the lack of experience is costing the state of Arkansas a great deal of money. And, again, maybe we're not doing the things we should be doing,
and we don't have the time to work on a big project. If you've got something in mind that you know needs to be done, you cannot complete it a lot of times in six years. So in a lot of ways I agree with you, even though I am a lame duck, a third-timer who has no desire to come back, I think that door should be left open for legislators who do. Thank you.
Speaker 36
19:16
Yeah, I think so too. There's a question in there somewhere. I recognize there's a question in there. any
Speaker 38
19:25
other comments from what I would you put there you go any other questions
Speaker 5
19:31
from committee members okay thank you representative
Speaker 39
19:36
Alta's representative Saban thank you madam chair
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
19:45
members of the committee I'm here to present there's
Speaker 42
19:51
an amendment hang on just a second there's an amendment folks tell
Speaker 2
19:55
me the number it's amendment number one to HJR 1009 house joint
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
19:59
resolution 10 I'm not give the members a minute to bring it up you're recognized
thank you madam chair members of the committee I thought with
your permission I would begin by just simply going through the general outlines of the amendment and then kind of give you some background of how this all came together because it's a bit of a gumbo but hopefully it will be appetizing to most of you basically the there are five elements to this amendment the first one has to do with banning corporate contributions to political campaigns the second one has to do with banning any gifts to legislators from
lobbyists accepting items of food and drink in public group events. The third provision would extend the current cooling off period from being a legislator toward becoming a lobbyist from one year to two years. The fourth provision would create a citizen's commission that would take on the responsibility of setting the salaries for legislators as well as members of the executive and judicial branches of government, and I should say the executive members, constitutional officers,
and members of the Supreme Court. And then the fifth provision would extend the current term limits to a cumulative total of 16 years, which can be spent either in one house or split between both houses of the legislative branch. And to give you that background to to kind of make you understand how this gumbo came together. As many of you know, the Regnet Populous Ballot Initiative, which was attempted to get on the ballot in 2012,
and which has already been certified for the ballot in 2014 and for which signatures are currently being gathered, that initiative contains the first three provisions I described to you, but is even more restrictive that not only does it ban corporate contributions and not only does it extend that cooling off period from one to two years, but that ban on gifts from lobbyists is absolute, which means that not even a cup of coffee, not even a celery stick could be accepted by one of
us from a lobbyist. And in approaching the reality of that, and actually there's a representative from Regna populace here with us today. That initiative when it was polled by the University of Arkansas had a 70% approval rating. Also, you know, they failed to get the signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2012, but they've already started now, and they're very well organized, and I think there's probably no doubt that that initiative will be on the
in 2014, unless we refer this amendment out from the legislature, because we do have an agreement with regnant populace that they not only accept our revision of their proposal to make our lives a little bit more easy and more practical in terms of the food and drink provision, but also it takes into account the term limit extension and the Citizens Commission for salaries, which, by the way, was the idea of Senator John Woods, my my counterpart in sponsoring and bringing you this amendment. So good timing there.
But I think the regnant populace recognizes that in order for us to promote good ethics in government, we also have to promote some more efficiency in other good government measures. And I think Representative Altus did a very good job of explaining why the term limit extension is important so that we can get a little bit more balance among the three branches of government, that legislators can gain that experience that makes us more effective, and our constituents can take advantage of that experience and that representation.
