House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1470
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1470”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1447
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1447”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1282
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1282”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1354
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1354”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1408
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1408”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1417
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…and present your bill as amended? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1417, including Representative Shepard, I also want to thank Rep…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1525
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1525”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1684
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…e work together, but brought some concerns. And we approved House Bill 1684 yesterday, which was defining fictive kin,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB171
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB171”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB654
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB654”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:00
Let me first of all say thank you for allowing me to have this special order to present to you House Bill 1470. I have with me today Judge Robin Carroll, who I'll recognize if it's appropriate in a minute to talk about a pre-adjudication program that he's run previously. Members, the first thing I'd like to do is I have an amendment to 1470 that's just being populated on your tablets.
This is a very important amendment, and it ensures passage of this bill, I believe. It adds Representative Matthew Shepard as a co-sponsor, and I'd appreciate a good vote. I have a motion to adopt that amendment. Got a
motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Ayes have it. Congratulations. Amendment's been adopted. Do
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:55
you recognize and present your bill as amended? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1417, including Representative Shepard, I also want to thank Representative Bain,
who, in his absence, for being a co-sponsor on this bill. House Bill 1470 shares many of the same policy objectives as Act 570 that we passed in this last regular session. And you know my affection that I have for Act 570. So you might realize I'm a big supporter of this bill. House Bill 1470, the policy objectives really are simple, very much aligned with Act 570. The most important thing we're trying to do here is to protect public safety.
That's the most important thing that we're doing with this legislation. It's also to hold offenders accountable by implementing smart sentencing that really will work to reduce recidivism, to reduce the revolving door to our prisons and our jails. This bill also provides additional tools for courts and judges to use to help reduce recidivism. And it also helps to try to alleviate the burden on taxpayers by having to spend money on building jails and maintaining jails.
If you're familiar with the drug courts, which have been very popular in Arkansas, House Bill 1470, It's modeled almost exactly after the drug courts in that it's a pre-adjudication program. A couple of important things I'd like you to know about this legislation. One, it is permissive. It does not require any judge or any judicial district to establish a pre-adjudication program. It is simply permissive, allows them to do so if they would like to do so. It establishes a framework that's judicial district specific.
Certain areas of the state, we have problems with meth. certain areas we have problems with cocaine, certain areas we have problems with alcohol. This allows the judge and the judicial district really to curtail the program to meet their specific needs. Also, this bill requires the cooperation of both the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney for it to be implemented. Now, persons who are charged with an offense, before they can enter a pre-adjudication program, a couple of prohibitions. One, they cannot have committed a serious, very serious or violent felony.
Also, someone who has committed an offense that requires them to register, under the sex offended registry, is not allowed to participate in this program. Someone who's committed offense against a minor, someone under 17, is not allowed to participate in this program. Someone who's committed offense against a senior, someone 65 or older, is not allowed to participate in this program. This program shares, like Act 570, sanctions, which we call swift and certain sanctions, based on proven evidence-based principles which allow our judicial districts,
our probation officers, our judges to implement sanctions when they occur, much like in any disciplinary action. If the discipline takes place with a large gap between when the action or the problem occurs, it's not as good as really being swift and certain. It's not a good change in behavior. So this would allow the court staff to impose swift and certain sanctions if someone violates the program guidelines.
This program also, or this bill, does not require the expenditure of one additional dollar of state funds. This program, again, is permissive. If there are funds available, then other state agencies may obviously support the program, but does not require them to do so. Upon successful completion of a pre-adjudication program, often the offender, his record is expunged and allowing them to become productive citizens and continue on with their lives.
This program also requires a significant number of reporting so we can track the progress, track to see if there are any changes that are needed, and if it's okay with the chair. I'd like to introduce Judge Robin Carroll, who is a newly elected judge, but prior to being elected judge, he was the prosecuting attorney for the 13th Judicial District, and he and the folks in his judicial district implemented a smart sentencing program, basically a pre-adjudication program with a high degree of success.
I think when you hear his stats, things he's going to talk about, you know it's a successful program. This bill really is intended to make sure that what the judge and the folks, Well, the prosecuting attorney then now judged what he implemented, what he did on his own that's proven to be very successful and save the state's money, that it is lawful and legal to do it. There is an outside chance, not a big one, that he did that this program didn't have a statutory basis. This provides a statutory basis for not just his program but other programs, other judges and other judicial districts around the state that may want to model something like this.
So with the chair's permission, I'd like to introduce Judge Robin Carroll to
Speaker 10
5:57
talk about the program that he's run. Absolutely. Welcome, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Williams, for
Speaker 12
6:04
inviting me today. You do have a handout in front of you, and my very brief presentation will track that handout. First, this bill is modeled after two things. The existing drug court statute, which was passed about 20 years ago, And also our program in the 13th Judicial District, which we call Smarter Sentencing, but is a pre-adjudication probation program.
One of the concerns we had, first off, we wanted a legislative seal of approval on what we do in our Judicial District. And two, there was an Attorney General's opinion last year that made us concerned about our ability to be able to sanction defendants when they went into our Smarter Sentencing program. This is basically the same people we would have put on probation. These are not the people that we would have sent to the Department of Corrections
that we were placing into Smarter Sentencing. The very brief description of it is if someone enters Smarter Sentencing, they are assessed on the front end with a scientific-based test, which tells us how likely they are to commit another crime in the future and what it is in their background that makes them commit crimes. And so once we know that information, we specifically tailor the program to fit their needs, whether it's adult education, drug treatment, mental health issues, whatever it is.
We're trying to fix whatever it is in that person's background. When we started Smarter Sentencing, we were very mindful of the recidivism rate in our community. We define recidivism for purposes of our program as someone who has a prior conviction who commits a new crime, and we define it by an arrest. In the state, if you define it by that, and nationally, it's somewhere around 46 percent for people who are under supervision.
So about 46 percent, about half the people who are under some type of supervision, whether it be probation or parole, commit new crimes. In Union County, we went and looked back at the year of 2010, and we found that 57 percent of people who were arrested had a prior conviction. So that's something that we wanted to bring down with the use of this program. This is what we found after two years of Smarter Sentencing. In Union and Columbia counties, where it was implemented first with a grant,
and I'll talk about that more in a minute, we were placing an average of 223 people a year into either the Department of Corrections or the Community Corrections, into a correctional setting, and that was based on an average of fiscal year 08, 09, and 10. We started the program in 2011, and in that year we had 126 placements, and in fiscal year 12, 106. So we had a massive reduction in the placements of a correctional setting.
It cost the state $59 a day to house an inmate in a correctional setting. And so if you take that over the course of a year, 365 days, the decrease in the number of placements that we had, this program saved the state $4.6 million in the first two years of its implementation. Those are numbers that DCC would not disagree with, and they're numbers that the sentencing commission would not disagree with. I've had those conversations with Mr. Eberhard and Mrs. Maul.
Lincoln County is the 16th largest county in the state, and Columbia County is the 29th. So my point in bringing that up is, imagine if we were doing this in some of the more populous counties in the state, what those correctional savings might be. Some more interesting facts that we had is not only do we treat whatever drug problem that the person might have, 98 percent of the people test positive on their first drug test when they go into the program. We also try to give them whatever it is as far as adult education that we can, whether
it be a GED, wage certificate, whatever that might be. So of all of the people who entered the program in the first two years, 49 percent were employed upon entering the program and 76 percent were employed after six months of being in the program. So we had a 50 percent increase in the employment rate, a 23 percent increase in adult education for these folks. Now, you heard me talk about earlier that we had a 46% recidivism rate in the state
and a 57% rate in Union County. Through the first 18 months of implementation, we had a 2.7% recidivism rate among the participants of Smarter Sentencing. 89% of the people who entered the program have graduated. And the test that I spoke of in the beginning that tells us how likely the person is to reoffend and what it is in their background that makes them commit crimes. We took a test group, and we retested them after six months, and what we saw is a 43 percent
decrease in their test score, so they were 43 percent less likely to commit a new crime. We also went back and looked at the felony filings, which I believe is a truer statistic of the crime rate in a community, the number of felonies that are filed each year. And since 2006, Union County has seen a 35 percent decrease in the number of felonies that are filed by the prosecutor's office, and a 30 percent decrease in Columbia County
since 2006. And that includes, in the first year of implementation of Smarter Sentencing, a 46 percent decrease in Columbia County. The result is that people are committing less crimes, they are going back to their families, they're supporting their children, they're paying taxes, so we've taken people that would cost the state $60 a day and we're turning them into productive citizens. Now, I told you earlier that we had grant funds to implement this in Union and Columbia County, but in Ouachita County,
which is our true pilot program, we began last year, and we were interested to see if we could could have the same results with no grant funds and using DCC personnel only. So with no additional state funds and a complete DCC-operated program, what we saw is that we had a 3.1 percent recidivism rate, which is basically the same that we got using the grant-funded program. So this can work anywhere in the state without additional funds.
