House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1574
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1574”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB256
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB256”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1350
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1350”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1447
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1447”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1484
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1484”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1505
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1505”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1571
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1571”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1581
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1581”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1694
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1694”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB411
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB411”
|
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 Marshall Wright
Unverified
0:00
These wonderful group of ladies that are trial court assistants, so if everybody's giving them a nice round of applause, they're here today. Alright, let's get this rolling without objection. We're going to go out of order. It looks like we've got Senator Irvin down there. We are going to recognize you, Senator.
Chair
Unverified
0:17
Thanks for being down here to present your bill. If you'll just let us know what number of bill you want to present. Thank you so much.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:30
I appreciate you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to do that. This is Senate Bill 256 to allow an Arkansas marriage license to be used in other jurisdictions. Association of Counties, if they're
here. Thank you. This was brought to me with Association of Counties, and the issue, I believe, has to do with just our county clerks. And I'm going
to turn it over to Jeff Sykes and let him explain it, because he can probably do a better job.
Speaker 3
1:00
Mr. Sykes, you recognize me. Let's remind everybody who you are. Jeff Sykes with the
Speaker 13
1:04
Association of Arkansas Counties. This legislation came to us. There have been several Attorney General's opinions over the years that have kind of clouded this area of the law. And what we've got are counties around the state, specifically on the periphery of the state, where you will have folks that will go over into Oklahoma or go over into Missouri to get married. And due to some of these attorney general's opinions,
it appears that you can utilize a minister, say, from Missouri, get married and come back and file the marriage license here. And so we're trying to set this up, trying to make it clear in law exactly how that would operate because we'll have some clerks that might require the minister in the other jurisdiction to mail their license in to be filed here, and then some that don't. And it's just kind of been scattered all over the state as to how it's handled. And a lot of times you'll see in these situations it'll be you'll have a couple
that'll meet here going to college, something like that. They'll get a license here. They'll want to go back maybe to get married in the jurisdiction and with the minister where the female typically grew up. So that's what this is really set up to address. There were some questions as to whether or not it would affect same-sex marriage, and so there's been a couple of amendments on there to make it absolutely clear that that's not the case. And I'd take any questions if anybody has any.
Chair
Unverified
2:42
Any questions from committee? Representative Slinkard,
you're recognized. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Mr. Sykes, okay, is there
any proof that the person performing the marriage in another jurisdiction or another state, do they have to comply with the Arkansas minister's credentials or credentials to perform marriages, or how is that record done if they don't send in
Speaker 20
3:17
their minister's credentials? We created, at this
Speaker 13
3:22
point there's not, so it's just ongoing. What we are attempting to do here is create a self-authenticating document, so to speak, and so if you go to another jurisdiction and you utilize someone else, then we've kind to put the burden, the risk on you, you come back in, the clerk's not required to try to figure out whether or not that person was actually lawfully registered, because some
Speaker 21
3:49
states don't require their ministers to register their credentials like
Arkansas does. May I? Okay. Okay. Then on the certificate
of marriage, then that person performing that marriage, would that require a different type of certification on the marriage license form, I guess is where I'm going, a different type? Or is this attached by an out-of-state marriage license?
Speaker 23
4:22
What we did was we amended the solemnization form, so it's not changing the other form. We didn't think we needed to fix that. Okay, so the wording in the marriage license itself on the marriage
license form did not need to be changed, only to leave a blank for the state. Yeah, we needed to change it to show clearly where the
Speaker 13
4:39
solemnization was performed. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Walker, you recognize? Thank you, Representative Wright.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:56
Representative, Senator, could you explain to me why
it's necessary to have this and address the full faith and
credit concept that is inherited in law? Are you familiar with the full faith and credit concept? just give me one second here
Speaker 20
5:25
I don't have a copy of it I think representative
Speaker 13
5:38
Walker you're going to have to help clarify things a little bit for
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:43
me well Well, are you not familiar with the notion that each state is obliged
to give full faith and credit to what occurs in other states,
Speaker 20
5:58
in the laws of other states? Yes, sir. I'm familiar with that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:02
Well, did you all take into account the full faith and credit requirement
of federal law and the Constitution, the United States Constitution?
Speaker 13
6:13
I'm not sure how it applies to this solemnization form, but I guess the answer
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:29
would be no on my part. Well, if let's just
hypothetically say, may I follow up? Now, another state chooses
not to recognize marriages between heterosexuals
and only marriages between persons who are gay and lesbian. Do you think that the Arkansas marriage would be unconstitutional in that other state after having been performed here?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
7:20
Representative Walker, I appreciate your line of questioning. However, this bill just specifically addresses the form that's being used by our county clerks, which is to help them do their job so that they are able to have a clear information. Is this 256? It is. It is. And we have put amendment language into the bill that would protect and basically infirm our Arkansas constitution. So my position is I bring forward a piece of legislation at the request of the Association of Counties
and their work with county clerks. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Sykes or his work with the county clerks. I have no reason to doubt that the problem exists. I have no reason to doubt that this is a good faith effort to bring forward a piece of legislation to help address a problem that we're seeing. This is not, for me, a debate about same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage or
Speaker 8
8:20
anything. This is a debate about a clerical position that's just trying to effectively do their job.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
8:27
Senator Irvin, in all due respect, if I'm looking
at the right bill, Section 2 finds as a matter of policy that Arkansas only recognizes a marriage that consists of a union of one man and one woman. Now, that means, then, that as a matter of policy, if a person is married in New Hampshire or perhaps in California, Arkansas won't recognize that marriage as a matter of law because of this form.
Are you intending that effect? Without there being a debate on the question of same-sex marriage within Arkansas? Is that your intent?
Speaker 13
9:21
That's my only question. That's certainly not the intent of the bill, Representative Walker. The intent was just to clarify some confusion that's developed over the course of several years regarding Arkansans being able to take our marriage license
out of state have a marriage ceremony performed there and bringing it back and filing it
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
9:44
here in state. People go to Las Vegas all the time, and then they come back and file, I guess, and the marriages
are valid. In this situation, if a person goes, if two persons of the same gender are married, they come back here, under this, they really can't be recognized as husband
and wife because of the policy.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
10:08
That's correct. But we've put that in place in the Arkansas Constitution. Section 2 was language that was given to me by family council, which I appreciated because it reaffirms what we have decided with the Arkansas Constitution. We do not
recognize same-sex marriage. So this bill makes that very clear. All right, Representative McElroy, it looks like
Chair
Unverified
10:29
you're next for question. Well, I certainly didn't think it was
going that way. I was just going to tell you that in the course of being a J.P. for six years
and being a judge for 20 years, I married probably 2,000 couples, and none of them were men and men either. I want to go on the record there. But I married them, and I ran into this. You sign that people will buy their license in Deshaies County, And down there where it says, you know, I have to put my credentials. My credentials are recorded on Book 10, page 113, 114 in Deshaies County, and you put that in there. Because the county clerk don't know, you know, they don't know if I'm legal or not.
But I could marry folks just like the minister could. But where we are, we're close to Mississippi, Greenville, Mississippi. And say they live in Greenville, Mississippi, and they come over and get the license there from us, but they want to go back over until their moms and dad could witness it and sign a, you know, and then they come back with that license. Then my county clerk goes, well, you know, I don't know. I know about Mark's license because it's registered here in Arkansas in Deshaies County, but we don't know about the minister in Mississippi. So I guess this is just a safety mechanism that as long as they have some kind of proof
that they are registered in Mississippi, they'll accept it. Is
Speaker 60
11:52
that correct? Pretty much. I mean, if you go over there and
Speaker 13
11:58
you actually have the ceremony performed by a minister or someone that's, I guess, licensed, if Mississippi requires that, to perform such ceremonies, then that's, like I say, it's a self-authenticating document that you can bring back and you can file in the state. And the law is just kind of confused in this area.