And then the Citizens Commission on Setting Salaries was a brilliant idea, really, from Senator Woods, and I know he took that from eight other states in the union, but the idea that we set our own salaries obviously makes it very difficult, not only for us to raise them, but for us to ensure that the salaries reflect sort of modern living standards. And the fact that we could separate ourselves from that process, put it in the hands of an independent commission, allow them to set not only our salaries, but those of the constitutional
officers and of the Supreme Court, I think ensures fairness and ensures accountability and transparency. And again, it would make the quality of government, especially in the legislative branch, that much better, because we're going to attract more talent, we're going to make the life a little bit more easy, and especially when we're trading off some of the, I think what some members regard as those few perks of being in office, which may involve eating some inexpensive chicken they serve up over across the street, you know, giving up that
kind of stuff, I think, you know, has to be compensated for in some way, unless we want to make serving an elective office so grueling, so difficult, that nobody would want to do it. And so that was basically the background in a nutshell. And, you know, I want to reiterate the fact that, you know, I think that we've worked well with the members of Regnant Populous to come up with something that doesn't please everybody, certainly, but it contains something
that makes various parties happy and overall represents something that is an improvement, I think, for the state of our government and the effectiveness of our government. And certainly, if we choose not to refer this amendment, then we can bank on Regna Popula's bringing their initiative to the ballot in 2014, and we can live with the consequences of that instead. And with that, I'd be glad to take any questions, Madam Chair.
Speaker 5
26:30
Okay. I've got three, but I'm going to give myself the
Speaker 2
26:35
opportunity to ask a question first. Banning all corporate contributions whatsoever. That's correct. I want to make
Speaker 39
26:44
sure I've got all five. Banning gifts from lobbyists with
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
26:49
the exception of meals. With the exception of food and drink
available in group events and anything that's readily available to the public.
otherwise. So if we were to take something that was being handed out by a lobbyist to everybody in the public, not just legislators, that would be acceptable under this
Speaker 5
27:12
provision. Changing the cooling off period to two years. I'll just make sure I took notes correctly.
Speaker 39
27:17
And setting up a citizen's commission that would determine salaries not just for legislators but also constitutional offices. That's correct. And then a 16-year term limit, and was that a combined term limit?
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
27:31
That's correct. 16 years total, wherever? You could spend it all in the House, all in the Senate, or
Speaker 39
27:37
split any way you want between the two. I was trying to
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
27:44
take notes. Okay. Thank you. Representative Wilkins, you're leaning forward. Well, I think I have a question for the committee, are you all getting gifts that I don't know about? I haven't seen that to be a problem. I don't know the purpose of that, because I don't recall gifts from lobbyists.
Is there a limit on that now? I
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
28:08
think it's a $40 limit. Well, actually, it's $40 for meals and $100, I think, for non-food or drink-related items, I
Speaker 39
28:17
think. And I think we're talking even about those gold pins we wear. Those gold pins that we're given, those are considered a gift. Yeah.
Speaker 61
28:28
Who gives them to us? I don't know. Electric co-ops.
Speaker 60
28:35
Anyway, yeah. And I don't know the value
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
28:38
of them. Of course, the ladies get a gold pin, and we get a red one. It's curious because I could not, and that's a good point, but I could not remember
Speaker 5
28:57
you. Okay. Representative Altus. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
29:07
Warwick, you said all food would be banned except in groups. How big of a group are we talking about? Well, that's a good question. And that's
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
29:14
something Senator Woods and I, along with the Regna Populist people, kind of went, kind of been
around and around. Because it's hard to specify, and we imagine that that provision will probably be pushed to its limit, however anybody decides to do it. But, you know, what we were trying to accomplish there, just so you can better understand, is, you know, during session, for instance, when we're invited to policy briefings and other group events over in the Capitol Hill building or otherwise,
We didn't want to ban those, and we tried to make it clear to our friends at Regna Populous that those things weren't really meant to influence our votes per se, and that it was not a quid pro quo, that the food we were eating was not the way they were trying to persuade us. They were trying to persuade us with facts and information and taking advantage of the fact that lunch is one of the very few moments when we can actually do something like that. I think they understand that, and as long as it's a public group event, And, you know, we know that members of the staff here in the Capitol go over there and they eat and they take food back.