So it takes the community to be involved. It takes probably a good community college to provide the workforce training. But it can be done even in the rural areas of our state. So I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about this today. And I would certainly like to have legislative approval for what we do. And I think that would make other districts around the state more comfortable in implementing a program like this.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:38
Thank you. Members and Mr. Chairman, this ends our presentation. Happy to take questions. I think you can see from the results of what Judge Carroll told us that pre-adjudication programs, they do save money. They do work. They do prevent recidivism. They protect public safety. So we'd appreciate a good vote and be happy to try to answer any of
your questions. Committee, any questions from committee? I see none
and there's been nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative William, sorry, Representative Slinkert. Do you want to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
14:16
close your bill, Representative William? I just want to say thank you, committee, and I want to let you know that we've run this by several people, DCC, Prosecutor and Attorneys, AG's Office, all that have signed off on this bill, and I appreciate
a good vote. Committee, we've got a motion due passed by Representative Slinkert. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, you have several on our calendar if you're comfortable down there. Are you ready to present
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
14:47
those? If it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Vines and I have all those bills. It's code revision cleanup. We'd like to let them sit there for a little while to make sure there are no issues or concerns that may fester and that we can resolve if they do come up. So if you don't mind, we'll let them sit
there for a while. Okay, that's fine. Committee, if you don't mind, just an announcement real quick.
There is today going to be a legislative health screening for us all from 9 to noon. Just kind of make sure we're all running okay. And the group that is helping out with that is here today. I want to recognize them and say thank you to the College of Pharmacy from UAMS. We appreciate you all doing that for us. Thanks a lot. Representative Fite, are you ready?
Representative Fite, you're recognized. Present House Bill 1447. Just to remind you, it looks like you have an amendment. Thank
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
16:02
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Do you have before you my amendment? It should be on everybody's tablet.
You recognize. Present the amendment. Okay. House bill number
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
16:20
1447 is engrossed. On page 5, delete lines 22 through 26 and substitute the following, an unemancipated child does not have capacity to consent to any. And also on page 5, line 28, delete E that says
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
16:46
upon and substitute D upon.
All right. Any questions from the committee on the amendment? What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Scott, you got
a motion? Got a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. All opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. You're recognized to
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
17:33
present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to introduce my guest, Paul Bird, Byrd,
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
17:38
who is an attorney here in Little Rock, after I ran this last week and there were
several concerns mentioned, I consulted with Mr. Byrd and got his opinion on some things,
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
17:49
and so he's here today to help me. Mr. Byrd,
Speaker 34
18:01
you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman Wright. thing I was here for was
Speaker 36
18:06
last Friday when this bill was brought up before the committee. Representative Williams raised a very good legal issue, and after having reviewed his
comments and spoken with Representative Feit, I just advised them to take out the section as it's been amended, and in my opinion, it's a good bill from there. that provision out the problems that were raised last time are gone any questions from
committee it looks like we have somebody signed to speak against the bill Jeff Rosen swag yep okay it doesn't look like we have anybody else
signed up to speak for or against the bill see no further questions for committee do you want
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
18:55
to close for your bill represented fight yes also I had It engrossed a little section about the HIPAA bill. Representative
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
19:01
Williams had some problems with that not being clearly spelled out. So that is now engrossed in the
bill. All right. Representative Broadway, did
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
19:16
you have a question? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I'm sorry.
I'm a bit confused. Are we still discussing the
amendment or have we moved on to the body of the bill? We've moved on to the body of the bill. Yes, I have a question. Okay, Representative Broadway, you recognize for a question. Thank you so much. Representative Fite, again, I think that this bill is very well-intentioned with what you're wanting to accomplish. However, something that we did actually on the House floor yesterday, I'm not sure how these work together, but brought some concerns. And we approved House Bill 1684 yesterday, which was defining fictive kin,
which was used as a placement for juveniles in the juvenile code. And I think basically it acknowledges that there are many children in the state of Arkansas that are not living with their parents or living with court-approved guardians. They're living with friends. They're living with relatives who have not gone through the process to have guardianships established. And your bill would actually cause any of those individuals who stand as my old-fashioned term would be in loco parentis,
who may be raising these children, it would affect these individuals and cause them to be found to be registered under the Child Maltreatment Act. And I have a bit of concern about how we deal with these individuals. I don't know if we exempt individuals who have been defined as fictive kin in juvenile court orders, but I do have some concerns about pulling people in for liability under this act
that are other than a parent or a court-appointed guardian, which to me is what this bill addresses. Well, we added the provision that this in no way
does away with judicial bypass. So I think if the issue is concerning enough that a judicial bypass is needed, that it could address those concerns. Would you wish to add anything to that? No, I think that's exactly
Speaker 34
21:27
the remedy, is that they have the right to go to the judicial bypass.
Speaker 36
21:34
So you're right, that would be a problem. a problem, but for that, it's not restricting anybody. The problem is, without having a bill like this, in my law practice, the times of sex abuse that have come to light and been brought to the attention have been from the Mandatory Reporting Act. Had it not been for the Mandatory Reporting Act, it would have never come to light, and families would have lived in secret with this going on.
So there has to be some type of remedy. I mean, when a 13-year-old child is having an abortion, something's gone wrong. So I think it's not so much of doing away with this bill, but educating those people that they can go do the judicial bypass and there's a remedy. That would be the proper way for them to take a child in that's 13 or under for an abortion.
Thank you. Representative Walker, you recognize your question? Yes. Let me understand this.
There is a section 7A, and it deals with the
concept of abetting. And abetting is not defined
here. Does abetting include having conversation with a person? You're going to have to
Speaker 36
23:05
direct me to the exact line you're looking at. I'm sorry, Representative Walker.
Just a moment. It's Section 7, parentheses, 7, parentheses, parentheses, A, parentheses. And it reads, it's parentheses, 7, parentheses, parentheses, capital A, parentheses. There are documented cases of individuals other than a parent or guardian aiding, abetting, and assisting man or girls to procure abortions without their parents or guardians' knowledge, consent, or involvement.
Does the term abetting have definition? Well,
Speaker 34
23:56
in the particular section I believe you're looking at, the bill says to the codifiers, do not codify this section. This is just showing a legislative purpose for why we need this legislation. But I think the particular language you're describing would not be codified. Well, I don't know what would and would not be codified.
Is there some way you can help tell me what in this act is going to be codified and what is not?
Speaker 34
24:26
Everything in Section 1 just states do not codify. It's just findings and purposes for why we need the legislation.
Well, now here's my concern. You have two 15-year-old girls, each of whom may be pregnant. And they are talking about discussing their options. And they discuss the option
of abortion. Under this bill, wouldn't each of them be guilty of abetting the other?
Speaker 34
24:56
Well, first of all, the bill goes towards younger than 15.
Well, let's say they're 14. Let's
Speaker 71
25:02
say they're 13. Let's say they're 13. Okay, there's 13 and two
Speaker 34
25:07
of them talk. I don't know, you'd have to ask some of the prosecutors. I mean, at some
point there's prosecutorial discretion. I mean, I can't imagine why they
would go after him. Well, the problem with prosecutorial discretion is that it's often arbitrary and capricious. And my concern is the apparent effort of
the bill to absolutely prohibit children from getting intelligent information about what is happening to their bodies
and how they may relate to that both physiologically and emotionally as well as in
a possible preventive way with respect to things like rape and incest. Could you tell
me how that would be? I'm sorry, Ms. Feit, if you could. Representative Walker, you have
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
26:02
misunderstood the intent of the bill. This bill would in no way prohibit anyone from getting information about her body.
This bill does two things. This bill says that any worker in a reproductive health care facility must be a mandated reporter. That has been an oversight in the law. We know that teachers, doctors, nurses, coaches, many other people are mandated reporters. If I had my way, I would make everyone a mandated reporter. However, this law is just adding to the list of mandated reporters any worker, volunteer or paid, in a reproductive health care facility.
The second thing that this bill does is if a girl younger than 14 years old is having an abortion, some tissue will be preserved so that if there is a case brought of incest or rape, which we know is very likely to be the case in a girl that young, we will have some DNA evidence that we can use in a civil action. It in no way prohibits anyone from getting an abortion. It in no way prohibits anyone from getting needed information.
May I follow up, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Chairman?