Speaker 60
12:17
And so different clerks do it different ways. Yes, but if you
Chair
Unverified
12:24
could just make it brief, we've got a couple other people signed up. I'm
sorry, but did reciprocate say in Mississippi that I've signed a license in Mississippi? That's one of the questions I had.
Speaker 62
12:36
I don't know about that, but... Representative Bowser, your next
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
12:45
question. Thank you, Chairman. My question, and I think that you answered it,
But I kind of took it when I read this bill that this section that's not being codified is just to preserve the legislative intent that you weren't wanting to run afoul of the state constitution which already prohibits same-sex marriage and that the intent of this was just to make the clerical adjustment that you're talking about. Okay, thank you. Representative Scott, you're recognized. Any
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
13:13
other questions from committee? Nobody signed up to speak for or against. Senator, you want to close for your bill?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
13:20
Yes, I think Representative McElroy articulated the situation and the problem that we're facing, especially on our border counties. And so I just want to make sure that county clerks have the ability to do their job and do it in a way that makes sense and is consistent. And to whether or not they happen to falsify anything or they're just clear in the law. I think that's our responsibility is to make sure that the law is clear. Thank you, Senator. And looks like we've got
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
13:44
a motion from Representative Gillum. Representative Gillum, what's the motion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move.
Do pass. Great. Got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator. You've passed
Chair
Unverified
14:15
your bill. Thank you, committee. Representative Harris, are you ready to run your bill? Yes. Okay. You're recognized.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
14:25
And Representative Harris, just remind us which bill you're running
when you get down there, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. This is House Bill 1574, an act extending the time frame to investigate certain crimes against children and for other purposes.
You reckon I present the bail. All right. All this bill does, it extends the time frame in which DHS can do their investigations from 30 days to 45 days. And I have here with me Lisa McGee from Department of Human Services to answer questions. And I know there will be some questions, but I just want to talk about the investigation part on these crimes against children.
Ninety-one percent of all investigations are done in a timely manner, but as we're looking at this, 68% of all the closures in these investigations are done within 30 days. But as we look at it, they're all done within the 45 days are basically they're all done. So this is just giving them an additional 15 days to complete it. And we all know that they're overworked, worked really hard, and we know with the state revenue, with everything
that is happening, they need more workers, they need more money, but with the way things are going, we can't do that. And so this just gives them more time to work on these investigations and to close them out. All right, looks like I have
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
16:18
a question for Representative Vines. Representative Harris,
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
16:22
good morning. Thank you for bringing this to us. I had a question. I think we talked about it yesterday, but I want to make sure there's still some cases that the 30-day requirement will still be in effect.
Speaker 81
16:34
Is that correct? Okay. Lisa McGee, I'm an attorney with
Speaker 83
16:41
the Department of Human Services. Good morning. Good morning. And don't confuse completion of investigation with initiate investigations. We're not messing with that statute at all. Okay. So if it's severe maltreatment or we have a child who's wandering down Main Street alone, we're going out right then. We're not going to wait 45 days. Oh, no. And then we're going to do 72 hours on any non-severe maltreatment. So initiation timeframes have not changed. Okay. It's just the completion time frame. And right now the goal of the department is to make sure we do a quality investigation.
So their plan is, and you'll see that they get to promulgate policy on this, is to have the investigation completed within the 30 days, and then that additional 15 days that we're going to get by the statute will primarily be to have the supervisor review it, have the documentation in place, and if the supervisor says, no, you need to do a couple more interviews or go out, that gives us the time frame to do that. Okay. Representative
Steele, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious to know, would this in any way prolong the time that a child is in foster care? Some of these investigations, when you have a child removed from the home
and you've got to go through all the steps, oftentimes they're reunited shortly thereafter, would extending the investigation mean that the child spends an additional 15 days in foster care? It shouldn't be. In fact, at the
Speaker 83
17:48
probable cause hearing, a judge can assess whether or not we have probable cause to remove, and if we did, and then look to see whether or not at the date of the probable cause hearing whether or not it's safe to return the child home, and that's separate from our investigation. Okay, so
there's nothing that keeps you from returning the child before the investigation is over? The court
Speaker 83
18:05
can do that, if the court determines the child can safely return home.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
18:08
Thank you. Representative Broadway, you got a question? Yes, sir, I do. I just wanted to confirm, you touched on this, that this does not impact the time frames for a parent to have a hearing, a probable
Chair
Unverified
18:25
cause hearing. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Representative
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:27
Walker, you recognize your question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any documentation which supports the necessity
for this legislation? We have our quarterly reports
Speaker 98
18:36
and our annual reports, and our Division Director, Cecile Blucher, presents those over in Children and Youth Committee, and I have copies with them today.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:44
Do you have any documentation that says that this is really a problem? that the present situation as it has operated in the last year and in the past
years really is a problem. Yes, and here's the data. And this is from
Speaker 99
18:58
the quarterly performance report. It's out on our website at
Speaker 83
19:02
DHS for the last quarter, first quarter of state fiscal year 2013. We were only able to complete 61% of the investigations within the 30-day time
Speaker 102
19:10
frame. So when they did this report, they said, okay, well, let's look.
If we look out for the
Speaker 83
19:18
next 45 days, what investigations are completed? So of that 61 percent, that leaves us with, what, 39 percent that weren't done. Of that 39 percent, an additional 61 percent were
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:31
done in that additional 15-day time
period. Now, when we talk in terms of percentages, what are the numbers? I mean, my observation, and I guess this is the reason that I raise the question, when Representative Harris talks about the people there being overworked, I have noted that as I have interacted with DHS, there are many people there who seem to be inactive.
They are playing solitaire, watching, and I can demonstrate examples of this, watching materials that are prohibited, and nothing has been done about it. So it doesn't seem to me, I don't want to deal with that part of it now, but I don't like the concept that the people there are overworked unless there is some documentation. And I'll take them as being satisfactory employees based on somebody's determination. But if we have people who are not actively involved in performing their jobs,
I don't think that we should be extending the time that they have for doing the jobs that they are supposed to be doing rather than engaging in the personal
conduct that they are engaging in. Representative Walker, if you don't mind me speaking to that, I am one of the hardest people on the Department of Human Services. But I think this was brought to me by a fellow senator, but also by families who wanted the extension to 45 days so the investigation can be thorough and to be properly done.
And so that's why I'm on this bill is to make sure that the investigation is done properly. I mean, I can't speak to that in particular, but the investigators work hard, they do their job, and that's why I'm on board with this. But I do, I mean, I'm not necessarily, I'm hard on DHS, but I think this is a bill that's worthwhile and that we should look at. All right, Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
21:31
As I understand the current state of the statute,
you have 30 days to complete the investigation,
and if the investigation is determined to be true, there's an additional 30-day period with regard to an out-of-home offender, which I think is being struck from this. That's correct. So is that going to be addressed within the 15 days? Yes, and it's addressed in another
Speaker 81
21:55
statute. We're actually going to interview the alleged offender in
Speaker 83
21:58
out-of-home cases. their children during the course of the investigation and now not wait until we're deciding it
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:05
through. Will there be any method of confirming the extension of time? How will you, in fact, extend the time period, or is it just the fact that if you're within 45 days, it's deemed that you have extended the period of time? The CRIS system that the Division
Speaker 83
22:23
of Children and Family Services has can track all of and they can tell how long when a hotline report is received to when it's initiated and to when it's completed.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:32
Well, I guess my question is, if I have a client that is contacted by DHS with regard to an investigation
and they come to see me and I
contact DHS, they tell me that an investigation is pending and I don't hear anything for in excess
of 30 days. And once an investigation is complete, as I recall, you send out notice to the individual who's being investigated. That's correct. Telling them whether it was found to be true or untrue or unsubstantiated, whatever the case may be. is there any assurance that if we don't hear anything, say in excess of 30 days,
is it just to be determined then that you
have extended the period of time? This gives us up
Speaker 102
23:21
to 45 days to finish the investigation. So that is what we're asking for is an additional
Speaker 83
23:28
15 days. What we anticipate is going to happen is the interviews and the data gathering will be finished within the 30 days, then the additional time is to key all the information into the CRIS system, have the supervisor review it, have the supervisor have some time to send a worker back out and gather additional data if it's needed.