So it's clearly not meant, again, as a quid pro quo, that the food and drink you consume is somehow buying your vote. And we try to be persuasive also with regard to caucus meetings and other, again, public group events. And I imagine that, again, that provision could be, you know, pushed to its limit, challenged in court eventually. But the idea was to make it expansive enough that legitimate reasons for us to gather in fellowship to eat and drink and learn
and not be bought, per se, which should be allowable. And that's what we were trying to do with that. So will that be clarified? Well, we can certainly attempt to clarify. We clarified it to our best efforts, along with our friend Matthew Miller from the Bureau of Legislative Research. And I'm not sure how specific we can get, but I certainly welcome the input from not only this committee, but from members of the public who might be able to refine that better than I personally can.
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
31:14
But you said that you figured that it would be stretched to the limits, so whatever number you come up with, so you think you will come up
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
31:24
with a number? I'll tell you what, I've decided personally that maybe leaving it without a number was a better idea. But, you know, again, I don't necessarily think I know everything. So it's just hard to kind of define a group, I think. I mean, it could be if it's two or more, it could be four or more. But I certainly would do anything that would satisfy members of the committee.
Speaker 20
31:51
The pastor just said where two or more are gathered together. I believe I heard you say that, Pastor Rich. I've
Speaker 2
31:57
heard that somewhere before. You know, really quickly, a little bit of housekeeping here is we do need to adopt the amendment as
Speaker 39
32:03
a committee. We're not going to vote on it, but we do need to adopt it so it goes into the shell bill, just for the record. Motion to adopt the amendment. Whoops. I'm getting a – yeah, it's on your – it's on there.
What are you holding up, Representative Altus? the amendment okay yes it just puts it into the bill and and then like I said we're not voting on the bills but this gives them an opportunity so representative Hickerson moved to adopt the amendment all those in
Speaker 70
32:45
favor I all those opposed name okay the amendments in there
One Of
Unverified
32:51
now all right I'm sorry hit okay on
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
32:54
the the salaries the citizens Commission will review the salaries and or decide
to cut them or raise them or whatever and you know I've heard this before and I don't see how that would work you know I mean how are you going to
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
33:18
get a the Commission agree on
anything? I mean, the amendment basically creates the Citizens Commission and gives them the authority to set those salaries and sort of authorizes them to get together right away, basically,
after this amendment, assuming it's adopted at the ballot in November of 2014. They would meet pretty much immediately and within a couple of months set those salaries and would they also be
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
33:43
considering the per diem the mileage and we left that out expenses and only left that out of the amendment we
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
33:51
left per diem and office expenses out of the image so
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
33:57
only although we'll consider it's basically our $14,000 salary that's correct okay and then so we will continue to get the
Speaker 14
34:03
the per diem, mileage, office expense, and all
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
34:08
that other stuff. I think that's a House rules issue. So we're not dealing with that in the amendment. Because currently right now, just in the Arkansas Constitution, our salaries are actually listed in the Constitution. We're, I think, the only state in the nation where our salaries, the actual dollar amount, is in the Constitution, which obviously makes it very difficult for them to be changed. I mean, they're adjusted for that cost of living or inflation, but in general, this would actually, you'll see in the amendment itself in front of you,
it strikes all of that language out and replaces it with the Citizens Commission, which obviously provides quite a bit more flexibility. And again, we're not setting our own salaries anymore. We're not having to vote on them. We're not having to get in the middle of it. It becomes something solely in
the hands of the Citizens Commission. okay representative bill thank you
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
35:06
madam chair representative Saban I know you and Senator Woods put a lot of work into this and I've appreciated your taking my
input as someone who pretty strongly opposed the reg not initiative when it was originally brought up primarily because of what I considered gotcha clauses in it I appreciate the work you've done to deal with what happens if we accidentally pick up a donut at the wrong event so we don't go to jail I certainly had grave concerns about that I think all of us at some point would have been in jail if it had that passed so very appreciative of that I do have a couple of things and I've expressed concerns I've expressed to you that I
just kind of want to make sure everybody's aware of how it how is the amendment treating contributions by unions and other other similar groups does it address that also the concern that I know we've been discussing a lot over the last couple of days with regard to corporate contributions to political parties and you know my concern here is that if we continue to allow corporate contributions to political parties while banning them to candidates while I
believe that banning either one is a bad idea because it drives the money further underground and makes it even less trackable the money will still move but It'll move via PACs and other areas. So while I personally oppose it, if we're going to ban it to candidates, I believe we should ban it to parties as well. Otherwise, you wind up with parties being able to control vast amounts of money that they then dole out only to those candidates that tow the party line. And as somewhat of a maverick myself, clearly, I certainly wouldn't be for that. Okay.