Sure. All right. In terms of requiring people to be mandated reporters, can you tell me, I'm a little ignorant on this, Are all the people who are required
to be mandated reporters maintained on some kind of list somewhere identified as mandated reporters? My
Speaker 34
27:46
experience with this Mandatory Reporting Act usually came when a child and a family went to some kind of social worker,
and the social worker had a duty under the law, and it's spelled out under the act. Well, I understand
that, but my question is different. My question is, is there a list? Does DHS have a list
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
28:10
of people who are mandated reporters? We do have a
list, and I can make that available
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
28:16
to you. Now, do you also have training for mandated reporters? Yes, we do. Most agencies have that. I know in my own personal experience as a teacher and a worker in a school district, we have a session every year on mandated reporters and what our responsibility is as such.
And I would assume that most doctor's offices and other places that have mandated reporters also train their
own staff. Now, my last question, and I apologize, at least my last question at
this time, is this. What do you do in the situation where the finding of the General Assembly is not evidenced by action? And it says children are increasingly being seized upon, victimized, and coerced into illegal sexual relationships by adults.
There are some cases of which I have been aware over the years where children for one reason or
another, girls for one reason or another, have purposefully sought to become impregnated. And they've done so for various reasons, such as being able to leave home. getting into another environment, basically to occur a favor with certain male individuals.
All kinds of reasons are there. What do you
do about those people with respect to your finding? I mean, not all children are fit into this definition if they are pregnant of
having been victimized. MS. And no,
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
29:55
this bill is not saying that they are. This is saying that if a volunteer or a paid person sees signs of abuse or has reported to them abuse, they are mandated to report such.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
30:09
Representative Gillum, you're recognized now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just was
wondering if Mr. Walker might, for the rest of us, maybe could define capricious. I got
a little lost back there on one
of your questions, and I'm not sure what that means. Well, I think that if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, it's been... No, absolutely. It's usually used in conjunction with arbitrary, and that means that it has little related rationale, lacking justification, that's easily discernible.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
30:44
Okay, I appreciate it. I knew you had a reason for using
it, and I'm just trying to follow along. Well, it's frequently used in Arkansas law. Arbitrary and capricious are terms of
art that the courts use. Okay. Thank
you. Representative Scott, you're recognized for
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Veidt. I don't understand all of Mr. Walker's questioning, so I want to clarify this by saying,
is the intent of this bill to provide everyone who would be in that
situation with someone who possibly could help them get the heck out of
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
31:27
it? Absolutely. We have had anecdotal evidence of young girls coming into a facility, and
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
31:33
perhaps the first person they see is a volunteer. That volunteer might note bruises or other signs of abuse of this girl, or the girl might herself state, someone hurt me, someone attacked me.
This is just to say that person has a responsibility to report. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further questions from committee and nobody's signed up to
speak again. It looks like there is somebody to speak for the bill in audience. Eric Weawers, I hope I got that right. Thank you. Any other questions from committee?
Representative Feight, do you want to close your bill? Yes. Thank you. I would appreciate
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
32:12
a good vote. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee?
Representative Ballinger, we've got a motion due pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes do pass as amended, if I believe. Thank you. Without objection, we're going to order Representative Harris. I see you sitting down there at the end
of the table. You're recognized, I believe, to present Senate Bill 654. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 654.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
32:50
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and committee members. Today I bring with me Ms. Tyler. This is Senate Bill 654. It's an act concerning the discharge and release of an inmate from the custody of the Department of Corrections and for other purposes. And this is in regards to HIV testing when a prisoner is released. And if you may, Ms. Tyler will explain the bill.
Mr. Tyler, if you'll just remind
Speaker 101
33:24
everybody who you are, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Dinah Tyler with the Department of Correction. This bill is before you mainly because we need to actually, we're hoping to delete the language from the current code. In 2007, a statute was passed that requires the department to test each inmate prior to their release for HIV.
Keep in mind that when an inmate comes into the system, they are tested for HIV. A follow-up test is then done 90 days later. If during their stay there is any reason at all to retest them, including if the inmate requests it, we do. But this law says we have to do it one more time. Since it passed, we have done more than 36,000 tests on inmates going home. During that time, there have been two who tested positive.
But we would have tested them prior to their release anyway due to their behavior that we were well aware of. At this point, we're spending $10,000 a month to do this testing, total so far a little over half a million dollars. And we don't feel that the numbers support continuing to do this, especially considering the fact that they are thoroughly tested throughout their stay.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:56
Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as the law presently stands and with the testing that you've outlined, if there is a positive test, what actions does the department take? And I'd appreciate if you'd tell us with regard to all, I guess,
three situations, initial intake, 90 days in or upon request, and then at out-processing,
Speaker 101
35:22
if you will. Well, at intake, it is for our purposes inside the institution.
That said, we don't separate someone from the rest of the population if they are HIV-positive. That's not enough. If there is a reason to separate them, then we will. But just because they're positive, no. So during their stay, it's only for our purposes. Upon release, if they test positive, then we notify the health department. But that's the only notification that is made. And of course, the inmate knows. And that's really what this is about, so that the inmate will know.
But the inmates, when they go home, they know whether or not they are HIV positive. Representative Hodges,
you're recognized for question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How long, how
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
36:11
long, you may have mentioned it, but how long have you all been doing these testing? Since 2007. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions from committee? Representative Walker, you're recognized. MR.
Thank you. Now, I have a question. It's a little interesting, which is saying is that there was a public purpose in doing
the testing in the first place. MS. Yes. MR. That public purpose was subsidized by an appropriation to allow an amount
of money for the test. In other words, for each test that you all did, there was authority to pay money
to pay for the test. As we would for any
Speaker 101
36:56
other kind of test or any medical procedure. So as
I understand it, then, you all did thousands of tests?
Speaker 101
37:07
Yes, sir, more than 36,000. And only found two people? That had converted, yes, sir.
I see. And we would have tested them anyway due to their behavior inside the institutions. All right. Which means that there is
Speaker 101
37:30
a low likelihood of people testing positive. Extremely, and let me say I think that everybody thinks that because someone is incarcerated in the Department of Correction that our infection rate of HIV would be very high.
It's really not. I don't have the exact number, but at any given time we only have, I think it's less than 150 that are HIV positive. It may be higher now. A lot of that is due to the fact that the use of HIV, excuse me, the use of IV drugs has not been that widespread in Arkansas. And if it becomes more widespread, then we'll see the incidents go up. But
again, we will catch them. I understand. Well, I guess my concern is somewhat broader in terms of our legislative duty.
We have here a clear causal connection, at least one that you expect, between what you are doing and what you expect to find, and you are trying to prevent things. And so you know what the data are with respect to what you are trying to do. Now I was just wondering, isn't this a good thing to do for almost everything we do in the legislature? In other words, if we're going to condition people and impose burdens upon them,
there ought to be some causal connection that's demonstrable before you impose a condition. Well, I think what we
Speaker 101
38:51
were trying to show is that we would have found those two anyway. And it's a lot of time, a lot of energy, and a lot of money for two people who would have been tested prior to release. And there were
other ways that you could have dealt with this rather than testing everybody? Not currently. The
Speaker 94
39:10
law says we test everyone. Oh, I understand. But if it
hadn't been in the law, then you would have been able to have obtained it otherwise.
Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions from committee? It doesn't look like anybody from the audience has signed to speak for or against the bill. Representative Harris, do
you wish to close for your bill? No, sir. Okay. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion for Representative McElroy. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Edwards, are you ready?
Representative Edwards, you're recognized to present House Bill 1282. Good morning,
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
40:11
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm joined today by Mike Shannon and Joey Price, who will further discuss this bill as we move forward.
The aim of this bill is fairly straightforward. Our Constitution, Article II, Section 22, states that the right of private property is higher and above any other constitutional sanction. And from time to time, we have landowners that, when they're dealing, and the case of this bill that applies to the Arkansas Highway Department, when they're dealing with the Highway Department, sometimes there are disagreements over what the value of a piece of property is worth.
The goal and the intent of this bill is that if a party has to go to court and they have to go to the expense and the effort to fight, you know, for what they think is a fair value of that property, if the amount awarded in the final judgment exceeds 10 or more percent, that they can be made whole for the cost of their attorney's fees and other fees necessary to, you know, preserve what they had to go through.
Now, that's what this bill is. Now, what it is not, it is not an indictment of government agencies, in this case the Highway Department, of having to do its job. We need roads. Roads are important to the state of Arkansas. And I think most of you on this committee know that what my legislative style is. I talk to a lot of people. I've never claimed to have a perfect bill, but this is another example of a bill that I've had numerous discussions with many parties.
And at this time, Mr. Chair, I'd ask that my witnesses be recognized to testify about this bill. They're recognized.