So some will be finished in 30 days, paperwork, everything done, not a problem, but we need this additional 15-day period to have the paperwork entered, the supervisor review. So what we're anticipating now is that you're looking at probably 45 days before your person's going to get their notice. And I guess I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:03
misspoke, 45 days being the period of time, 15 days being the extension of time. Correct. And that is
Speaker 83
24:09
going to have very tight time frames on it. Those are going to have to have extraordinary circumstances. They're going to have a higher level management who has to approve that additional 15 days.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:19
Will that be documented in the file? Yes. I didn't ask the question very good. But if DHS just, for whatever reason, hasn't investigated and it's day 50, then can DHS unilaterally say, well, we're just going to consider ourselves to have extended the time period, or does DHS have to document the fact that they are extending the time period prior to the expiration of the 45th day? Good morning, committee. I'm Cecile
Speaker 121
24:48
Blocher, the director for the Division of Children and Family Services.
Speaker 120
24:54
Go ahead. In answer to your question, for the additional 15 days past the 45, there will
Speaker 121
25:04
be very strict guidelines as to when that can be asked for and who can be the approving authority. Those will come up to the central office, and yes, sir, we will
Speaker 122
25:16
be tracking those and we'll be able to report on how often that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
25:21
that is used. But will that extension or asking for that extension take place prior to the expiration
Speaker 121
25:28
of 45 days? Yes, they would have to. And so an example might be you need medical records to, because it is going to have an impact onto your finding. And so you've requested those all through that original 45 days. But for some reason, either the hospital, the clinic, whomever you're asking for the reports from have not been timely in getting that information. So this additional 15 days you would request to say, I need these medical records to be
able to make this final determination, and these are the reasons that are needed. But what you're going to have to be able to show to get that extension is what you've done to try to get the medical documentation in that 45 days. You've got to have documented proof that I asked for it up here. I've repeatedly asked for it through the course of the 45 days. It can't just be that you did nothing, and then you come and you want the 15-day extension to get that. That would not be acceptable at all.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:32
Okay, but those additional requirements are not part of this bill.
That would be part of the rules that are going to be promulgated. And the reason why I ask the question is, I mean, I do have a concern that what I don't want to see happen is I don't want DHS sitting on the information and just not taking action and then finding out after the 45th day, oh, well, yeah, let's go ahead and extend it and do that. I mean, DHS has a very important role to play, a very important task, and certainly we want these matters investigated, but I want them investigated sooner than later,
not just for the victim but also for the alleged offender because I think it's important all the way around. But it sounds like if those rules will be promulgated, then I'm okay with it. Thank you.
Representative Nichols, you recognize the question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you explain the need for the change from 30 to 45? Is it based upon not having enough employees or employees not doing their jobs?
What's the rationale for the need for this extension? It's the increase of hotline
calls that we've received from year to year. Okay. Has a number
of employees increased to answer those calls? No. So, but I assume that you have some that are not getting it done within 30 days. Is that right? Okay. Have they been disciplined for not getting it done in 30 days or put on performance improvement plans or things of that nature?
Speaker 130
28:11
Yes, sir. They have been. Okay. case, but you're coming here asking to give them
Speaker 121
28:21
more time to get it done? What we're really asking for is to allow for us to have quality investigations, because within the current structure now of 30 days, if you wanted to allot 7 or 10 days, working days, so that you could have your information to your supervisor, the supervisor would have time to review, that the work that you've done as an investigator is quality work, that
there's not additional people that you should interview. And then if you've got, like, say, 24 or 72 hours to initiate, so you've already, of your 30 days, you've used up 10 to 13 days there. So that doesn't leave you at about a few, you know, it doesn't leave you at, what, 17 days to actually do all the investigative activities, which is trying to find everyone. And so what we're wanting to do is say in that 30 days we want that time to be spent to do all of the quality investigative work that needs to happen.
And then if the additional 15 days are needed to do your paperwork, to get your supervisory approval, so that you have a quality investigation at the end, that's what we're trying to do. It's all about ensuring that we have quality investigations and so that we have a good investigation and if people appeal being on the Central Registry, then our decision will be appealed. It's really for quality. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Scott Euricknest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is to Mrs. Blucher. Thank you for being here. I'm starting to learn your face quite well. My comment, and I really don't have a question. My question just got answered. But my comment is this. I certainly don't think that the employees at DHS are all sitting around playing solitaire. And I can certainly speak for those in Benton County. So hats off to you who work diligently and very hard every day to bring these bills to us and to help.
And to say that you all are willing to do this without hiring anyone else, that shows what a hardworking team you have. And I applaud you. Thank you. Representative Bain, you have
Representative John Baine
Unverified
30:36
a question? Yes, I do. Can you please, for the concurrent 30-day structure, how many of those children are still left in the home versus removed from the home?
Speaker 120
31:14
have the quarterly report. Let me give
Speaker 121
31:17
you the annual way of looking at it. In 2012, we had 35,743 investigations. And as a result of those, we had 3,873 children in our care.
Speaker 142
31:37
Well, I guess I'm coming back to my question. How many would actually remain in the home
Representative John Baine
Unverified
31:44
during the 30-day investigation? Would it be the majority? I mean, I'm trying to understand how many kids are left out there in limbo, and we're We're talking about adding another 15 days of limbo to these kids who may be getting molested
Speaker 120
31:58
or otherwise abused. No? No. No, this has nothing to do with that. As Ms. McGee said earlier, this is
Speaker 121
32:04
because if you make the decision to remove the child, then you have to go before the judge within five days of filing, 72 hours, to get your order signed.
And then you've got to be able to justify to the judge whether or not you had reason to remove those children. and the judge will either say, I agree or disagree. So this
Speaker 145
32:24
process does not change any of that. So if the
Representative John Baine
Unverified
32:27
judge disagrees, they're still going to be in the home, and they're still going to be in the home during that 30-day evaluation, correct? They could if we have deemed. If the judge deems them to be sending them back home, they can still be in the home,
Speaker 121
32:46
correct? Could be. And it could be that when the investigation comes in and we go out and we initiate either in that 24-72 hour time frame,
if at that time that we think that the children are at imminent risk, we will remove those children within the 24-72 hours. or we may say we can safely leave these children in their home and then work with the family in their home. So, I mean, it kind of depends. If you're talking a severe maltreatment case or if you're talking an environment on neglect where there's a dirty house,
there's inadequate food, clothing, shelter. You know, so each situation is very different. So, like today, we may have 3,800 children in care, but we may be working with another probably 9,000 children that we've left in their home that we're working with them as a result of an investigation. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a follow-up? If we can make it brief, we've got one question
Representative John Baine
Unverified
33:57
up. Sure. Let me ask, have you tried to get additional caseworkers through a joint budget or other means
so that we don't have to go
Speaker 121
34:08
it at 30 days? We're asking to have positions restored in the biennial budget. Thank you. Representative
Speaker 151
34:15
Walker, you're going to be the last question on this.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:18
If you'll just keep it brief, please. Yeah, this is probably a matter of personal privilege. I wanted Ms. Scott and the others to know that I was not making a blanket accusation. I just was dealing with specific information where I had numerous employees who were engaged in activity within DHS who were not working and who did things that were illegal, who
were not punished. So we cannot presume, just as at the University of Arkansas where you had $3 million go unaccounted for, that all state employees are performing their tasks. I don't want that to come forward as a premise of ours. We have to hold everybody accountable. I'm not opposed to this bill. But I do think that accountability
is primary in everything we do. Thank you, Representative Walker. Nobody signed a
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
35:01
speak for or against the bill. You want to close your bill, Representative Harris?