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
36:47
Well, I'll address both of your questions and then kind of make a third point about this section in general. But the section you're talking about is on pages one and two. And if we need Matthew Miller to chime in on this, I'll ask him to do so. But my understanding of the way the language is written for the purposes of the Arkansas Constitution is that instead of banning particular types of contributions, it actually states in the affirmative what kind of contributions we can receive. And by not mentioning corporations or unions, in effect,
it prohibits those kinds of contributions. The only kinds of contributions we can accept under this amendment are listed there, you'll see, on pages one and two. Your second question about parties I think is well taken, and if it's all right with you, I can kind of reveal to the committee that you made that point to both Senator Woods and I, and we worked on it. And at the last minute today, we kind of learned about some constitutional issues that may impact whether or not we could put something like that in this amendment
because of germane relevancy, all that kind of stuff. So we're going to continue to try to address your concerns and work on that, and I'll certainly make all of that information available to you. The third point I wanted to make is I know that the ban on corporate contributions is quite controversial. It was a non-negotiable with our friends at Regna Populis, and so obviously we're kind of sticking with it and would be in their version if we don't refer this. And the other thing we did do was put a severability clause in this constitutional amendment. Therefore, if as many people expect might happen that the ban on corporate contributions is challenged in a court
and it's thought to be unconstitutional, then it'll disappear and won't be part of this. But it's
the best we could do in this kind of compromise gumbo that we started out
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
38:40
talking about. Again, I appreciate the work that you guys have done on this, and I appreciate you clarifying that for the committee. you guys have been very forthcoming in the discussions I've had with you and I really appreciate the opportunity to move forward with some good ethics reform that eliminates the gotchas because we certainly don't want to be trying to
forget pick up the wrong piece of candy at the wrong time so that was
Speaker 83
39:11
the intention thank you very much representative Ritchie thank you madam chair a couple of questions first is I mean I don't see anything else on our side on the House side amendment wise that would address the regnant populace ethics issues is there anything on the Senate side where they may be addressing those just out
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
39:28
of curiosity sure yep and Senator Woods may be able to speak to this I hear tell of an ethics amendment that was it Senator Williams who brought
that okay so we don't really know the substance of that and we don't probably I mean I'll say one other thing and if you want to come up here you go we're We're the only ones, I guess, working with Regnet, and so, in effect, and I don't want to speak for you. This is David Couch. He's an attorney here in Little Rock who's part of that committee. You know, there's the quid pro quo that exists that's basically between us and them, and it's that, you know, if we refer this amendment out, they're going to drop their initiative. They're going to stop trying to gather signatures, and they're going to leave it alone.
If we don't refer it, they're going to continue with their efforts. It'll be on
the ballot in 2014. So I don't know if you're working with Senator Williams or not,
Speaker 83
40:19
but that's sort of the issue there. Well, my second question would be on the term limit end. I didn't see anything in there about people who are currently serving. I mean, I think if you put it on people who are currently serving, you just perpetuate the problem that we already have. But, I mean, did I miss that, or is it – You're
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
40:38
asking if the people who are currently serving could take advantage of the 16 years.
Speaker 83
40:42
Right. I mean, I can't – I mean, at this point, there's no way
Speaker 42
40:50
you know, there might be others who do. I don't know.