We're just providing you gentlemen to let everybody know who you are
Speaker 121
42:20
before you start. Mike Shannon. Joey Price. Y'all are recognized. Thank you, members of the committee. What Representative Edwards said is true, you know, Article II, Section 22 of our Arkansas State Constitution makes sure, and appropriately so, that the right of property in Arkansas is before and higher than any constitutional sanction.
This bill, we believe, does two main things. One, it ensures that the landowner who is forced to go into litigation is ultimately made whole. Two, it opens the door to the courthouse for small landowners, your constituents who are small landowners who are innocent bystanders in this condemnation, the eminent domain process. They don't want their property taken in the first place, but they're drug into it.
Let me talk to you about some examples of what we have seen in my seven or eight years doing eminent domain work. If a landowner has to bear his attorney's fees and his appraisal fees in any litigation, then the litigation will never make that landowner whole for the cost of his property. If that landowner is supposed to get just compensation for the property that's lost, having to bear his own attorney's fees will never get there.
Let's say a jury awards $100,000, but the attorney's fees and the appraiser fees were $20,000. That landowner just got $80,000 for his $100,000 piece of property. He's not been made whole. There are many, many cases that have come to me that have never gone to litigation because the amount of money is so small it makes it infeasible to even challenge
what the Highway Department has estimated as just compensation. The recent case that someone came to me, the Highway Department has offered approximately $4,000 for property we believe is worth between $12,000 and $15,000. If it's going to cost $15,000 in attorney's fees just to go to trial or appraiser fees just to go to trial, that landowner has no chance of ever coming out ahead.
But that landowner is entitled to just compensation just like a landowner who owns a $2 million piece of property. So we don't believe the amount of money involved shouldn't be the determiner as to whether or not just compensation can be awarded. In that case, you'd have to hit a home run even to break even, just so it just won't happen. Why is the bill necessary?
Again, it opens the courthouse doors for your constituents to challenge the highway department if that's needed. And that's certainly not going to be in every case. And it keeps the property owners from being penalized in lawsuits where they are defending the value of their property. It allows those landowners to be made whole. And finally, this bill is not unusual. It's been our research that at least 25 other states have a similar statute in their eminent domain laws. The Arkansas Supreme Court has recognized the legislative authority to do this.
In Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Johnson, a 1989 case, the Supreme Court expressed sympathy for the condom knee. That's the landowner. But they held that attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of an authorizing statute. That's what we're asking for today. Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that this is not a constitutional issue. It's a legislative issue. But it would be fair, according to the Supreme Court in the 1979 case, the United States Supreme Court,
it would be fair or efficient to compensate a landowner for all of the costs he incurs as a result of a
Speaker 125
46:34
condemnation action. Thank you. Representative Shepard, I believe
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:39
you had a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand the legislation, this only applies to Highway Department condemnations, And if so, if that is the case, why just apply this to the Highway Department? Why not apply to cities and others who have the power of eminent domain?
Speaker 121
46:58
There are other statutes out there that already do provide for attorney's fees in some of the other situations in water districts and in municipalities. This would certainly just apply to the Highway Commission. That is certainly where we see the vast majority of clients who are contacting us as far as the Highway Commission, and that's the focus of this bill. All right, Mr. Price, or Ms. Walker, you had
a question? Yes. You recognize it. This is a public interest bill, isn't it?
it goes far enough? Here's the concern. You're familiar with the
Fair Labor Standards Act. There is a state Fair Labor Standards Act and a federal one. Correct. I don't do employment law, but yes. And in that act where an employer or wrongdoer fails to pay a person minimum wages, that person would have no recourse because he or she could not afford council fees.
But the law provides an incentive for a person asserting his or her rights by allowing them, those affected persons, counsel fees that are awarded by the court commensurate with the energy that's expended. So what you would have is a deterrent to noncompliance, and you would also have an encouragement to people to assert their right. So it makes more sense, doesn't it, in order to afford people an opportunity to get competent counsel
to allow their fees to be paid in the same manner as under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas state law as well as the federal law, wouldn't it? Absolutely. I think you're right
Speaker 121
48:45
on track as far as that's concerned. And the bill does have a cushion built into it. We're not asking the highway department to hit the nail on the head every time as far as their compensation estimate is concerned. We built in a 10 percent cushion in there where, you know, if that jury award comes in somewhere between or it comes in below, obviously, what the highway department offered or it comes in somewhere between right at it or 10 percent above it, then the landowner is going to still pay their own attorney's fees at that point.
But we wanted to give to have both sides to have some skin in the game, as it's as it said. So I believe the cushion that we provided provides a level playing field for the highway department and for the landowner. Mr. Price? Okay, it looks like
no further questions from, we've got a question from Representative Broadway. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
49:46
there anything been done about the fiscal impact? Who's going to pay the attorney's fees?
Speaker 135
49:51
Where are they going to come from, the expert
Speaker 121
49:56
fees for the appraisals? Where the fiscal impact? Well, it would come from the same funds that were used to build for the project. And sometimes those are federal funds. Sometimes they're not federal funds. It's been my experience, and most of the times you're talking about federal funds that are involved.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
50:12
Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Any
further questions from committee? It looks like we have somebody signed to speak against the bill.
We have Rita Looney. Ms. Looney, if you'll just remind everybody who you are and who you're
Speaker 139
50:32
representing, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Rita Looney, Chief Counsel at the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Thank
Speaker 140
50:38
you for the opportunity to be here. And I have spoken multiple times with Representative Edwards, and I do appreciate the efforts made in regard to this bill to make it a better bill. However, I just would have to say that to protect the taxpayers of the state of Arkansas,
to build highways for their safety, to get them to and from hospitals and to their schools and work. We need the money to build roads and not to pay attorney's fees. The Highway Department is a governmental entity that's charged with the constitutional authority and statutory authority to build these highways. And under the current law, the eminent domain laws, what has not been said to you today is that there is a provision, just in case law,
if the highway department was acting in bad faith and not offering just compensation for a landowner's land, attorney's fees could be awarded, but they would have to be found to have been acting in bad faith. And that's one thing I would also mention. It's noted in the Section 1 of HB 1282 that the legislative intent implies that the Highway Department doesn't offer fair market value. I know that that's not to be codified,
but I can guarantee you that will be quoted by attorneys in court over and over, and that is in the Section 1 where it says that the right of property is before and higher than any other constitutional, which we totally agree with that. And then it goes on to say that the General Assembly believes that when the highway department fails to offer fair market value for a condemned property, that the costs, expenses, and attorney's fees should be awarded to the landowner.
Well, that's taking money from the taxpayers to give to plaintiffs, to the property owner's attorneys and appraisals for, and it implies that we were not offering fair market value. I would also just say to this committee that 10 percent, I do appreciate that cushion, and he's right that it does give. It's not just if more is granted by a jury, but 10 percent is a reasonable variance between appraisals.
That's really not a very big margin, and I think Mr. Shannon knows that many times the margin may be a lot greater, and I would suggest that this is ripe for an interim study because, as he indicated, there are states that do offer or do provide for attorney's fees, statutory and in eminent domain cases, but the way in which those attorney's fees are provided is all over the map,
if I may use that pun. In regard to sliding fees, It may be that the fees are based on the benefit given to the property owner. If, for example, in his case where he mentioned the $100,000 property and then it was determined to be $150,000, the amount awarded for attorney's fees by many states is based on a sliding scale of a percentage of the amount in excess that's a benefit. it. It's not just an amount that that plaintiff or that property owner's fee attorney thinks
that he is entitled to. Also, the bill as drafted does not mention whether or not this would, attorney's fees would apply in consent judgments. Consent judgments are those that are, it is a final adjudication, but a consent judgment is entered into willingly between the parties, and it's not clear to me whether or not the Highway Department and the taxpayers would be liable for attorney's fees if someone enters into a consent judgment, for example,
for $111,000 instead of $100,000. Additionally, there's no provision that those costs and those appraisal fees be reasonable. In fact, it says just the opposite. They would be included without limitation. So one's fees for experts, someone who's an expert on, you know, farmland and rice. I mean, a property owner could bring in multiple experts and multiple appraisals,
and there's no requirement that that be reasonable. At a minimum, at least those other states that do have attorney's fees and costs, they all require those fees or those costs to be reasonable. Finally, I would just say that it is the intent for the Highway Department to make a property owner whole. Just compensation is determined by the value of the property before the highway was built and after the highway was built.
And it's an affixion that the jury has to set its mind in and determine what is the value of that property with that improvement there. And if there was a taking, if you will, or something that needed to be compensated, that's indeed exactly what the Highway Department is required to do and does according to federal law. And as I said, much of our money is federal law. Excuse me. It comes from federal funds. But this bill, as proposed, it's well intended.
and I appreciate the desire to make a property owner whole but it's got some flaws in it that really as I indicated I think it's ripe for an interim study for this for the legislature to look at what is proper for landowners, what is proper for the taxpayers what are reasonable, what is not reasonable and I would just ask the committee to really think about what you're opening up here for the courts to be determining
and for juries to award attorney's fees in cases where it's really not merited. Thank
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
57:02
you so much. Representative Broadway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I understand something, and so I need to ask you. Obviously, you're very, very familiar with the bill. When the bill is being presented, I'm sorry, I understood basically that this bill is necessary so the courts will have some latitude in awarding attorney's fees, cost, that sort of thing, that presently they don't have that.
But as I read this bill, it doesn't really, to me, as I can script through it, give judicial discretion. It says the court shall enter judgment against the state. Am I looking at this correctly? You are, and I thank you
Speaker 140
57:48
for bringing that up, and I should have noted that as well. It does say that the court shall. It's also not clear when the party asks for those funds. Do they have to do it within five days? Do they do it the very day of?
You know, is this – there's too many things about it that are not clear. But it does say shall. And today the court could order, if a case were heard today in the state of Arkansas, the court could order attorney's fees provided that the department had acted in bad faith. So it's, I think what the property owners and the lawyers here on behalf of the bill are trying to do is make a property owner whole.
But we don't have an obligation, statutorily or constitutionally, to use taxpayer money to pay lawyers, unless we are acting in a way that is contrary to the good faith of the state of Arkansas. Thank you. All right. Next on the list was Vice Chair Vines. Ms.
Loon, good morning. Good morning. Question for
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
59:01
you, and I may be shifting the burden here, and I don't intend to.
has your department taken a look at this law and seen how many times it would have applied maybe in the last year, three years, five years? I mean, is there any empirical evidence or stats of cases that have been adjudicated with the highway department that this actually would have taken
Speaker 140
59:28
effect? Well, if it applies to consent judgments, then it definitely would have taken effect. Okay. If indeed, because I will tell you that a 10% variance
Especially, and it's kind of interesting, especially in cases where there's less than $100,000, it's very regular that we would settle a case for more than 10%. I'm not saying that that happens all of the time. There are a lot of factors involved. But, yes, so I don't have a listing to tell
Speaker 148
1:00:03
you. But it would apply much of the time.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:00:10
And I don't mean to be or appear unfair. I was just curious if there
Speaker 140
1:00:14
would be any research done. I think that's a fair question, and it would apply, and
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:00:20
that would mean that there's less money to build roads. Okay. So you'd be more
Speaker 140
1:00:25
comfortable with this bill if it excluded consent judgments in? I would be more comfortable with it if it excluded consent judgments, if the percentage was higher, that actually, as I said, you could have appraisal by Mr. Jones that's just a great appraisal
and appraiser by Mr. Smith, and they might be 15% off from the get-go, and they're both reasonable appraisals, and all of a sudden the department's going to be strapped with paying someone's $60,000 attorney's fees because we were $2,000 apart on an appraisal. That doesn't make
Speaker 150
1:00:57
sense. That doesn't make financial sense. Okay. Thank you for your response. Representative
Speaker 131
1:01:02
Walker, you're next on the list. Ms. Looney, how long have you
been out there as chief counsel?
Speaker 140
1:01:13
I've been there since May 29th. I see. Practice law for 25 years, but this is a new career
for me. Now, I don't mean to suggest that state agencies are unfair, but do you recall
a case called Morgan v. State where the Highway Department, instead of wanting to give fair market value, decided that it wanted to take several landowners' property in the path of a highway and swap it for other property? I'm not
Speaker 140
1:01:41
specifically familiar with the facts of that case,
but I know that there are cases in which there have been trades of property when property owners choose to
do that with the department. Well, this was at the initiative. This was at the initiative of the Highway Department. Require swaps. Now, that's not consistent with the thrust of the law, is it? I
mean, basically, the statute says taking with a placement into the register of the court of what that department determines to be fair market value.
And the landowner cannot object other than to contest value. Isn't
Speaker 24
1:02:22
that right? That is a compound question. Well, isn't it that
you can take, and the landowner
has no right to object. The only thing he can object to is fair market value.
Speaker 140
1:02:37
And he can also apply for, when we deposit the $100,000, that landowner can apply for at a pre-hearing to have that withdrawn
and can also contest the adequacy of that compensation. So, yes. Now, here's
my concern and where I'm
leading. What you have is a highway department having several estimates, and the pattern of the highway department is to have a range, and basically what you do is you give the low estimate. You place the low estimate into the register of the court. And consistent with what Mr. Edwards is saying,
you put the landowner in the position of having to either negotiate with you or of having to litigate, and almost always you all are willing to pay some more money, but you don't generally start off putting into the register of the court the fair market value. Isn't that right? Actually,
Speaker 140
1:03:37
I would say we are required by law to put into the court what is fair market value because just compensation, according to law, is what the department is required to do.
Mr. Edwards, this is my question. Now, doesn't the evidence demonstrate that in most cases, when landowners contest a fair market
determination of value, there is negotiation, and the highway department capitulates? And under those circumstances, they may use counsel and expert witnesses and whatever, but the landowner is in a position where he or she has to incur costs, and those costs are not captured or recaptured by the ultimate amount of the ultimate settlement that they
enter into. And that's what you're trying to make sure that the landowner secures in order to be protected as a consumer. And what's wrong
Speaker 140
1:04:36
with that, Ms. Looney? Absolutely nothing wrong with the concept. The bill itself has some problems in it. The concept has nothing
wrong with it. All right. Well, now, look, Ms. Looney, you understand when you say there are problems, and this goes to Vice Chairman Vann's concern, we don't know about when and under what circumstances costs may be awarded or things like that.
But the rules of civil procedure establish that a person gets cost upon the conclusion of a case. I mean, those times are set by law. And that's
Speaker 140
1:05:08
when there is a prevailing party. Well,
no, no. It's always final judgment, not prevailing party. And final
Speaker 140
1:05:15
judgment, that's part of my concern in that, as you know, a consent judgment is a
Speaker 147
1:05:21
final adjudication. And this doesn't specifically state whether this would apply to consent judgments when they are negotiated.
If it's consent judgment, I don't mean to argue with you,
but if it's consent judgment, then you and the other party can negotiate the issue of fees. Any consent issue, by consent, that means that both parties have agreed. And you
Speaker 147
1:05:45
all can agree on fees to the benefit of both entities. And
Speaker 140
1:05:50
the statutes that allow the department to exercise eminent domain require us to do so for highway purposes only. And the statutes in Arkansas are very clear that the highway department cannot acquire property for another purpose.
and paying attorney's fees could, in fact, be viewed as another purpose. All right, y'all. We've got just a
few more questions. Let's try to be as brief as we can. Representative Kazay, you're recognized
Speaker 157
1:06:19
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Looney, I just have a real brief question. On page 2, lines 10 through 13, it mentions that the court shall award to the party entitled to judgment their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees, but it doesn't specify that the party be
Speaker 158
1:06:38
awarded their actual attorney's fees, does it? No,
Speaker 140
1:06:43
it does use the term reasonable in front of attorney's fees, and then it says incurred in preparing and conducting the final hearing and adjudication, including without limitation the cost of appraisals and fees for experts. It doesn't require those to be required experts. It doesn't require them to be certified experts. It doesn't require those fees to be reasonable. It doesn't require there to be one appraisal or ten appraisal. It doesn't require those appraisals to be reasonable.
That without limitation terminology is quite frankly something that as a protector of the taxpayer's funds I cannot agree with. Well, and
Speaker 157
1:07:20
I have heard it rumored in different judicial districts that sometimes the circuit court is not willing to give actual attorney's fees but some amount less than that, which they would deem reasonable, wouldn't the plaintiff run the risk of, I mean, you've expressed on several occasions you're concerned that attorneys
will be gouging the highway department, but isn't the circuit judge the
Speaker 140
1:07:46
throttle on that? Well, and it doesn't give the judge any as drafted. It only says when that amount deposited is less than 10% more than, or less than 10% of what is awarded, it should be a sliding scale, a percentage of that which is the benefit over the original deposit. That's what many of the states have is a sliding scale. It'll be like 30 percent over the benefit awarded beyond that which was deposited, and
it will be a percentage of the percentage that is awarded. So this 10 percent, while it is convenient, it's not very workable, and it simply would require the payment of attorney's fees just upon proof of two different appraisals, and those attorney's fees are, it doesn't say that they start at a certain level or that they're capped at a certain level. So you're right. I mean, it would, you could run the risk. It could be a lot in one circuit. It could be nothing for that attorney's fee. The other thing that I didn't
mention is that it also doesn't address whether or not this is the exclusive right for attorney's fees? Are attorneys going to contract with their client to get 30 percent of the excess over deposit in addition to that which is awarded by the court? Or is this their exclusive mechanism as in some other statutory provisions for the payment of attorney's fees? Representative Ballinger, you recognize
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:09:14
your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple quick questions. One that just you sparked,
The idea of doing a percentage of percentage, one of the things that I heard in presentation of this that made me kind of question the point of this provision is so that if we're talking about small property owners, individuals who may not have a whole lot of cash, but to them, $2,000 or $3,000 may be a lot of money. Sure. If you don't allow them to be awarded attorney's fees, if
Speaker 140
1:09:52
the difference, then they would still be excluded, wouldn't they? Well, and I think while that may be accurate, the small cases, small valued properties typically don't go to court.
And I know saying that kind of cuts both ways. One would say, well, that's because it's not worth it for them to go to court. On the other hand, we can pay more for a little slice that may be a remnant of a property. We might pay $10,000 for something that's really only worth $5,000 simply because it's more efficient for the department as well to not have to go to court. So I don't know that that actually answers your question, and I'm not trying to put that off, but you're right.
I mean, it does, if the property owner, if it is a small amount of money, then if it's in excess, that percentage would also be a small amount. But that's the public trust that we're protecting is acquiring land for highways and not paying for attorneys. I have a follow-up question. If you'll just keep it brief. Thank you. Yes,
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:10:56
I will. In that same vein, the public trust also, we're dealing with, we are dealing with property owners who are also taxpayers. Absolutely. So we understand that we want to try to keep it as cheap as possible.
We also want to honor the – and I would assume you'd agree with that. And I had a situation where an individual was losing about an acre of property. Highway Department came in. But the nature of the property was it was in front of an $800,000 house. And what was offered to them was the value of an acre of property in Benton County, not the reduction in the property value. And when you look at that, it was, I mean, if he wasn't going to prevail, I mean, the cost, we're not talking about a cheap appraisal, right?
I mean, most of the appraisals that you see are usually fairly expensive. But in this situation, it would have been cost prohibitive for him to pursue it if he couldn't be fairly confident that he was going to receive more of a, and you guys were great to work with, very, very responsive. I mean, I don't have a problem with any of that. But in the end, he ended up getting probably something like $40,000 less than really what
it was worth because he decided to settle and start to go to court and risk it. And
Speaker 147
1:12:11
I do think there is, and I'm learning this as well.
Speaker 140
1:12:14
Like I said, I've practiced 25 years, but this is a new area for me. The just compensation is actually the value of the property owner is entitled to. It's not like selling a house usually. It's like it is looking at the value of the property before that slice was taken off and the value of the property afterward. And it's not necessarily buying a house. It's a complicated. I really wish you guys would have
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:12:41
used that standard. That would have helped me a lot.
All right. Last question, Representative McElroy, you're recognized. All right. Seeing no further questions from committee. Thank you, Ms. Loon. No further questions or
anybody from the audience to speak for or against. Representative Edwards, do you wish to close for your bill? I've asked
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:13:07
Mr. Shannon to make a brief statement, and I'll make a very brief close. Thank you.
Speaker 121
1:13:13
I just wanted an opportunity to address a couple of the points.
The representative is correct. The circuit judge is the check on some fees. We're not talking about a situation where, you know, a $2,000 increase that happens to be more than 10% more than what was offered results in $60,000 worth of attorney's fees. That will never happen. The Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the process for when attorney's fees are requested, when they're entitled to, and those are generally made by motion within 14 days. And the bill clearly talks about in terms of reasonable attorney's fees.
We don't believe the bill, as written, has any sort of mandatory requirement on the circuit judge to agree to any particular attorney's fees or appraiser fees. Those are just not in the bill. The consent judgment issue, a consent judgment is by definition a consent from both sides. It's a settlement, as Representative Walker says. That is, you know, at that point, both sides agree what the – this bill does not require a 10 percent attorney's fees to be added on top of consent judgments entered into,
which are, by definition, settlements between the parties. As far as the bad faith is considered, I have never seen anybody even attempt to prove bad faith. And if we're just left to proving bad faith in order to get your attorney's fees, this bill, this would, landowners, that's the law now, and landowners are not getting made whole underneath it. And finally, with Representative Ballinger, what he said is that these landowners are taxpayers too.
And so while we're protecting, I do have an interest, and I think this bill does draw a good balance between what the taxpayers' interests are and what the landowners' interests are in being made whole. And so I
would urge the committee to pass the bill.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:15:25
Representative Edwards, you recognize close. Thank you. And my close is this. I appreciate what the Highway Department does. I appreciate the fact that there are many statutes in other states that offer alternatives. But I very much appreciate that our state constitution, which we need to pay attention to,
Article 2, Section 22, says, you know, the right of private property is before and higher than any other constitutional sanction. That means a lot to me. I think this is a reasonable approach, and I'd appreciate a good vote. All right, we've got a motion for Representative Steele. Representative Steele, what's
the motion? Move do pass. We've got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill.
All right, before we get to the next one, I just want to let the committee know we're bringing in lunch from outside the Capitol today, trying to step it up a little bit, so we do have lunch on the way. Senator Key, are you ready to present your bill? Senator Key, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 171, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
1:16:47
Senate Bill 171 came at the request of the Baxter County Sheriff's Office. A few months ago, we had a situation in our local Walmart where a gentleman was stopped at the front of the store on his way out by someone who identified himself as with the Baxter County Sheriff's Office. He said he was detaining him because he was on suspicion of shoplifting when, in fact, the store customer had not been shoplifting and the person who detained him was not a member of the sheriff's department
or any other law enforcement agency. When law enforcement was called and on the way, the fellow who stopped the customer took off and they finally caught up to him. But when they went to charge him, they were going to charge him for criminal impersonation, and they had difficulty, the prosecutor had difficulty making what he did fit the statute. So this amends the statute on criminal impersonation in the second degree,
which is a Class A misdemeanor, to add language that on line 23 of the bill says, with the purpose to injure or defraud, harass, or intimidate, which is what this person did. And then in line 31-32, it simply states that he pretends that he or she is a law enforcement officer when the person is not a law enforcement officer. The previous section of that code, the Section A, the felony provision, that is when they pretend to be a law enforcement officer and show some type of uniform or badge or insignia.
So that's a different type of criminal act than what we're talking about here. This one is just like a verbal, hey, I'm with the police or I'm with the sheriff's office. And in doing so, they try to intimidate or harass someone. And I'd be glad to take questions. Are there any questions from committee? I didn't see anybody signed to speak for or
against the bill. Senator, do you wish to close for your bill? I've closed for my bill, Mr. Chairman.
Got a motion for Representative Nichols. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Representative Gossage, I see you out there. Are you ready to present your bill, Representative? Representative Gossage,
you're recognized to present House Bill 1525. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. On June the 9th of 1995, I was having the 7th birthday for my son, John. About 20 minutes away from my house, a little girl named Morgan Nick was playing at a ball field and was abducted.
And the coincidence of those two things is a little bit more striking. It has affected me and my family. John and Morgan were reading partners in the first grade that year at Ozark Elementary School. So since that time, I've been a passionate supporter of missing kids, attended trainings for the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children, been involved in every way that I could. I spoke not long after being elected to this office with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
and I asked them if there was anything that the state of Arkansas could do that they were aware of that might help these type of situations, whether it's prevention or the apprehension or the imprisonment of these predators. The suggestion that they came back with was that we continue with our implementation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. And I'm sure most of you are familiar with that case. I asked Brad Cazort, who works for ACIC, to work with me on this because not being an expert in the field,
I felt like he would provide me with the leadership on this issue that we needed. This bill will not bring us into full compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. There's reasons for that. You may or may not want to get into those. But for the details of the bill or questions that you may have, I want to defer most of that to Mr. Cazort. But I would appreciate your consideration of this bill. Mr. Cazort, you'll recognize.
Speaker 176
1:21:26
If you'll just remind everybody who you are, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brad Cazort with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. Representative Gossage said
Speaker 177
1:21:35
this bill is a partial Adam Walsh compliance bill. Just to refresh the committee's recollection, the Adam Walsh Act created the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which is commonly called SORNA, that did require all states to be in substantial compliance with it by 2009-2010. Currently, there are 16 states, 3 territories, and 36 of 566 Indian tribes that are fully compliant with Adam Walsh.
The smart office of the Department of Justice is the federal agency that administers SORNA and Adam Walsh. They divided the requirements contained in Adam Walsh into 14 different sections and then evaluated every state's compliance with that. Arkansas is currently compliant in nine of the 14 sections. Again, this bill will not address all of the other five areas, but will bring us into compliance into two fully compliance with a few more areas and partial compliance with a third. We will not be in compliance completely. We will be a whole lot closer.
I want to explain briefly what House Bill 1525 does and then talk briefly about what it does not do and where we will still be noncompliant if passed. Section 1 of the bill clarifies that persons who have been convicted of a sex offense in a federal court, a tribal court, a military court, or in certain foreign countries that are required to register will be required to register if they move to Arkansas. Currently, our law does deal with federal courts, but it's not very clear as far as the smart office was concerned
that we are not requiring anybody who's convicted in foreign countries or in tribal courts to register. So this clarifies that section. Section 2 of the bill adds a requirement that everybody who's convicted of a sex offense will also start collecting their palm prints. Currently, we collect fingerprints of anybody who's been arrested for a crime, but Adam Walsh requires that sex offenders' palm prints be collected as well. Section 2 will give us the authority to do that. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill deal with levels 1, 2, and 3 sex offenders.
They would require the collection of the palm prints, collection of copies of the passports and immigration papers, copies of any professional licenses or permits they have, and requires adds a requirement that they provide information on any aircraft that they may own. Sections 6, 7, and 8 are identical to Sections 3, 4, and 5, but it deals with Level 4 offenders. And that's just the way the law was written 15 years ago, that the law was set out to deal with the first three levels, and then it basically duplicates itself to deal with Level 4.
Section 9 clarifies what we are currently doing in providing sex offender information to the National Sex Offender Registry. Section 10, again, deals with Levels 1, 2, and 3 offenders and provides that for those offenders that we are required to put on the public website, and understand not everybody in that group is on our website, but for those who are, that we would also include their address by a block number of their employment, any college that they're enrolled in, and the BIN and license plate number of the car that they own or operate. Section 11 is exactly the same as Section 10, but it deals with Level 4 sex offenders,
so it would be the same requirements about what we put on our web page. Section 12 would mandate that all offenders report their intent to travel abroad 21 days before doing so and authorizes ACIC to report that information to the U.S. Marshal's Office, who has been charged under federal law with keeping track of sex offenders' foreign travel. Section 13 was added at the request of the Department of Finance and Administration to make sure that the release of license plate information on their behalf, that they're compliant in that area.
That's what the bill does. Let me talk briefly about where we would still be noncompliant if this bill passed. First of all, in juveniles, this bill does not change or address in any manner how Arkansas deals with juvenile sex offenders. The way Arkansas deals with juveniles is substantially different than what Adam Walsh would require, and this does not attempt to touch any of that. Secondly, SONA would require that all offenders immediately report any change in their e-mail addresses, their Internet identifiers, their phone numbers, and their cars to report in person immediately when any of those changes occur.
Our current law requires them to report in person immediately any change in their residence address, and we collect that other information when they come in to change their residency or to verify their residency, but our law does not mandate that they immediately come in and report those other changes upon them happening. Third, while Arkansas does register everybody for life, we do allow certain persons, but not everybody, to petition the court to be removed from the registry after 15 years. There are some classes of offenders that may not petition to get off, but some that may.
Adam Walsh and Sorna would require that everybody on the sex offender registry be there for life. So we're not compliant in that area. And finally, while it may not be an absolute bar to us being compliant, the smart office has noted the fact that we do not currently put everybody, all of our offenders, on our web page. We do put all Level 3s and all Level 4s. We put some Level 2s on the web page under current state law. if the victim is under the age of 14 and the perpetrator was over the age of 18 and they're assessed as a Level 2, they're on our web page.
The rest of the Level 2s and all of the Level 1s are not on our web page, and the fact that we do not put everybody on our web page
Speaker 176
1:27:06
may be a bar to compliance under Adam Walsh Act. And that's essentially where we would be compliant and not compliant if this passes, and I'm happy to answer any
questions. All right. Representative Gazelle, you're recognized for a
Speaker 157
1:27:19
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cazork, could you tell me about SORNA a little bit? This is
Speaker 180
1:27:24
federal statute? Yes, it is. And is that a mandate passed on to the states?
It is a mandate passed on to the state.
Speaker 177
1:27:32
The penalty that is provided to the states for noncompliance that Arkansas has suffered the last three years is a 10% reduction in your JAG and burn grant funds. JAG is a justice assistance grant, and burns are law enforcement assistance grants. The Department of Finance and Administration is the agency that receives those funds in Arkansas, and then they redistribute them out to law enforcement agencies around the state.
Speaker 176
1:27:55
Our noncompliance has been mandated a 10% reduction, which right now is about $200,000 a year.
Speaker 180
1:28:00
Will passage of this bill remedy that? It will not remedy those three areas that I
Speaker 177
1:28:06
told you that we will still be noncompliant in, the juveniles, the lifetime assessment, everybody on the web page. Those are issues that will still have to
Speaker 181
1:28:12
be addressed that are a little more complicated than the ones that this bill deals with. Okay.
Speaker 157
1:28:18
And just as a sideline, Mr. Gossage, thank you for bringing this bill. I'm proud of you, and I'm proud to be associated with it. All right. Any other questions from committee?
Any other questions from committee? Anybody speak for or against the bill? For or against the bill? Representative Gossage, do you wish to close for your bill? Mr. Chair, I would just appreciate a good vote. Got a
motion for Representative Shepard while ago. Motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, looks like the
ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representative Scott, are you ready? Okay, you're recognized. Present.
House Bill 1408. Committee, we've got just a reminder before you recognize Ms. Scott that we do have lunch
coming. Representative Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. Today I present for you House Bill 1408 with an amendment as requested by many fine folks
in the law enforcement profession. I present to you open carry to be allowed in an unincorporated area. I would appreciate a good vote so that we may begin the first steps in open carry in Arkansas. I'd appreciate a good vote. Questions from committee. Representative Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And Representative Scott, in the interest of
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:30:02
time, I'm trying to dig through this bill, and it's a long one. Could you just tell us what you did and how you amended it?
Yes, I had the amendment to state that open carry will only be permitted in unincorporated areas. But it said that last time, but it was just a little bit
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:30:18
unclear in other parts of the code. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. So that's
all you've done as far as the amendment? That is
exactly. That's all I've done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions for me?
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
1:30:32
Representative Broadway, you're recognized. I'm sorry, Representative Scott. I think you said this, but I want to make sure you said you worked
with law enforcement on the amendment of this bill. That's correct. And so do you know what the position is of the state police and the Arkansas Police Association?
On my bill? Yes, ma'am. Yes, they are in agreement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions
from committee? Representative Walker, you're recognized. Yeah, yeah. You want
ultimately to have open carry, and you're not ashamed about saying it, right? This
is the first step in trying to get an open carry. That's correct. I also
want to be a size two, and I don't mind to say that either, Mr. Walker.
So I take it that you wouldn't oppose open carry by legislators in the legislature. I have a bill to that effect. I understand you do. Doesn't it make sense
if you're going to have open carry in these unincorporated areas, which may be contiguous to an area, doesn't it make sense just to let everybody pack their weapons and show them wherever they are, irrespective of the fear or the mental or psychological damage that may come?
Sir, I found out that that was not correct. That what was not correct? To just let everyone have a gun and carry it where they want to. Well, if you can let people... With a lot of opposition. All right,
but here's my power. If you can let people in these little areas in between Prescott and Gurdon, which are unincorporated, carry them, and then they have to somehow or another not carry them when they get into the incorporated town, I don't know what you're going to do with the gun then. I don't know either, but let me tell you something.
I do believe that there are some representatives who probably would need to carry a weapon just because of different circumstances. So maybe you should carry one. No, no, listen. I don't know. Here's my question. If you're going to
do it for unincorporated areas and a person is traveling, what is a person going
to do with that weapon when it comes into the incorporated area as he's along the way? He's going to put it
in his pocket or she is going to put it in her pocket and keep it concealed. I see.
All right. So, but you are in favor of us people in our committee bringing our guns here
and putting them in front of each other and having that. That's what open carry does, doesn't it? I believe when
we are in this setting, we need to all be true professionals. Well, I understand. But if you go
to church and you take your gun, same thing. What's the difference in going to church with your gun and coming to this session? Now,
you don't have to answer that, but I just want you theoretically to address that ultimately.
When are you running your bill, Mr. Walker? We're getting a
little off track now. Ms. Scott, if you'll just briefly respond, then we're going to move on to the next question.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:33:43
I have no response. Representative Gilliam, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Scott, there's been a lot of talk. I know since you first ran the bill and some concern about the unincorporated areas, and I think even Representative Walker was discussing a little bit on the difference in what people have to do when they reach an incorporated area and that kind of stuff.
Would you agree that, you know, we also have a little bit of a correlation possibly in the way that speed limits are done? I mean, you know, you're traveling down the interstate or the highway, and you're at 55 miles an hour, and you're reaching an incorporated area, and they've got 35 miles an hour, that people, they have the capacity to distinguish when they're in these areas. Would you agree that, you know, that we might be short-selling the population a little bit on their ability to not know that they're in an incorporated area? I agree totally.
All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from committee? All right.
Seeing none, I'll just let you know. It had been my intention. I'd let Ms. Scott know that we weren't going to take questions from the audience, but there are only two people. And I know one gentleman has been here all morning long waiting on the committee process, so I think we owe him the respect of letting him testify as well as the other person. Mr. Mashburn, thank you for your patience, Mr. Mashburn.
I will just ask you, though, if you will keep it brief. You'll recognize if you'll
Speaker 197
1:35:08
announce to the committee who you are. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank all the committee members and Representative Scott. I'm James Mashburn. I live out here at East End. And I'm for the open carry for the simple fact. I do it for the pleasure and recreation, riding horses, wagon riding, trail riding, riding four-wheelers, stuff like that.
And when you've got your grandkids or something in a wagon or on horses and you've got a pack of dogs come out and start gnawing at your horse's feet, you need some way to get rid of the dogs. I'm not saying kill the dog, but one shot or run them off. Now, I'm not opposed to killing dogs. Don't get me wrong. But, you know, I also dig beaver dams, and I walk through the woods and stuff to dig these beaver dams to keep my property from being flooded. And if I carry a weapon on my side,
somebody's going to call the Saline County Sheriff's Office and say, hey, there's an idiot out there walking with a gun. Well, if I carry a gun, I'm going to let the Saline County Sheriff's Office know ahead of time or Saline County Central. And it was brought up to me also about the fact of, well, you can carry a shotgun, you can't carry a pistol. But if you're out in the woods, If a game and fish commissioner officer comes up on you and you've got a gun, and, you know, you've got to explain that or he confiscates your gun, you've got the forest rangers out there, you know, I'm all for the open carry out for recreational use like we do.
and for the protection of the kids and stuff whenever I'm wagon riding, trail riding, or whatever. And if you don't believe the dog problem's a big issue with me, come out to East End out there and climb the wagon with me, and I'll hook my horses up, and you'll see how bad the dogs are. And I'll invite any one of you to come out and ride with me. Any
questions from committee? Mr. Mastman, thank you. Thank you all.
And we had one other person sign to speak up, so I'll allow them, J.R. Hankins. Mr. Hankins, if you'll just remind everybody who you are and who you're with, you're
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:37:46
recognized. Major J.R. Hankins, I'm with the Arkansas State Police, and I'm one of the Highway
Speaker 201
1:37:54
Patrol Commanders. You're recognized. Okay. On behalf of my department, we oppose any open carry law based on officer safety.
I have talked to the Chiefs Association this morning, and they oppose this particular bill also. And I have not talked to the Sheriff's Association. I know in principle they oppose it, but I have not talked to them about this particular bill. And I'd entertain any
questions. Representative Gilliam, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:38:17
Chair. To clarify this, you're opposed to this particular bill or just the principle of open carry, period? The principle of any one but this particular
bill also. Okay. Of open carry. Representative Bain, you're next.
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:38:32
Kind of expand on Representative Gilliam's question. So are you for or against concealed carry? Because would that not also arise to be of concern to your officers as well? I'm
Speaker 201
1:38:42
just – we're opposed to open carry. So you're
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:38:45
actually okay with people carrying guns just concealing them from your officers? That's already the
Speaker 201
1:38:50
law, and we support the law. Okay. So
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:38:52
you feel that your officers are safer when people conceal weapons versus they show weapons to your officers? I
Speaker 204
1:38:58
oppose the open carry, yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:39:03
Representative Ballinger, you're next. I appreciate you all coming down. It was my understanding that you always wasn't in opposition to this bill, so it's a bit confusing. But if you could, could you clarify what you're – because I think we kind of have this conversation when we're – you know, a visible snake to me is a lot safer than the one hidden in the grass. So I'm not sure about the officer's safety about – now, we're not talking about adding any new people. All these people are the ones that state police have already done background checks,
have already said they are qualified to carry a gun in the state of Arkansas. We're not adding any new people. So could you explain to me how the safety changes when we're talking about a gun that an officer can see rather
Speaker 201
1:39:45
than one they can't see? I think because of the reaction time, the reaction time would be slower for the officer on someone who is carrying a gun rather than someone who has to go to a concealed location to get a gun. Also, we still have the concern of retention, and I don't think this bill addresses that in any way.
Representative Brideway, you're next on the list. Representative Feit, you're next.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:40:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said that your organization is opposed to this. How did that come about? Was
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
1:40:18
there a poll of all officers in which they voted? Was there a panel, or how is this opposition stated? The director
Speaker 201
1:40:25
and the senior staff made this decision. Thank
you. Are there any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Hankins.
Thank you. Say no further from the audience.
Representative Scott, do you wish to close for your bill? Yes, please. Okay,
go ahead. You're recognized. It's only natural that in the land of opportunity that we support some form of open carry. Now just may not be the time. However, today you can pass House Bill 1408 as amended by allowing open carry in unincorporated areas.
My decision to amend House Bill 1408 came largely from the very people who helped to keep you and me and our families and friends safe. I applaud their time and their input. Thank you to those who wear badges of honor and carry out brave duties daily to protect us. May God bless this committee and may God bless this proud state of Arkansas. off. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee.
All right, what's the pleasure of the Committee? Got a motion from Representative Ballinger to do pass as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Ayes have it. Congratulations, the bill is passed. All right, we've got two roll calls. Representative Hodge, Hodges.
Speaker 209
1:42:28
Representative Hodges is no. Representative Broadway, representative Broadway is no representative Neal Neal is I representative Wagner representative Wagner representative Bain representative Ballinger Ballinger is I
representative Fite I. Fight is I. Representative McGee. No. McGee is nay. Representative Gezai. Yes. Gezai is I. Representative McElroy. Representative McElroy. Representative Scott. Yes. Representative Scott is I. Representative Walker.
Yes. Representative Walker is nay. Representative Gillum. Representative Gillum is I. Representative Shepard. Shepard is I. Representative Steele. Steele is I. Representative Slinkard. Representative Slinkard. Representative Nichols. Nichols is nay.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Call that 1, 2,
Speaker 212
1:44:16
3. Representative Vines. Vines is aye. 1, 2, 3, 4.
Representative Scott, that's 10 votes. The bill fails. Representative Branson
We'll keep that in mind for next time Thank you Representative Nichols Representative Branson are you ready What's his number?
Representative Branson, you're recognized to present House Bill 1354. I believe you have an
Speaker 215
1:45:10
amendment. I have an amendment. Yes, sir. Thank you, committee. This was brought to me through the attention of the Attorney General, asked me to delete line three and substitute it with what's in the amendment. and with that, I'm closed with the amendment process. Does anybody have any questions on the
amendment? Any questions on the amendment? Seeing none, we've got a motion for Representative Gillum to adopt the amendment. All those in favor.
All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. Your amendment has been adopted. You recognize to present the bill as amended. It will be the
Speaker 45
1:45:49
same as it was. Okay. Anybody have any questions? I didn't know I had to do that. I thought I just had
Speaker 215
1:45:54
to do the amendment. So I've got to go. That
amendment is already on it. Oh, that's my fault. I apologize. Looks like a motion do pass. As amended, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Looks like the amendment has passed, or the bill has passed as amended.
All right. Is there anybody else here signed to present a bill? Is there anybody else here to present a bill? Anybody on committee? do you wish to present the bill. Just a little housekeeping just a little housekeeping. Everybody tonight I just wanted to remind you 5 o'clock we're having a little social hour I hope that everybody would be there so we can visit just for a brief time if not anything long drawn out just for us to sit down and visit outside the committee so we can all spend some time without the pressures of doing this. I also
wanted to let everybody know we ordered lunch from out. It should be here any minute from Jimmy's Series Sandwiches So that should be here any minute. All right, seeing nothing further, do I have a motion to adjourn? Got a motion from Representative Shepard to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it.
Agenda
HB1470
HB1447
SB654
HB1282
SB171
HB1525
HB1408
HB1354
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 12
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 71
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative Bill Gossage Chair
Unverified
Speaker 101
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
Speaker 94
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 125
Speaker 129
Speaker 135
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 150
Speaker 131
Speaker 24
Speaker 147
Speaker 157
Speaker 158
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 176
Speaker 177
Speaker 180
Speaker 181
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 197
Speaker 201
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Speaker 204
Speaker 209
Speaker 212
Speaker 215
Speaker 45