Speaker 155
35:08
I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
35:11
All right. What's the pleasure of committee? Got a motion. Representative Fite, what's the motion? I recommend you pass. 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. Representative Edwards, you're going to present House Bill 1484. You are recognized to present House Bill 1484.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
35:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am being joined today by Sheriff Ronnie Baldwin with the Sheriff's Association and Lloyd Wofford, who's a defense attorney. This is a bill that's being brought by myself and Senator Hutchison that is an attempt to streamline the process where mental evaluations are done in criminal proceedings. And I think the heart of the bill is that we want to have precise orders and methodologies in place to deal with both a fitness to proceed evaluation and then with the responsibility evaluation that takes place in criminal cases.
This is a bill that we have worked. I have had several meetings with our prosecutors, with defense attorneys, with mental health officials, with our sheriffs. It's an effort to try to bring more efficiency into the criminal justice system and to be of assistance to all. And with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to allow Mr. Wofford to make some comments on this bill.
That's fine. If you'll just tell everybody who you are,
Lloyd Wofford
Unverified
37:21
you're recognized. My name is Lloyd Wofford. I'm a criminal defense attorney. I'm actually a full-time public defender here in Plasky County. Most of my clients at this point are individuals who have a disease or defect of one kind or another. The primary thing that this bill does is bifurcate the process. At present, most evaluations that are done are both fitness and criminal responsibility. The criminal responsibility investigation and evaluation is a much more in-depth evaluation.
Requires a lot more records to be collected to be done properly. It requires the doctor to delve into the history of the case to a very great extent. On the other hand, a fitness evaluation is something that can be done fairly quickly. It involves a determination of whether or not the person is presently capable of understanding what's going on in assisting his counsel. That can be done relatively quickly. As it's presently being done, these are both being ordered at the same time, and that's unnecessarily slowing down the system.
If we separate the process where we only do criminal evaluations, criminal fitness evaluations first, then criminal responsibility evaluations would only be necessary in a small fraction of those cases where it's determined that the defendant actually has some sort of disease or defect to move forward. So we hope that this will speed the process and help move some of these people out of
Speaker 37
38:49
the system faster. Any questions from committee?
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
38:55
Seeing none. Representative, Sheriff Baldwin, are you wishing to speak for the bill? If you'll just
let everybody know who you are, you'll recognize to speak for the
Speaker 161
39:06
bill. I'm Ronnie Baldwin, Executive Director with the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. We've been working for a number of years, actually, not just months, but years, to address the mentally ill situation of jails, county jails. And basically what they've turned into in many cases is treatment facilities for the mentally ill, and everybody knows that's not the ideal place to treat the mentally ill.
We see this as a method to actually get the people out of our jails in a more efficient manner and get them to the place where they actually can do the help and relieving the sheriff of this immense responsibility and getting the help of these people that are actually needed. So we're full on board with this. Any
Chair
Unverified
39:49
questions from committee? We've seen nobody signed up to speak against the bill. Looks like we've got Daniel Shue.
Representative McElroy, you've got a question? Mr. Shue,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
40:18
if you'll just let everybody know who you are, you're recognized. My name is Daniel Shue. I'm prosecuting attorney in the 12th District, Sebastian County, also vice president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. We have had numerous discussions, meetings, cussed, discussed, gone forward, backward,
and the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association is in favor and endorses this bill. Any questions from committee? Representative Steele,
Chair
Unverified
40:44
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I noticed
in the bill it says that a test may be ordered if there's reasonable suspicion about the defendant's fitness receipt. Is that the same standard that we had in the old bill? Are we changing that? I
Speaker 169
41:03
don't think that changes that, does it?
Lloyd Wofford
Unverified
41:06
Under the old bill, it was ordered when requested without any sort of burden. So there is a by either side. And at this point, there is a small burden that's been added. we do not think it's of any significance if our client's really sick we shouldn't have any problem making that burden thank you thank you Mr. Chairman it
Chair
Unverified
41:29
looks like we've got a lot of people signed up to speak for this bill so I'll just ask Representative Ed Mr. Chairman in the
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
41:39
with all due respect to the witnesses but in the sense of trying to keep things moving. If these witnesses will pass so we can keep the committee moving, I'd appreciate it. Okay, looks like we've
Chair
Unverified
41:51
got a motion for Representative Nichols. Immediate consideration. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Looks like the ayes have it. Representative McElroy, do you have a
motion? Do you still want to make that motion? Yes, sir. I would make a
Speaker 172
42:05
motion. Do pass, please. Representative Edwards, we've
Chair
Unverified
42:08
got a motion. Do you want to close
for your bill or are you done? We've got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Letting,
Speaker 174
42:26
are you ready to present your bill? 1581.
Speaker 177
42:42
Looks like we've got a handout here, so give
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
42:53
us just a second. We can get those passed out.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
43:34
you.
heard used to describe this fine committee I think we'll take that as a compliment yeah we have an amendment first everybody have a copy okay the amendment we're just we are changing the order of the Senate sponsors currently Senator Elliott is listed as the lead sponsor but this amendment is making the senator from Bigelow the lead sponsor and then we are also removing on paper Page 3, lines 8 through 11, list stops from
the list of places that will be required to
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
44:20
post a mandatory notification. Representative Neal, you recognize your question? Am I reading this right? at Line 29, private clubs, posting information about the National Human Trafficking Resource Hotline. I believe you are, but we are discussing the amendment. Sorry. Sorry.
Chair
Unverified
44:50
That's okay. Looks like we got a motion to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
44:59
Mr. Letting, you recognize and present your bill as
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
45:02
amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1581 is the second of a set of three bills aimed at ending human trafficking here in Arkansas. This committee saw the first such bill a few weeks ago. It was presented by Representative David Meeks. Other legislators and I were a co-sponsor of that bill. Senator Elliott has the third piece. Since you've heard a lot about human trafficking in that first meeting, I don't want to really get into it again,
but I do kind of want to hit the highlights. It is basically modern-day slavery. It's one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in the world, and it generates about $32 billion in profit each year for traffickers. I personally became involved with this issue 10 years ago. Became fascinated with human trafficking in Eastern Europe at that time. It was a relatively new phenomenon. It was a result of the economic collapse of Eastern European countries following the collapse of the Soviet Union. And spent about a year researching it. Had actually hoped to write a book. That was another life and a decade ago. But went over to Eastern Europe, to Romania, Bosnia, and a couple other countries.
And it's a harrowing tale, as Representative Steele and Representative Wright can attest. Maybe one day, if we have time, I'll share it with you. But when I got to the legislature, I realized that Arkansas at the time was one of nine states that did not have a proper legal framework to address this issue. We are now just one of four. Thankfully, with the passage of Representative Meeks' bill a few weeks ago that this committee passed out unanimously, we made a step in the right direction. Again, this is just the second bill of a set of three. What we're trying to do today, I'll just kind of walk you through, I think everybody has the talking points.
Vehicle forfeiture. Currently, law enforcement are able to seize vehicles for crimes of burglary, theft, robbery, and arson. Since vehicles are often used in transporting trafficking victims, we're just adding human trafficking to the list of crimes for which vehicles can be forfeited. We just want to make sure that we keep those vehicles out of their hands. If Representative Steele is successful with his bill in public transportation next week, that they'd be able to transport these victims faster, and we want to just make sure that we keep vehicles out of their hands. Section 4, the expanding sexual solicitation.
This actually, the Little Rock Police Department, when we filed this bill originally, came to us with this concern. We added this at their request. Apparently, there's currently a loophole that they were having trouble with Johns who were just agreeing to pay for sex instead of offering to pay soliciting sex, And so they requested that we amend it to make sure that johns who agree to pay for sex can also be prosecuted. I'll skip the National Trafficking Hotline for just a second to go to the second page to talk about the sealing of records.
This is doing sometimes women who are victims of trafficking end up being charged with prostitution when they were just innocent victims. And they have to live with that on their record. And so it's sometimes difficult to go back to school or get a job. There's actually a young woman who was here for our human trafficking summit last summer who is now working for a nonprofit in Tennessee to end human trafficking. She was a victim. And at the time, with her trafficker, she was the only one of the victims who was able to drive. So he had her drive this car as he was taking them someplace.
They got pulled over. She ended up getting charged with trafficking because she was the one driving the vehicle, even though, again, she was just a victim. And now this is still on her record. So all we're trying to do there is make sure that victims of this crime are able to have that record sealed. Going back to the National Hotline, on the first page, the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline is a 24-7, 365 hotline operated by the Polaris Project, and it's funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It's identified more than 8,500 potential victims of trafficking, and it's reported 3,000 tips to law enforcement.
and as you can see there at the very bottom of the page similar mandatory posting laws have been passed in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and California and those are top states where the national hotline receives the most calls so we just want to make sure that we post these warnings in places that tend to see this
Chair
Unverified
49:09
kind of crime happen Questions for committee? Representative
Slinker, you're recognized thank you mr. chair representative letting one of the places that these
notices is a private club does that mean a restaurant where they have a private club license you've heard like a
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
49:34
restaurant in say like a dry county like Benton County where
yeah I mean private clubs may be a I mean aren't there private clubs within restaurants I guess is what I'm trying to say they have to have a private club in the dry county I mean with this private club it
just says private club and I didn't know if that meant those restaurants that have a certainly don't believe that's the intent I think we're talking about gentlemen's clubs I don't
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
50:01
know about those things for the record I don't do that thank you not under oath any other questions from committee any other
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
50:30
up on Representative Slinkert's comment. There you go. And in Benton County, those are restaurants, the private clubs, and what I was going to ask is who's going to pay for those to be put up and where do you want them put up in the private clubs that are restaurants.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
50:57
The code reads that they need to be posted in a conspicuous place, so it would be somewhere near an entrance or perhaps restrooms. Some places the customers are going to be most likely to pass by. It's a very small flyer. It's just a standard size sheet of paper. The description of the flyer is actually in this bill. And they can print it themselves. There should be no cost. The flyer is available at the Polaris Project website. They could just print it off and then post it. Yeah, you will. Representative Ballinger, you're recognized.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
51:30
Following up with that question, and just to reference it so that we know what we're talking about, on page three, and I think it's line five, it says a private club that has a liquor permit for on-premises consumption. So that would include the Chili's, Denny's, whatever the place is in a dry county that has a permit. And so to me, while I understand what you're wanting to do, you get the hotline out there so that people can see it so that people are saved.
I mean, I'm all for that. But in some places, you know, we're not blankantly requiring everybody to do it. I mean, would you be okay with removing the requirement of the private club? I mean, I can understand the strip club. I can understand the places of transportation because that's part of the need. But in that case, it seems
Speaker 186
52:24
have a problem with that because a lot of these national chain restaurants that you mentioned,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
52:29
the Denny's, they're usually located near interstates and high-trafficked areas where typically you are going to see trafficking occur.
And, again, it's certainly not a burden on the businesses, and it's a very minimal flyer, in my opinion. So I think
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
52:41
it needs to stay the way it is. Representative Williams, Rick, now ask for a question. Thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
52:47
you, Mr. Chairman. And just to add my two cents to the same conversation, let me see
if I can approach it another way. In a wet county, say, Plaski County, where you don't have to be a – have a private club designation at the Wendy's and Chili's, in your bill, it would appear to me that they don't have to post a sign.
Speaker 186
53:07
Would you agree with that? I would agree that the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
53:12
way it's written, it would probably allow for that. But in Benton County, that same Chili's would have to post a sign because it's considered a
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
53:19
private club. Would you agree with that? Representative Letty, do not interrupt. Representative Letty, they all have to have clubs to serve alcohol, even in Wake County. Even
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
53:26
in Wake County's? Well, then I stand corrected. Thank you. Well, let
me ask you, is that your intention for all of them to even the – was that your intention? I
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
53:37
would like to see the hotline posted in as many places as possible.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
53:40
Okay. Thank you very much. Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Letting, do you know, just for my own benefit, do you know whether we require any other similar type of postings
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
54:02
for anything else? They do have mandatory posting laws for liquor licenses in a number of states. Did you have something you want to? Okay. Mr. Chair, with the committee's pleasure, we have a young woman, Reagan Stanford,
with Catholic Charities, who'd like to address this. You'll
Speaker 206
54:20
just let everybody know who you are. You're recognized. I'm Reagan Stamford with Catholic Charities. I just wanted to make note that when we're talking about this, I think we keep thinking about sex trafficking, but part of the posting is also for the employees, and there's been several cases of labor trafficking within restaurants in Arkansas. So it's kind of for the employees to see it also, and we're also talking about that labor trafficking. So it's not just going to be some flashy sign of a half-naked girl in chains that we're going to have up in your family restaurant. It's just going to have the basic information,
and it's to reach those employees of labor trafficking or, you know, customers, as well as sex
Chair
Unverified
54:52
trafficking. So we'll just follow up.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
54:54
Representative Shepard, you recognize your question? And I guess my question goes to notices that are
being posted conspicuously for customers. I mean, I'm familiar that there are a number of labor requirements and other things that are posted, and particularly in restaurants that are posted. But is there anything else that we presently have that's analogous to this situation? In other words, I mean, I understand that there may be other legislation out there to require posting related to,
was it fetal alcohol syndrome, that warnings were related to that. I'm just wondering whether certainly I think we need to do everything we can to cut down on human trafficking, but I guess I have some concern as to where do we draw the line in terms of requiring businesses to post notices or warnings. And I'd appreciate Representative Letting responding to that and giving me his thoughts.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
55:48
To being the only Southern state without this framework in place,
we're making ourselves more attractive to the perpetrators of this
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
55:55
crime. So, again, I feel like it is a minimal posting and certainly a very important cause. Representative McElroy, you recognize
Chair
Unverified
56:05
for a question? I couldn't stand it. I had to nibble at this one here. The line 26 where you said on 2, where it says they added offers or agrees to pay a fee to a person to engage in sexual activity with him or her or another person. We add the agrees.
That kind of, I'm just going to get it. So somebody comes up and they say they offer that. How are you going to agree if somebody says, this is a great idea or whatever, you think it's worth $100? Oh, yeah, that's not a bad idea right there. I'm just wondering if this could be abused. And I'm not making light of it because I know the human trafficking, I'm all for that.
But I know this was added in a police thing there, and I'm just wondering. It was added at the request of the Little Rock Police
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
57:05
Department. I don't – if I understood your question correctly, you were saying what if somebody just sort of jokingly said that would be – Yeah, I think obviously if they're just joking, they're not actually going to follow through with the transaction and therefore would not necessarily be. Okay, I just
Chair
Unverified
57:20
didn't want to. You know, we had this one little agree there and then I'm not an attorney, so I didn't
know if that was going to open up a whole can of worms there.
Representative Scott, you'll recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Letting, would these notices be similar to a child abuse hotline notice that I have seen in many restaurant, bathrooms, and other places? It would be along
that vein. And, again, the bill describes in detail the information that the flyer has to
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
57:52
include. Thank you. Representative Neal, you're recognized. Representative Letting, what other languages are mandated by the Voting Rights of Act of 1965?
And I see you have here English, Spanish, and any other language. So which languages are mandated by that act? I do believe it's county-specific, but I don't believe there are
any other languages in Arkansas. So I believe it's just English and Spanish here. And do you have a copy
or anything that it would look like or how big it is? Again, the bill specifically details it. It's
8 1⁄2 by 11. It doesn't have to be any bigger, but it has to be at least that size.
So it will be two 8 1⁄2 by 11s,
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
58:48
English and Spanish. Yes. Any other questions from committee? Representative Ballinger? Thank you, Chairman. I want to say once again that I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree with me that they like the bill. The thing that I guess at this point, why are we drawing the line at only places that serve alcohol? Why wouldn't we say every restaurant? And once again, coming back to it, you know,
I would hate the idea of superimposing the requirement to post this kind of notice when I really can't envision exactly how it would be posted in some restaurants. I mean, you can imagine that there are some places that they would think that would really affect their decor to have something like this posted. And that would fall into, I mean, I would assume a lot of restaurants, if given the option of posting it or not posting it, would probably prefer not to post it. So, you know, I would say that, you know, the other things seem really reasonable,
that I would come back to that issue, the private club, you know, it seems kind of arbitrary and it seems like
Speaker 197
59:49
just kind of a mistake to put that requirement on
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
59:54
private property owners. The reason we're targeting places where alcohol is allowed is that those tend to be
places where this type of crime is more likely to happen. I mean, just as there are other crimes that are more likely to happen at bars versus your restaurant that doesn't allow smoking or alcohol. In regards to the decor, restaurants are already required to reply or to post all kinds of certificates and warnings.
So I think it can still be done in a discreet manner, but it would still count as conspicuous for the purposes
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:00:23
of the law. I think I've got Representative Williams next. Then we've
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:00:26
got a couple more. Representative Letting, let me see if I can shed a little light on the posting the more I think about this. Private
clubs are required to post, for example, health ratings, correct? And that's usually about the size of a piece of paper. They're also required to post things like the fact they actually have a liquor license. Isn't that correct? Correct. About the size of a piece of paper. So you want to do something similar to that that you're already requiring private clubs to do?
Chair
Unverified
1:00:48
Correct. Okay. Thank you. Representative Gillen,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:00:53
you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Letting, I'm going to couch this in the form of a question here to make sure that we follow the procedural rules here. but are you aware of how unpopular my proposal to post a sign concerning fetal alcohol syndrome at the same exact establishments was and how it was met throughout the membership when I circulated that idea around?
Did you hear any of that conversation concerning how many people did not want any signs put up at all? I honestly don't recall that issue. We
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:28
have not been contacted by anybody yet opposing this. Okay. It was significant, just to give you a heads
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:01:34
up on the amount of people in our chamber that did not like that idea. So just as a way of a heads up, thank you. Representative Feit, you
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:01:45
recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pretty sure I have seen notices about
human trafficking in Van Buren, Walmart, and also in a truck stop in Rudy.
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
1:01:55
Have they done this voluntarily? Yes, because currently it is not required. And
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:02:02
truck stops, those are one of the most common places for this type of crime. So the I-40 corridor across our state is
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:02:10
definitely a hotbed. Representative Wagner, you're going to be – All right, Representative Ballinger, last question.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:02:17
Thank you, Chairman. And what I guess I'll have to do, and this may be my ignorance, but are truck stops on here and are bars on here?
Speaker 112
1:02:27
Dave, where are we here? And I don't
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:02:41
know if a bar may be a private club by law, and someone can see that there. Okay, so if it's a bar, it's a private club. So the question of truck stops, is it indicated here?
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:02:57
Yes, bars are private clubs. The reason for the truck stops is we did the state parks had a problem with rest stops having
these people coming into Arkansas. And the first thing they say, welcome to Arkansas, let's end human trafficking. So we agreed to take that out. Many truck stops are, you said private, so they're not included. all right uh nobody
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:03:27
has signed to speak for or against the bill representative letting do you
wish to close for your bill i would just ask the committee for a good vote okay what's the pleasure of the committee got a motion do pass several representatives represent william slinkard all those in favor say aye all those opposed eyes have done sorry do pass as amended was the motion ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there anybody not on the committee?
Representative Dickinson, I see you over there. Representative Dickinson, if you'll go to the end of the table and let us know which bill
Chair
Unverified
1:04:29
and who you're running it for, please. I believe you're presenting
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:04:31
Senate Bill 411, is that correct? You're recognized to present Senate Bill 411.
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:04:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members, good to see you all from a different view. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'd like to bring Lisa Mathis with me. she has the answers in case someone has a question. However, this is so simple I don't know why anyone would question. Thank you. Lisa McGee, I'm an attorney
Speaker 81
1:05:00
with the Department of Human Services. What this bill is very short and sweet and
Speaker 83
1:05:08
it's a we don't need this statute anymore bill. And so what it's doing is striking a website that the administrative office of the courts developed. This was in response to the Child Abuse Task Force legislation back in 07. AOC created a website, and the Department of Human Services hosted this, but it was a flat website, so you could go on there and look at some information about being a mandated reporter. Since that time, the Commission on Child Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence has developed an interactive training website for mandated reporters.
They went live in January of this year, and since that time they've had 1,200 mandated reporters already go online on the website. You're able to go through a series of slides. You have a pre-test. You have a post-test. And then you're able to print out a certificate of completion and then hand that to your employer to let them know that you've taken the test that alerts you on what you need to do to be a mandated reporter for child abuse. Any questions from committee?
Chair
Unverified
1:06:14
Seeing none, I don't believe. Anybody sign to speak for or against bill? Representative Slinker, did you have a question? Representative Dickinson, do you wish to close for your bill? I'm close,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:06:29
sir. Thank you. Representative Slinker, what's your motion? Motion to pass. Got a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you all. Representative McCrary, are you down there to, are you ready to present? You're just observing.
Glad to have you. Representative Thompson, are you ready to present? Okay. Representative Fyte has one.
Chair
Unverified
1:06:53
Okay. Representative Steele, can you come here? I'm going to present. 1571.
Representative Wright, you are recognized to present House
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:07:27
Bill 1571. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. 1571 is a pretty simple bill. All it does, what it does, is clarify that prosecutors and their deputies are authorized to carry a concealed firearm and making it clear that it's the prosecutor and their deputies. I have Mr. Hsu here with me that was wanted here to answer questions should the committee have any.
Speaker 231
1:07:53
Mr. Hsu, if you would introduce yourself to the committee. Again, my
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:07:56
name is Daniel Hsu. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County. I'm also vice president of Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
I've got one question from the chair, if I could. I was under the impression that this was already law. Is
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:08:14
there not some inconsistency in the code regarding who's authorized to carry firearms? That's exactly it. We have relied on an attorney general's opinion from about 15 years ago. And the opinion of all the prosecutors is that, you know,
we'd rather have the legal and moral high ground and make it absolutely clear from the legislature that this is our authority. Okay.
Any questions from the committee? Representative Bain, you're recognized. Can
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:08:38
you define Deputy Prosecuting Attorney? I've dealt with a lot of Prosecuting Attorney's Office in the past, and a lot of them, is everybody considered a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney? Would you have others, I mean, the support staff,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:08:51
would those qualify under this code? No, sir. In fact, the previous legislation says only those designated, and when we, most people
don't know this, but we have badges, we have credentials, and when we have somebody that we designate, it is on the credentials. Well, the reason
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:09:06
I ask is I've encountered prosecutors who have support staff that have badges that are not actually prosecuting attorneys per se. They do not have this badge. Well, they've had some form of a badge in the past, and
Speaker 236
1:09:16
I just wanted to get some clarification on that staff, support staff that are non-attorneys. No, sir. Okay. Representative Broadway, you're recognized. Thank you very much.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
1:09:29
Just a follow-up really kind of to Representative Bain's question. And what about the scenario when you have a law firm? And, you know, does that adhere to all of the attorneys in the law firm when actually one or two of them are actually just doing the prosecuting work? But upon occasion, one will kind of pinch hit for the other. Is there somebody that, if a law firm has a contract to be a deputy prosecuting attorney in a judicial district like what we have, who would be able to carry?
Chair
Unverified
1:10:04
Only the designated deputy prosecuting attorney. Nobody
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:10:06
else. And I'm with you sometimes when you say you
recognize this pitching, but that, no, does not apply to them. Only the
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
1:10:16
designated deputy. So if there was a law firm and one of them prosecutes in district court and one prosecutes in circuit court, Both of them would, but no other attorneys in the firm. Correct. Okay. And again, we're already
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:10:31
doing this according to Attorney General's opinion.
We just want to codify it to make sure it's clear. And I believe, if Mr. Hsu might speak to this, I believe that that's one line with city attorneys that contract that
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:10:46
way. Deputy prosecutors are not contracted to prosecute. No, full-time state employees since 1999. Representative Scott,
you're recognized for a question? Motion at proper time,
please. I believe we already have a motion from Representative McElroy. Are there any other questions from the committee?
Speaker 243
1:10:59
Representative Gazet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you all are leaving city attorneys out?
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:11:06
The fact of the matter is they're not included now. None of the statutes now, particularly in Sebastian County, I know all the Controlled Substance Act, which says we do have the authority to carry the firearms, the city attorney does not handle. We handle all of those. And as far as having to go to the scene of death investigations, city attorneys don't do that. I mean, the shark and the tuna, they swim together, but they're different, if that makes sense. I guess in prosecutor's world, it does.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:11:38
And city attorneys are not designated law enforcement
officials. That's right. Any other questions from the committee? Senator McEvoy,
you recognize for a motion? Motion do pass. The motion do pass. Any discussion? All in favor, say
Speaker 84
1:11:56
aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Representative Wright, you've passed your bill. Thank you, committee.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:15
Representative Fite, you're recognized to... Are you presenting... Which one do you think? You recognize to present
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:12:24
1447. Yes, 1447. And there appears to be an amendment
on it. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to present the amendment to House Bill No. 1447. Do members have the amendment in front of them? It should be on the tablet. Okay. The amendment is making two changes.
On page 4, line 4, delete A, 1, and substitute A. Then on page 4, delete lines 8 through 10 and substitute the state crime laboratory shall adopt rules prescribing. You should all be
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:13:09
able to access that amendment now. Does anybody have questions on the amendment? Seeing no questions on the amendment, we've got a motion from Representative McElroy.
Representative McElroy, what's your question? Do pass on the amendment. Got a motion to accept the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. The motion has been adopted, or the amendment
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:13:36
has been adopted. You recognize, present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is an act to amend the Child Maltreatment Act and for other purposes. I have been a mandated reporter of child abuse most of my adult career life.
I was an educator for 24 years, and as an educator, I was mandated to report anything that came to my attention of child abuse or neglect. Even though I'm now retired, I am still a mandated reporter because I am a court-appointed special advocate. And as such, we have to report anything we see that falls within child abuse or neglect. It has come to my attention that under current Arkansas law, we have an oversight that workers in reproductive health care facilities are not mandated reporters.
Right now in Arkansas law, educators, dentists, nurses, police officers, teachers, and several other people are mandated reporters. This would offer an extra layer of protection in the law that anyone who might see abuse or neglect of a minor would be mandated to report such. Right now, Georgia, Mississippi, and Illinois all have in place that any worker, volunteer,
or paid worker in a reproductive health care facility must be a mandated reporter. This passed in the State of Illinois with virtually no opposition by any reproductive health care facility. I have worked together with the Department of Human Services, the Attorney General's Office and the Arkansas Crime Lab who are all in agreement with this law. This amendment would do two things. It would make any worker in a reproductive health care facility a mandated reporter.
It also would preserve any tissue of an abortion performed on a minor that such tissue could be retrieved in case of rape or incest and we could get DNA from that preserved tissue. And I will entertain any
Speaker 55
1:15:55
questions. Any questions from the committee? Representative Scott, do
you have a question? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This would not cause anyone from getting an abortion, right? This would not keep them from getting an abortion. You are correct, Representative Scott. This would not in any way prohibit anyone
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:16:13
from getting an abortion. Okay. Thank you. Representative McGee, you got a question? Yes,
Speaker 251
1:16:28
a question. You recognize. Rep. Centrified, I appreciate the efforts to mandate individuals to report any case
of suspected child abuse and that sort of thing, but I have some questions about this with regards to preservation of tissue, and I can understand that in criminal cases. And what do you do, though, about reproductive facilities that administer drugs and there's There's no tissue for them to reproduce and send into the crime lab. I mean, they send someone home after taking the medication that induces an abortion.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:17:07
How does that play into this? My understanding is that it would not address that, Representative McGee, that this is merely for an abortion that is performed in a facility. In a facility. Okay. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:17:28
Representative Williams, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to piece together the amendments to make sure that my question hadn't been covered by your amendment. So I apologize if I can't figure it out.
But in the bill that I pulled offline earlier, Section 6, which amends 12-18-210, prohibition of intentionally causing aiding or abetting, is that still in your bill, that section? Let me look and be sure.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:17:52
What page are you on, Representative Williams?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:17:55
I'm on page 4, but I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same version
you're looking at. I'm sorry. The bill I had last engrossment was on 3-6-13 yesterday. Yes.
So page 4, section 6, is that still a part of the bill? Yes. Are
you looking at line 4? I'm actually looking at line 30. Yes, that's still in the bill.
And explain to me what that section does exactly, because you said it does two things. preserving the tissue and then mandating reporting. That seems to be something different than that. Can you explain to me what Section 6 is?
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:18:40
This would be just saying that anyone who violates this, who does not preserve the tissue as they are supposed to do, would be subject
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:18:52
to this provision. So what's this portion about a judicial bypass? Help me understand that.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:18:58
Oh, okay. I wanted to make it very clear that this
would in no way do away with judicial bypass. Currently, we have codified in our law that a judge can rule that a minor who is incompetent
or a minor who perhaps is being abused by her family is able to have an abortion by judicial decree, and this would not do away with that. And so if you
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:19:24
aided and abetted someone who may be incompetent, as you describe, in having a judicial bypass, are you
guilty of violating your statute? It's just a little confusing to me. Would you repeat the
question, please? If you aided or abetted someone in even just getting the judicial bypass, someone who's not a parent, say someone outside of a
parent, aided and abetted in going to the judge,
getting a judicial bypass, does that violate
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:19:51
the statute? Representative Williams, my understanding is that it would not. I don't think that this would change that. This is only speaking in cases of a minor who is in a reproductive health care facility and preserving the tissue. Okay. I don't know that I understand
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:20:09
this. It may just be my own ignorance, so I'll stop that line of question.
Let me go to section, I mean to page 5, lines 18 through 21.
Speaker 260
1:20:24
Help me understand what that Section C means.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:20:41
MS. Okay. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to see someone in the audience that might be able to help us with this. May
Ken Yang
Unverified
1:21:01
I call Mr. Ken Yang forward? MR. My name is Ken Yang, and to address your question, Representative Williams, in Section C, what would happen is to make sure in this section,
where people are civilly liable for causing or abetting or assisting a child to obtain an abortion, that they would be civilly liable within the state laws of here in Arkansas and not whether they came from Tennessee or went to Tennessee or any other state. Can you tell us who you're with, what group?
Speaker 9
1:21:28
Oh, family council. Well, I just am confused because
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:21:33
the language says on line 20, in a manner that is otherwise lawful in the state or place where the abortion was performed,
So if it's lawful in the place that abortion was performed, you're going to make them liable here in Arkansas?
Speaker 272
1:21:47
But the section begins that it is not a defense to a claim brought. So in regards to the previous provisions of civil liabilities, it is not a defense to those things. I guess that's exactly right. I'm confused. It's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:22:01
not a defense. That's what I'm concerned about. Now, it seems like it would be a defense if it was legal in another state and maybe illegal in Arkansas, but if it's legal in the other state, why couldn't I use it as a defense that what I did in that state was legal?
That's my concern. Well, we're not prosecuting anyone. But you're holding me civilly liable. Yes. You're going to sue me civilly in the state of Arkansas for
Ken Yang
Unverified
1:22:30
something that may be illegal here, but was legal where it happened. Well, to my understanding that, you know, when you cross state
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:22:38
lines, you're bound by Arkansas law. Correct me. Correct me. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I cross the state lines, I'm subject to the laws of that
state. Yes. Arkansas laws don't apply in California.
Ken Yang
Unverified
1:22:50
No. Exactly. That's exactly. I am in concurrence with that. But that's not what this
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:22:54
says. As this says, if what I did in California is legal, I can be sued in Arkansas because it's illegal in
Ken Yang
Unverified
1:23:01
Arkansas. Well, to my understanding that this doesn't say that we've had, as Representative Fyde mentioned, the Attorney General has looked over
Speaker 272
1:23:07
this provision, DHS has looked over this provision, and that was a question that was brought up by those two organizations, and that's why we kept it as is. All right, we've got a question, Chair.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:23:20
I know you said it, but that's exactly what it says. Exactly what it
Speaker 272
1:23:27
says. I mean, it says it. Okay. Well, it might be a question that's directed to the
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:23:34
attorney at DHS and not me. Well, maybe Representative Feit, do you want to take a stab at
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:23:40
answering that? Yes. Our intention was just to make it very clear, and obviously we have not succeeded in that. Perhaps I need to pull this down and make that more clear. We were just wanting to make it clear that Arkansas laws would apply here.
Because we do have situations brought from border
states, we were wanting to make it clear that anything that happened in a facility in Arkansas, Arkansas laws would apply. Okay. Looks like we have one more question from Representative Williams,
Chair
Unverified
1:24:05
and then we'll address what you may want to do to pull it down. Well, if she wants
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:24:10
to pull it down, I'm willing to wait on
my question. Is that what you want to do, Representative? And I can
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:24:16
ask you privately some other questions. Okay, let me hear Representative Ballinger's question, and maybe this will help clear this.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:24:21
Well, technically our rules are that if you're going to pull it down, you need to do that before we do the questioning.
Okay. So we can hold the question, I don't mind, but technically the rules are that if you're going to do that, you need
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:24:34
to ask the committee to do that. Okay, thank you. Yes, I think since this seems to be a murky area, even though we had worked very hard to make this clear and working with the other agencies. I will get together with the Attorney General's office and with DHS and see if we can make this totally clear so that everyone could read it and understand exactly what the intent of the law is, and then I will bring it back to you. Okay. Seeing no objections
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:24:56
from the committee, that's what you'll be allowed to do,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:24:58
pull it down and bring it back. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Representative Williams,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:25:22
you'll recognize, present some of your bills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said some of my bills. I'm sorry I have so many, but I'll only run one if that's okay right now. That's fine.
This is the technical corrections cleanup to Act 570 that I've been trying to run for a couple of times now. I think it's finally completely engrossed and everything you need is here. I'll quickly go through the technical corrections on this bill section. Which bill number is it? I'm sorry. This
is 1350. I apologize. I'll give you a chance to pull
it up. I apologize. Okay. Thank you.
Let's see if I can't pull it up also. All right. Section 1
of this bill simply removes or repeals a section of the code that's been repealed. Section 2 makes some clarifications, including the Department of Community Corrections, but it also allows for the electronic transfer of records from districts that actually do electronic records, like here in Pulaski County. Section 3 simply clarifies some date requirements.
Section 4 removes an incorrect reference to a code section. Section 6, I believe, well, I'm sorry, Section 5 basically clarifies in Act 570, when we talk about electronic monitoring, that we can use the latest technology. Currently, Act 570 talks about house arrest, which is old technology. This just says that in electronic monitoring, you can use the latest technology available. Section 6 changes the Department of Corrections, changes from the Department of Community Corrections to the Department of Corrections.
And then Section 7 again clarifies that it's the DCC, not the Department of Community Corrections, that maintains this fund. So that's all technical corrections, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Any questions from committee? Seeing none,
there's nobody even signed to speak for or against the bill. Representative
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:27:31
Williams, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you. I'm sorry. Representative Walker
had a question. Representative Walker, are you ready? No, a motion at the proper time. Okay. Are you closed for your bill, Representative Williams? Yes, sir. I am. Representative Walker, what's the motion?
Do pass. Got a motion to do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Is there anybody else here ready to run one of their bills? It's not on committee yet. It's not on committee. Representative Gillum, you'll recognize, present your bill. Just remind us which bill
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:28:13
you're presenting. You'll recognize, present House Bill 1694.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I'm bringing to you 1694 today.
Just a pretty straightforward bill. Uh, it moves, uh, the ability to place the interlocks on the vehicle, um, immediately upon, uh, the court's, uh, decision. And I'm going to be honest with you, straightforward, uh, the bottom line for me was that the more interlocks that were on these vehicles, uh, the safer that I thought that, uh, the citizens
would be. So that's the intent of this bill. Give
us just one second. Did you say this has until 1694? Yes,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:29:14
sir. Okay. My apologies. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, nobody has signed to speak for or against the
bill. Representative Gilliam, do you wish to close your bill?
Representative Hodges, do you have a question? Do you want to close your bill? Representative Gilliam? I'm closed. Representative Hodges, you got a motion. What's the motion? Got a motion due pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Representative Bain. If you'll just let us know which bill you are presenting when you reach the end of the table, please. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:29:57
It's HB 1505. You're recognized. Present
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:30:04
the committee, Mr. Chairman, we had testimony previously related to questions about members of federal law enforcement that are investigating federal crimes. They subsequently come across a state crime that they could turn over to a state prosecutor, and they currently we have a list in 1505 at the bottom you'll
see a long what I call
a long laundry list of federal agencies that have approval to act in such a way. The concern is that we have at least three of these that have actually changed their name as they've moved to various departments. And so the main focus of this is to basically grandfather those name changes in as they occur and as a courtesy to the agency that brought this to my attention. I inserted theirs, actually, directly. But let me bring you the note. First of all, currently the United States Citizen and Immigration Service Special Agents
have changed their name from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The United States Customs and Border Protection Special Agents are now known as United States Border Patrol. And the Internal Revenue Service Special Agents and Inspectors are now known as United States Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. And honestly, the intent of this law was to make sure that as name changes occur for these federal agencies, that they can continue their service uninterrupted.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:31:32
Any questions from committee? Seeing none, I don't believe anybody has signed to speak for or against the bill. Representative Bain, you want to close your bill? I'm closed for my bill. Representative Shepard has a motion. Mr. Shepard, what's the motion? I move, do pass. Got a motion, do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Anybody else on committee, do you want to run a bill today? Anybody else on committee?
Has there anybody else in the audience that has showed up? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. All those? Without objection, Representative Williams is asking for a special order for House Bill 1470 on Tuesday, March 5th. So without objection, we'll do that by special order. I've got a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye's have it.
Agenda
SB256
HB1574
HB1484
HB1581
SB411
HB1571
HB1447
HB1350
HB1694
HB1505
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 13
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 81
Speaker 83
Representative Nate Steel Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 120
Speaker 122
Speaker 130
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 142
Speaker 145
Speaker 16
Speaker 149
Speaker 151
Speaker 155
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Lloyd Wofford
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 161
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 172
Speaker 174
Speaker 177
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
Speaker 197
Speaker 186
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 206
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 112
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Speaker 231
Speaker 236
Speaker 243
Speaker 84
Speaker 55
Speaker 251
Speaker 260
Ken Yang
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 272
Speaker 67