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
40:55
It might get better. It might get better for you. Matthew, could you actually help me
with that? Because I don't know if there's anything that – is there anything that prohibits current members
Speaker 86
41:07
from taking advantage of this? Is it – I do have it here, and I have the space right here. Yeah,
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
41:13
I don't think it prohibits current members from taking advantage of this because there's nothing.
If you look at page six, section five is the provision. It's the shortest provision of the five that we have, and basically it enumerates the extension, but it doesn't ban anybody in particular. In fact, I'm not certain, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but that members who served previously couldn't come back and serve again. That was my second question about the guys who termed it before. Sure. I mean, it wasn't an issue we were very focused on, I guess. It wasn't the intention, but, yeah.
Speaker 1
41:51
So, Matthew, I want to follow up on that. So your understanding of the way
Speaker 39
41:57
it's written is anyone who has served less than 16 years, regardless of whether it's current, past, they can come back and complete and fill out to 16 years. Is that what you're asking? I mean, someone like Representative Wilkins, I mean, we're going out, and so we would have to sit out two years before we came back. Is that kind of the direction you're going?
Speaker 5
42:26
ballot until November. Because we won't know if it's passed at the ballot. Okay. I'm sorry, but Representative Wilkins, you had a question. I I read your mind that's pretty neat okay representative Richie I know it's very scary we've been together a while though in the same committee representative Richie was that it that's all you had representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
42:50
Hickerson you're recognized thank you madam chair my questions are on the on the Commission make a kind of person on this Commission hold two appointed positions
can they be commissioner here and commissioner on another or is that addressed somewhere else in the law that's not in this bill that already addressed somewhere it's okay for them to
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
43:19
hold yeah it be one so when I'm page 4 section C
item 3 it states the following person shall not serve on the citizens commission I don't see any prohibition of somebody serving on another commission it does say a person holding civil office or a public
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
43:37
employee or a lobbyist I think I would like to see that in there I
mean I don't I don't know how important that would be but and the definition of a public employee is that school teachers is it state employees I mean how do you define public employee is that is there a statutory definition of public
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
43:59
employee somewhere else maybe we need to define
that further we can define them yeah I mean thank you
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
44:13
you could go as what about employee
of a political party I mean is that a public that's not really going a little bit too far but anyway I appreciate your efforts and I appreciate that the fact that you all have worked with regnant populace and I remember when they term limits came in through an initiated act and I can remember being here and it's not a legislator but I can remember observing that session when they debated term limits and those legislators did
not adopt or choose to send out to the voters as one of their referred acts to put that to the voters so a group of citizens did and it passed rather handily and it was not not as good a bill not as good a law as what would have been if the legislators had done it themselves so I appreciate it thank you very much did you hear
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
45:15
what he said everybody hear that he said that the
Commission would have the rules would have to be enacted by law and therefore
those rules that represent Pickerson's have talked about would be enacted that way is that right
Speaker 5
45:34
okay are there any other questions let me remind you still of the process that we're working through we're just kind of having hearings on these right now the final vote won't take place for a while representative Hobbs asked me about that and I'm meeting with experienced staff
to find out exactly what the gentleman's agreement is and how that is going to work moving forward so that's why we're not taking votes on these right now but any other questions you have and there will be another opportunity for them to sit at the end of the table and present when we when we hone it down to the few that we're going to be voting on also shell bills I just want to remind everyone shell bills need to either be filled in or they're going to deferred list so any other questions for representative Saban if not check your
email if if I get a run on people that want to present on Monday we might do this Monday afternoon Monday so I promise to be a little bit slower not as tiring so check your emails thank you motion to adjourn
Agenda
HJR1009
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
One Of
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 15
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Speaker 39
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 2
Speaker 61
Speaker 60
Speaker 64
Speaker 20
Speaker 70
Speaker 14
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 85
Speaker 86
Speaker 1
Speaker 62
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified