House Aging Children and Youth Legislative & Military Affairs
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1517
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…intent. First of all, the other day, it passed out of here House Bill 1517,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1518
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “think run House Bill 1518, is that correct? Is that the one you want to run? Okay. Re…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1565
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…least that's the way she wants it scheduled. So next up is House Bill 1565 by Representative Alexander.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1029
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1029”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1446
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1446”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1575
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1575”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1620
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1620”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1024
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1024”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1025
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1025”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1026
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1026”
|
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
Chair
Unverified
0:00
So, Representative Feit, you are recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
0:17
Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. House Bill
1446 first needs to have an amendment, if I may do that first, Mr. Chair. You may. this amendment is to strike section 3 in its entirety okay is there any
Chair
Unverified
0:37
questions or comments on the amendment itself representative Alexander you recognized did you move to adopt the amendment okay any discussion on that motion I that's what I figured all right many discussion on the amendment seeing none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed congratulations
you have adopted your amendment representative fight you recognize to go ahead and
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:08
present the bill as amended thank you mr. chair members what this bill will do is two things one we are asking that the age for amending the child maltreatment Act be changed to age 14. Recently I have heard from some people in my area who have said that they found it strange to have a background check done on a 10 year old. So we're trying to change the age on many bills to make 14 the age for look back for
many things and this would change that to be in accordance with several other bills with 14 being the age in which we would do a background check on all children in a household in which they are looking to place a foster child or an adoptive child. Then the second thing that this bill would do, it's a cleanup bill from DHS from last session. Right now the adoption code is written very narrowly, and it requires that a child who is being placed in an adoptive home
be in that home before the parent can petition to adopt. We have had a few rare situations in which there is a sibling set, and all of the siblings are being adopted together, but one of the child, because of severe medical difficulties, is in a medical facility and cannot safely be placed in the home due to being medically fragile, and yet the family wants to adopt all of the children. This would do away with that provision and say that even if a child is in a medical facility,
the child can go ahead and be adopted.
Speaker 13
2:51
MR. Okay. Any questions? MR. Any questions? MR. Okay. Okay. No
Chair
Unverified
2:54
questions. Is there anybody here? Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Broadway? Okay.
Seeing none, is there anybody here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Broadway, you're recognized. I'll go ahead and accept the motion. Motion has been made to do pass as amended.
As amended. Okay. Oh, we just need to pass. Okay, because it was amended. Okay. That's why I have a wonderful staff person to keep me honest here. I appreciate that. All right. So the motion is due pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Congratulations, Representative Fite. You
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
3:41
have passed your bill. Thank you. And if I may add a personal note, Mr. Chair. Yes. MS. Representative Harris is not with us today because the adoption of his children
Chair
Unverified
3:50
is being formalized. MR. Wonderful. Okay, let's see. Representative Hammer was going to present his bills, but I think he is in another committee right now doing something, either presenting another bill or listening to something. But he said he would be here, but we'll go ahead and skip over that for right now. Lee will be presenting her resolution on Friday, at least that's the way she wants it scheduled. So next up is House Bill 1565 by Representative Alexander.
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
4:23
You're recognized to present your bill. you mr. speaker I'm resisting the temptation to say this is a little bill that doesn't do anything but I think it is it is a minor bill in some respects
what what got me started on this bill is one of my constituents asked me to run it and upon learning more about him he's he's sort of an expert on Thomas Paine He has a very comprehensive website and a lot of information. And he is motivated by the belief that Thomas Paine has not been given the recognition he should be given. I'm motivated to do this out of a slightly different reason. I really wasn't that politically active until about four years ago.
I mean, I voted and I yelled at the television, but other than that, I didn't do a whole lot. And at that point, I got involved and I began to study for myself some history of our nation, and I was amazed at some of the things I learned. And it seems to me that even over my lifetime, the awareness of the general public of both the people and some of the ideas that contributed to the founding of this country has been lost.
Everyone said if you ask the average person to name some of the founders, they wouldn't go beyond Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington. I'm not sure with some folks they could name those. When I see these men on the street things on TV and they ask them who the current vice president is and they don't know the answer to that. But I think when we lose knowledge of our founding, we lose a lot. actually endangers this this country so I want to just briefly say why I think
Thomas Paine is is worthy of this recognition Thomas Paine helped to inspire the American Revolution in common sense published in January 1776 Paine said that the columnist should aim for complete independence from Britain before Thomas Paine published common sense most colonists had not seen their quarrel with Britain as one that would lead to separation. After publication, Edmund Randolph from Virginia reported that the public feeling which a few
weeks before had shuddered at the tremendous obstacles around getting independence in their minds now left every barrier. Common sense was hailed by George Washington as working a powerful change in feelings toward Britain. It prepared Americans for the Declaration of Independence a few months later, and Thomas Paine was given the title of the father of the American Revolution. Just three short quotes from Common Sense. One of the things that a lot of folks talk about is Paine's ability to take some complex
ideas and put them in layman's terms that everyone could understand them. And here are a few examples. He says, quote, small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care. But there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. Another quote, for all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family and perpetual preference to all others forever.
And though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. And the last one, there's something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of a monarchy. It first excludes a man from the means of information, and he means by that they're removed from the daily ongoings of the society. It first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.
Some quotes about Thomas Paine, a journalist by the name of Herbert Kaysen, said the real man back of the American Revolution was the man who had the ideas. and not the man behind the guns. The ideas came from the pamphlet Common Sense written by Thomas Paine, published in 1776. It turned the hostilities that only sought reconciliation of grievances into a war for independence. And this is what his contemporaries had to say. Benjamin Franklin said, you, Thomas Paine, are more responsible than any other living
person on this continent for the creation of what are called the United States of America. John Adams said without the pin of pain the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain George Washington said upon reading Common Sense the sound doctrines and unanswerable reasoning contained in the pamphlet Common Sense will not leave the members of this convention at a loss to decide upon the propriety of separation so Paine's words not only moved people toward independence from Britain they also inspired Washington's army to victory
and this is the last thing I want to share with you On December 25th, after many defeats, Washington's army was in very low spirits. Payne's words from a pamphlet called The American Crisis were read to soldiers boarding boats to cross the freezing Delaware River. And I think this is a familiar quote, at least parts of it, but I did not realize it came from Payne. He says, quote, these are the times that try men's souls the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of his country
but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph what we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly just the dearness only that gives everything its value heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly regarded those words inspired
the army to victory a few days later in a surprise attack at Trenton which was an important turning point in the war the last thing I want to say is this is a commemoration not a holiday it doesn't cost any money. It simply requires the governor to enter a proclamation on Payne's birthday, something that has been done previously in 2006. Governor Huckabee did exactly that based on a resolution. The difference is by passing a bill it will be done annually and it does
not have to be brought up again. I'd be
Chair
Unverified
11:26
happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any questions at all from the committee? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? All right. Representative Holcomb has made the motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Okay. The bill has passed. Okay. Next we have, thank you Representative Alexander for that. Next up
we're going to go back. I see Representative Hammer is now in the building. So we're going to allow him to come up and I
think run House Bill 1518, is that correct? Is that the one you want to run? Okay. Representative Hammer, you're recognized to present House Bill 1518.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:31
I think, Mr. Chair and committee, may I invite Ms. Hart to sit beside me. I think she has the opportunity to provide some insight to the
Chair
Unverified
12:44
bill, please. Yes, that would be fine. If you could go ahead and come to the end of the table and state your name and title for the
Speaker 33
12:58
record, please. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members. name is Nicole Hart. I am the founder and CEO of Our Vets, a veterans nonprofit here in the state.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:08
Go ahead. Thank you. First of all, committee, I won't make any excuses. I came in here the other day. I just did a terrible job, and if you want to beat me up over that, that's okay. I'll get that out there that I just did a really crappy job of trying to lay the groundwork. So what I'd like to ask you to do is I've typed up a sheet that kind of helps flow our thoughts a little bit and maybe help you grasp on to what the intent of the bill is about and show you how the bill does reach and meet that intent. First of all, the other day, it passed out of here House Bill 1517,
and basically what that did was provide for veterans' preference to be extended to school districts, which were not previously covered. So provided that bill can make it through the channels, it would require that school districts apply the veterans' preference law, which is not what I'm here to talk about because that's already a settled issue. That's a federal law. That's not necessarily what we're here to discuss. Then what Bill 1518, which is before you for consideration, does today is there,
first of all, is some language in the bill that needs to be cleaned up, such as he or she is now referred to as the applicant. It will provide the veteran an opportunity to receive their numerical score, including base score, adjusted score, and successful candidate score. And the purpose behind that is, and that is what is already written into law, so we're not doing anything to increase that necessarily. But the purpose that it helps achieve is to help assist the veteran with benchmarks
to determine levels to which they need to develop their skills. And to give you an example of that, if you score theoretically a 70 and the person who was awarded the job, maybe scored a 95, it would be an indicator that would help the veteran realize maybe particular areas that they need to work on improving so the next time they have an opportunity to apply for a job opening, it would give them a benchmark. Secondly, and this is kind of the meat, documentation.
It provides the veteran the opportunity to receive documentation to show at what point the veteran's preference law was applied in the selection process. There are some purposes for this. Number one, to assist the veteran in assuring them that the veteran's preference law was applied in the hiring process. Number two, to assist the veteran to identify areas of potential improvement. Number three, to assist the veteran in assuring them that the veteran's preference law was applied as required by law. And number four, to assure that the requirement of state agencies, institutions of higher
learning and school districts as represented in House Bill 1517 for them to comply with the Veterans' Preference Law and make sure that they are being enforced. What it does not do, it does not give the veteran any information other than candidates other, it doesn't give any information of other candidates other than the score of the successful candidate when a numerical scoring system is in application. It does not give the veteran exceptions outside the law, and it does not step outside the boundaries of the current veterans' preference law
or expand the federal veterans' preference law. It does not give them any additional advantage. Basically, why we need this law is to provide veterans a way to assure that the veterans' preference law is being complied with in the hiring process, which this is an area that is really lacking currently. And number two, to assist veterans who are not hired to better prepare themselves for future opportunities. In a nutshell, this bill will give the veterans, when they go to apply for a job,
the right to be able to receive their paperwork and guarantee and assure and help assure that they would be able to receive their paperwork as authorized under the Veterans Preference Law, and it gives them access to materials to a greater level. And I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Chair
Unverified
17:13
Thank you. I do have one question. How will a veteran know whether an agency uses a scoring system? Because I think in the last testimony, it was determined that not all agencies use a scoring system.
So is this something that's kind of an honor system that the agency is going to just apply, or will the veterans know when they apply for a task that this particular agency uses a scoring
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:39
system? I'd like to answer that
question, but also rely on Ms. Hart to add to anything that I say, if that's all right with the chair. It may be that not all agencies necessarily use the scoring system, but in cases where it is used, that it would give the veteran the right to be able to access those scores so they can see what their score was
as opposed to the winning score. Again, I want to emphasize they're not getting any information about the other candidates other than the score of the winning candidate for the job. So, and that is, your question kind of speaks to the issue. From information I've gotten from veterans that have approached me about this issue, they're not getting the information back that they are entitled to or should be getting back. And this law will help put some teeth in that to make sure that the agencies,
institution of higher learning, and if Bill 1517 clears through all the channels, public schools, it'll assure the veteran that every point of the veterans preference law has been applied as required because right now there's
a lacking and I'll let miss Hart speak to anything she'd like to add
Speaker 33
18:52
to that mr. chairman just also a note that the current Arkansas law states that if you don't use a numerical point system that you do have to attach how you apply the veterans preference law to
that employment application and keep on records according to the agency stipulation. So either way,
Chair
Unverified
19:10
the veteran will get something back, whether it's a score or whether it's how the veteran's preference law was actually applied? Yes,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:21
Mr. Chairman. Okay. That's correct. But also, again, I want to emphasize that there's a degree of difficulty that the veterans are experiencing in getting that information, and what this law will help do is to emphasize that they are entitled to it and assure that they have some recourse that if they do not get it as
required by the federal law, they can use this law to guarantee that they
Chair
Unverified
19:44
are able to get it. Okay, great. Representative
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
19:47
Alexander, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, you said that this first section is already in the law, and my question was, Is that the way it's stated in the law? It includes that specific information, or is it a more general requirement?
Is this exactly how it is stated in the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:13
current law? Are you referring to page one and the section that's underlined, or are you referring to the handout sheet? I'm
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
20:22
referring to the handout, the numerical score, including base score, adjusted score, and the successful candidate score. I believe you said that it was already in the law. that they should receive this information. Is it that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:35
specific information? My understanding, and I'll let Ms. Hart speak to the aspects of the federal veterans preference law
and other matters to that. My understanding is that it is in the law that they should require it. However, it's a weak interpretation of law, and what this bill is going to do is just shore that up and reaffirm it to guarantee them and give them recourse that in the event they don't get it, they
Speaker 33
21:07
have recourse to get it. Representative, at the federal level, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, is the one that monitors this.
If a veteran is seeking employment and they are 30% more service-connected, they have a 30% more service-connected disability rating, that that agency is required to provide the veteran and the OPM Office of Personnel Management with the documentation to support why that veteran didn't qualify. At the state level it currently doesn't allow or mandate that the veteran is required to receive that document all it currently states is that the agency is required to on the employment application document and hold
it with that file but the language is similar to that I can't say for sure if it's basic I know base is in there and adjusted I'm not sure about successful candidate score but I have the law if I
Chair
Unverified
22:09
needed to look at it representative Payton
you're next thank you mr. chair representative hammer I thought I guess I need some clarification now, because at one point you were saying they were entitled to
this information and the law is just guaranteeing that they get it. Are they entitled to it currently, or is this law going to give them that
Speaker 33
22:39
entitlement? Do you mind if I let me charge me first now? At the federal level, Representative, if they are 30% more, there's different levels at the federal level that you receive points. There's a five-point veteran's preference that's applied and a ten-point veteran's preference that's applied. And there's different scales depending on the type of service-connected disability that
you have. So currently, at the federal law, if you have a disability rating of 30% or higher, they are required to give that documentation to the veteran along with the Office of Personnel Management. At the state level, the way the law is written, it indicates that the agency is only required to keep the documentation as to why they did not hire the person with the record, but it currently does not imply that they have to or are mandated to provide that information to the veteran.
This bill will set not a mandate, but kind of put that in motion that the agency, institutions of higher education along with school districts if the other bill is passed, we'll provide documentation to show how the veterans preference law was applied. Can I
Chair
Unverified
23:46
follow up? Yes, you may go ahead. So currently, federal agencies are required to
provide the information, but state agencies are
Speaker 67
23:54
not. Is that right? And that's 30 percent
Chair
Unverified
23:57
or more. That's important. And this next question would be to Representative Hammer.
I can see where this information would be valuable to the applicant to modify their skills or to improve their next interview or something. Why wouldn't we want to make that available to all
Speaker 69
24:16
applicants instead of just veterans? I think that would be a great bill for you to write and bring for the
Chair
Unverified
24:23
committee, sir. Thank you. I'm done. All right. Okay. Representative Neffenbaugh,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
24:29
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Give me, Representative Hamer, I'm kind of behind here.
What benchmark are we talking about? Is that, I don't know what, I'm not sure what that even refers to. I'm not understanding. Are you referring
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:44
to the handout sheet I gave out? Yes, sir. Okay, that is really just my terminology to try to capture the essence, and I'll let Ms. Hart maybe speak to a specific situation if you're asking questions about the scoring system. But, again, the purpose is to help assist the veteran with a benchmark. And the illustration I used a while ago, if I may use a coaching analogy, would that be okay?
All right. You've got a player out there that's performing to 100%, and you've got a player out there performing to 70%. And if all you ever do is say, well, you need to improve, go out there and do it, you really haven't helped that player. You have to have a benchmark in order for that player to know
what to aim for and to identify areas where they need to improve so that the next time when they get in the next game, they're going to play to 100% level and they know what the difference between the 70%
and the 100% is. They can, you know, these agencies have that information,
and if the veteran had that information released to them, they would be able to see where their areas of improvement would be or where they need to improve. but also the greater thing is if you go out and you tell a player hey you need to improve but you never help the player improve or give the player
all the tools they need to improve we've really done them an injustice and that's part of what this law is intended to do is to help show them that the veterans preference has been applied in the process where
it has been applied and then also give them the tools so that they can improve their job skill tools to be able to get the job next time All
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
26:25
right, so, I mean, I guess what I'm getting at is when do they take this test or how's that done? That's what I'm getting at, really. When
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:33
is that evaluation done? Okay. Well, I'm going to answer that. I am going to defer to Ms. Hart on that. In the interview process, there are things
that as veterans that they are gauged against. So it's actually in the application for the job, applying for the job is where all this
takes place. And then the information is in the file and this is helping access that information. I'll let Ms. Hart speak to the
Speaker 61
26:57
numerical part of it. I would just say that in the law it doesn't
Speaker 33
27:02
quantify any specific way that each agency is required to implement the law. They allow the agencies to have the discretion based on their own practices
Speaker 32
27:11
within the agency, but they just have to within that practice utilize some form of veterans preference.
Speaker 77
27:18
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Representative Holcomb, you're recognized for
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
27:24
comment or question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question, and I can tell Representative Henry, you put
Speaker 80
27:30
a lot of work into this, and we probably already discussed it, but we discussed so much I forgot what we talked about almost. Or if the veteran applies to a corporation to get this information, or do they currently just give it to them, or do they have to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:46
request that information? You used the term corporation.
Speaker 81
27:49
Entity, anybody that hired, they do a...
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:51
Okay, well, I'll kind of separate the field a little bit. What I'm dealing with are state agencies, institution of higher learning, and by Bill 1517, it would add school districts into that scenario. So everything I'm talking about is in those three areas only. Doesn't deal with the private sector at all. I think maybe something's coming down the road on that, but it's not by me. So I'm really just on these three government entities, basically.
And I'm sorry, now I'll ask your question again.
Speaker 80
28:22
Do they have to request this information, or is it automatically sent to them if they don't get the job? No,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:27
they have to request it. And part of the issue is that an issue that's been brought to me by several veterans is that when they request it, it's like pulling teeth to get it. And this law will put some teeth in it where it will bring these agencies into compliance and force them. And if they don't, then it gives the veterans some stronger recourse to take it to the next level. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
28:51
Representative Gossage, you're recognized. Yes, I have a couple of questions. I'll ask them if you don't mind. There's two components to this it looks to me like if I'm following this correctly. one is the application of the preference that there's going to have to be some documentation and that will apply in every case that they have shown the veterans preference we're going that will have to be
documented by any school district higher education is that correct in every case
they'll need to show where the preference was
given that's one element right right the second component is going to be why they were not hired or
what the deficiency was. But that would only be applied in the situation where the hiring entity is using a point system. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding
Speaker 33
29:52
that part? Representative, according to the law currently, it states that if you utilize
the numerical system, it dictates how to show how the Veterans Preference Law is applied, and then there's also language in there that suggests that if you do not use a numerical system, you still have to show at what point you apply the Veteran's Preference Law. So the language does still allude to outside of a numerical system, the Veteran's Preference Law still has to be applied. Yes.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
30:19
So in every case, the Veteran's Preference
would have to be applied, but my question is, if you do not use a numerical system, will you have to supply to the Veteran an
explanation for why they were not
Speaker 33
30:34
hired according to the law currently it does not require that you provide the veteran with any information it just requires that you document and hold it with the employment application file so in both cases by law currently you're supposed to document and hold it with that employment application at this point this deal would allow the veteran to request information about how that law was applied not necessarily what was
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
31:03
applied okay follow-up question good again I'm just gonna go from this this is typical of what happens in a school I don't
know whether it happens in agencies I described this the other day that there's a number of people who are involved in the interview process group interviews are very common and in the group of folks will decide which candidate is going to be selected for the job each one of those people have differing views about why they selected their their the candidate that that
finally came down and I guess the difficult portion that I'm having I'm not having trouble with the preference or any of that it's just that sometimes it's a it's going to be very difficult to explain exactly why the candidate that was chosen was chosen and why the other candidate was, because it's different for different members of the selection committee. And I'm just wanting to make sure that we have a process where that we can adequately explain to the veteran why they did not get the job, but it may be different.
If there's five people on the committee, three of them may have different reasons for why they didn't choose the veteran. So that's the complicated part for me, is how you would explain
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:29
that? I mean, I'll be glad to respond. Just how do
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
32:33
you think we should go about, how would you go about explaining that situation to the veteran that would be acceptable?
I mean, I know what we want to do, but sometimes it's more complicated than a simple answer, and often that would be the
Speaker 33
33:00
case. I would continue to say that it's at the discretion of the hiring authority to figure out how that will work. I don't think that there's a general way that would be applicable to every situation, And because of that reason, the law doesn't dictate or demand the specifics about how
the law is applied within that process, but just that you apply the law. If I was, I am in no way an interview group expert, but if I was looking at a situation where there was a group of individuals interviewing, within that process, you just have to figure out as a group how you would apply the law. At what point, based on the qualifications, based on the measurables that you're using to determine if it's a candidate that you want to hire, at what point would you allow a preference because of their service?
I think this act began back in 1944 to allow for veterans to not have a handout but a hand up because disabled veterans currently, if you acknowledge the fact that you are a disabled veteran, it is common knowledge that there's a stigma that's placed on veterans in that, especially in our Guard and Reserve, because employers, rightfully so, are scared if they get deployed what their obligations are. And so because there are so many different issues that exist as it relates to the military,
the federal government felt it important to create a law and the state government felt it important to create a law to protect those that defended and protected us. And so I think based on where the law came from, there's a reason why it was created. Now, how each individual applies that law, I think the law is justified in allowing that discretion to lay with
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
34:57
those hiring officials. Yes, ma'am. Please do not misunderstand. My dad was 100% service-connected disabled.
I'm certainly not arguing against this bill at all. I'm 100% in favor of it. My issue is how those of us who are going to be responsible for carrying it out adequately do that job because we want to give them the information that they need, but sometimes I'm just saying it's a very complicated situation to give that explanation.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:34
I'd like to maybe bring a little comfort level to the question you asked. Referring back to House Bill 1517, and I understand we're talking about an old bill that's already cleared committee, but there is some impact by Bill 1518, and that's part of the reason why originally I separated them out. But in 1517, on page 2, it says meet substantially equal qualifications of other applicants. I'm going to paraphrase it the way I would be looking at it from somebody that's in a hiring position.
You bring in multiple applicants. Some of them are veterans. Some of them are not. I'd pick someone who is not a veteran, and the veteran says, I want to see why, you know, why they were picked over me. The thing is, the law already requires that the veteran's preference law has to be put into place. So that expectation and that standard is already there regardless of whatever happens to this law or doesn't happen to this law.
Your school board has a bigger problem if they're not already doing it, and that is determined. What this bill helps do is to help make sure that those veterans that come in, and not every veteran is going to, you know, this is not going to be used by every veteran, but it will be there to be used by those who feel they need it to make sure that the veterans' preference law was applied in the process. How can you defend yourself if you pick somebody other than a veteran?
You know, you have your case built that this person was a substantially better candidate for the job, and that may be rightfully so the case, and that would allow the veteran, by being able to see where the veteran's preference law was applied, where they need to work to improve their skills. But if they can't get that, they don't know, and that's the problem. We want to train them. We want to get them ready. but we don't show them where in real life it is lacking, and this will help them have that tool.
I hope that brings you a comfort
Speaker 33
37:49
level, and I think Ms. Hart may say something. Representative Gossage, I was just going to, for the record, state that our state is very patriotic, and in no way did I mean to imply that you weren't supportive of the Veterans Preference Law or anyone on the committee. But based on my background when I was in the governor's office and currently working in the veteran community, As a service member, as a combat veteran, I was a .50 Cal gunner and a combat lifesaver.
So I on one hand manned a machine gun and on the other hand tried to do the best I could to save lives and it was difficult. So when somebody, a lot of veterans have that same feeling or impression when our civilian counterparts talk about things that are difficult because every veteran endured difficult times for the sake of the freedom of the country, and that's the attitude and vigor that they have when they're asking for those documentations because they feel like it's owed to them based on their sacrifice.
So that was my only, about the initial intent of the law, it was never to imply that you all weren't supportive because we have a
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
38:59
very patriotic state. Last thing, it's a comment. Go ahead. Truly, I understand this. I'm on your side here 100%. My dad was never – he had three different bombs that had blown up at different times that caused serious issues in his life. The best job he ever had was not a great one.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:29
If you want to ask Representative Hammer, go ahead. when we come into committees this is my opinion as a representative when we come into committee this is iron sharpening iron so when we step out on that floor and we got to stand in front of everybody we dialogue in here and we bring to the surface the best and to get to the best we got to deal with all subjects as relevant to the bills that are before us and and for the record i want to say
I appreciate the dialogue I'll close in a minute I just want to say I appreciate the dialogue because folks it is a tough subject it's an emotional subject it's a sensitive subject but it's one that deserves and needs to be talked about and and so I just want to say I appreciate the iron sharpening iron that's going on in this room it's what's going to make
Chair
Unverified
40:22
us all sharper good point good reminder thank you representative hammer representative Alexander you're recognized
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
40:28
thank you mr. chair I appreciate the clarification and I'm at
the point now where I'm comfortable with a bill but I still have one question I support completely the idea of giving feedback that will allow them to address areas where they may not be as strong as they need to be but it also says we're going to give them their score and the other person's score and I interpret that to mean just the numerical score so I don't I don't understand how that provides them the necessary information to improve maybe I'm confused about what
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:07
you're saying I guess that would be and and let me qualify this yes they will be given their score but they will be given the score of the person who received the job and I think that communicates a couple things number one and maybe this is just my perception of how I go about things if I know you scored a 95 and I score to 85 I'm gonna do what I've got to do to go back and look and see what
I did in order to be better next time that's just who I am as a person okay but if I don't know that I may think I may know that hey I did the best I could but on the other hand as a veteran under the veterans preference law I want to see it in black and white what the scores were because not everybody does what they're supposed to do and that's part of what this law is intended to do too just to bring accountability and fairness and bring integrity into the
application process and by them having that score it wouldn't do any good if they just got their score you wouldn't know anything but if you get the other person's score it might also make it easier for the veteran to understand that if the veterans preference law was applied to all levels that it should they can accept that and that will help them also move on either to do better or to do other things I don't know but without the comparison of the scores that's allowed them it's a little hard for that to be achieved so that's part of what it's intended to do too
thank you okay representative Davis you're recognized thank you chairman representative Hammer just I assume if there's somebody signed up to speak against this we would have heard from them I just Curious to me, have you heard any opposition to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:00
this? Haven't heard any opposition, but I've learned to prepare a bill much better when I come in before a committee to speak. So, no, I've not heard one lick of
opposition against this. So, no state agencies or school districts?
Speaker 62
43:11
Not on this bill, no. Okay. Not on this bill.
Chair
Unverified
43:14
And we don't have anybody signed up to speak against it, so there's nobody on the list anyways. Okay, very good. Okay. Representative Fite,
Speaker 113
43:25
you're recognized. Okay. Well, we have come to the end of the questioning it looks like, so let me go ahead and do this. Is there anybody that wishes to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none. Representative White, I'll go ahead and recognize that motion.
Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? MR. Congratulations, Representative Hammer. You've
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
43:53
passed your bill. MR. Thank you, and thank you, Committee, for making me better prepared to go
Chair
Unverified
43:59
out on the floor. I appreciate it. Look forward to seeing you there. MR. Okay. 1519 is going to the deferred list. Is that correct, Representative Hammer? He stepped away. Okay. So we're going to go ahead and I think put that on the deferred list, barring his objection
or not objection. Let's see. Okay, next one will be House Resolution 1014 by Representative Letting. You're recognized
Speaker 113
44:22
to present your resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. I
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
44:31
do have some handouts for the Committee that I'll bring up here. That's
Speaker 113
44:43
fine. House Resolution 1024 should be on the agenda.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
44:49
And in the interest of the committee's time, if it's okay, I'll go ahead and begin presenting as they're
Representative John Payton
Unverified
45:02
handing out the... You are recognized to present your resolution. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is just strictly a resolution. Following the last legislative session in 2011, Representative Kathy Webb put together a group of 54 people, including five legislators, who spent more than a year producing report on the social and economic status of women in Arkansas, just to kind of identify
any potential problems. We know that Arkansas currently ranks 51st in economic opportunity for women. We also know that in the last decade, in 19 of our counties, the life expectancy for women has actually gone down. And the last
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
45:38
time that happened was the Spanish flu epidemic in the early 20th century. So they produced this report that highlighted some of these issues and listed a few recommendations for the General Assembly, and so all this resolution does is just encourage
Representative John Payton
Unverified
45:52
the General Assembly to act on any of these recommendations
that it feels are appropriate. These include addressing women's health issues, again, referencing back the idea that we identified the fact that their life expectancy has gone down in 19 of our counties, many of them in the Delta. It addresses human trafficking, which we've already seen some legislation pass and hope to see a little bit more. Get out of here before the end of session. And some economic opportunities for women. So it's strictly a resolution, just encouraging us to act on a few of those recommendations. And the handouts are being passed out.
Some of you still don't have them. One lists some of the statistics identified by the report, and the other lists the recommendations. And I didn't produce the entire 36-page report for everybody, but you do have the select pages from the report that list the recommendations. Okay. Are
Chair
Unverified
46:48
there any questions by the committee? Representative Feit, you're recognized. Thank you.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
46:53
And thank you, Representative Leading, for your work on this. I do notice
in your list of sponsors that you have some women listed, but they're all from one party. I wondered if you had sought getting women from the other party, because I was not approached about this. I actually did.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
47:11
I apologize. I did not get to everybody, but I did speak with some females on both sides, and I did not get a favorable response. So it was certainly not any attempt to exclude. I would be happy to add anybody
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
47:26
that would like to be a sponsor,
but there was no attempt to exclude. I did speak with people in both parties.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
47:35
Thank you. May I ask a follow-up? Yes, you may. Representative Lenning, would you mind
Representative John Payton
Unverified
47:41
if I ask what was the reason for the opposition? I honestly they didn't say they just didn't feel comfortable.
Chair
Unverified
47:53
I suppose. I'm not sure they didn't give a reason Okay, I do I have a question In
Let me see what page it is page four Line nine verse or mean number four and I think this kind of made beginning at what representative fight is and I definitely don't want to speak for anybody else. But it says implement pay equity reforms and create a pay equity task force to provide recommendations for achieving. Is this in any way, shape, or form in conjunction with the Equal Rights Amendment, which seems to be popular? Because I know that there are some on both sides of the aisle that have reservations
about, you know, about supporting an Equal Rights Amendment. That
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
48:36
is correct. I have no intention of introducing that legislation. I don't believe anybody else does either. This is completely separate. And I don't know that we're certainly not going to try to legislate pay equity either. That just I don't believe there's a way to do it, and there are certainly instances and perfectly justified reasons why there are disparities in pay. We are looking at perhaps having state agencies just simply provide a
Representative John Payton
Unverified
49:04
report of any potential disparity each year,
but that's the only legislation at this time
Chair
Unverified
49:12
that I know of. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions? Representative
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
49:23
Alexander, you're recognized. I'm looking. I thought I had seen a statement that looked like we were promoting pay equity,
Chair
Unverified
49:33
but... That was, I think, the one that I mentioned, page 4, line 9, where it says implement pay
Speaker 113
49:39
equity reforms and create. And, again, I want to make it perfectly clear this is a resolution. If it passes, there's no law. There's no changes. All it is is just a resolution saying that we should do some or all of these things that are within the resolution. So I just want to make that perfectly clear. So there are things in this resolution you may not agree with, but it's not going to
Chair
Unverified
50:04
be law. There has to be a separate bill that has to come up in order to actually implement that particular policy.
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
50:11
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You helped me find my place here. You recognize. Go ahead. It seems clear to me that the study does recommend certain things that include pay equity, and it also includes language that I'm familiar with from working in higher education. And my concern is when it says something like on page four, starting on line six, require
businesses seeking contracts with state agencies to demonstrate their commitment to identifying and combating pay inequality and job segregation by sex. How does
Speaker 25
51:02
a business do that? I don't know if that
Chair
Unverified
51:12
was a rhetorical question or not, but you know. That's a real question. Okay. All
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
51:18
right. How does a business demonstrate their commitment to identifying and combating pay inequality
and job segregation by sex? How does a plumbing contractor who's applying for a contract for state work demonstrate his plumbing company's commitment to identifying and combating pay inequality and job segregation by sex? MR. That would be up to an individual business to
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
51:46
find a way to promote weather activities. We would be in no way requiring them to do so. I do know in regards to contracts with the state, I think less than about 3 percent of
all contracts are awarded to companies owned by business, to businesses owned by women. And there's a recommendation to try and encourage the state to, when possible and when appropriate and when responsible, to try to do more business with
Representative John Payton
Unverified
52:13
businesses that are owned by women. But again, we would not be requiring businesses
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
52:18
to do anything. MR. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask a follow-up. MR. The language says require businesses. And even using the terms you just used here, somebody has to be in the position of determining
whether they satisfied that encouragement, setting the bar,
if you will. And the language here doesn't reflect
to me what you're saying. When you say pass legislation, require businesses, implement, I just have a disconnect between
what I hear you say and what I'm reading here on the
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
52:59
page. Again, it's just a recommendation, and it's part of a resolution. So there would be no, I really don't see any legislation following that recommendation
at this time. Then what's the point? To make it clear that
Representative John Payton
Unverified
53:15
the 89th General Assembly recognizes that there is an issue with economic opportunities for women and that we are open
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
53:23
to at least trying to figure out why those inequalities exist and if there are reasonable and appropriate measures to address them. I know that former State Representative Linsley Smith, my predecessor, this is something that she would absolutely support, just
Speaker 119
53:41
as she supported the Thomas Paine Day.
Speaker 113
53:44
Right, and just, you know, let me, again, let me clarify, you know, again, this is a resolution, even though it may say require or implement or whatever the case may be, nothing will be done unless there is a follow-up law that we pass that actually does
Chair
Unverified
54:00
something. It would be like us sending a resolution to the President or to Congress, you know, asking them to require that we do something or not do something or whatever, it doesn't mean anything unless they actually pass a law. But again, you know, with the resolution, if there's something in there you like, then
support it. If there's things that you don't like, you don't have to support it. So
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
54:24
anyways, Representative Feit, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may have
just spoken to what I was going to ask because there's something in there I don't like on page four. I was wondering if maybe it could be revised a little bit. Specifically on page 4, number 2 says, well, let me look down a little bit. It was requiring businesses seeking contracts with state agencies to demonstrate their commitment
and then another place, I've lost it now, but it was up a few lines on line 4, contracting opportunities for women-owned businesses by creating a program to set aside certain state contracts specifically for women-owned businesses. As a business owner, I would prefer to be chosen because my business is best, not because I'm a woman. Right, and that's absolutely fair. And again,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
55:14
the intent is just to make sure that we're drawing attention to the idea that we need to be making sure that we aren't necessarily
intentionally avoiding anything. We want to choose the businesses that are best for the job and the most responsible and
Chair
Unverified
55:35
appropriate choice. MS. Thank you. MR. Representative Payton, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Letting, I guess you've been here longer than I have, and I understand this is a resolution, so I'm going to ask you for a little advice here. MR. Okay. MR. If I were to support a resolution that is calling and recommending legislation that
I do not support, that would be pretty hypocritical, wouldn't it, for me to vote for the resolution and then not want to vote for the legislation that it calls for? I don't
Representative John Payton
Unverified
56:08
know that it would necessarily be hypocritical because, again, there's a wide number of recommendations in here, some
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
56:13
of them that we're already working on. The chair and I have been working on human trafficking legislation for a number of, I guess, well more than a year now, and that's one of the recommendations included here, and that's something that we agree on. There are probably some recommendations in here that he and I might not necessarily see eye-to-eye on, but we found common ground and were able to address those things.
So I think supporting the resolution is not necessarily saying that you would support legislation on any of the specific recommendations. Okay. Thank you. Representative Armstrong, are you recognized? Motion
Speaker 113
56:54
at the proper tab. Okay, I do not see any further questions. Is there anybody that wants to speak for or against the resolution? Seeing none, Representative Davis.
You recognized? I think this has already been said. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But just, again, I understand we're typically just to go along with resolutions, but this resolution does specifically call for legislation that I wouldn't necessarily agree with. So I would rather see it brought down and some revisions made before we agreed to this resolution. Okay. I'm sure this isn't
Representative John Payton
Unverified
57:33
going to change any minds. The reason we did run it today is that Friday is International Women's Day.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
57:40
But if enough members really want to see some revisions that would make it more comfortable, we can certainly go and do that. That
Chair
Unverified
57:49
is – you're the resolution sponsor. It's your decision. You can
choose to go forward, or you can choose to hold off, make the revisions, and come back at a later time. I'll go
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
58:01
ahead and pull the resolution for now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
58:17
We have Representative Alts. Representative Alts, I'm going to go ahead and recognize you to
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
58:32
run House Bill 1029. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's House Bill 1029. A constituent called and asked me to carry this bill.
Evidently, there's a tremendous problem with minors, kids, raping other kids. So I presented the bill, I brought the bill, and then Ron Angel with DYS said that he wanted to make some amendments to it. He said that he has an Alexander prison full of kids guilty of this. And then Dermott is full of kids guilty of this.
I didn't realize it was such a problem. So then I amended it, and so then Cecile Blucher showed up and said that she had a problem with the bill because she has about 3,000 kids that would be thrown into this. And my original bill mandated counseling, and so this bill really doesn't do a whole lot of anything but encourage counseling and point people in the right direction. So if you
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
59:47
have questions, I'd try to answer them, or we have Cecile Blucher with DCFS here.
Chair
Unverified
59:52
Okay. It's already any questions or comments from the committee? Representative Scott,
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:00:03
you're recognized. Yes. I have one question. Thank you. Are these children in the same families, or are these children out of the families?
Who is the target here? Cecile Blocher with
Speaker 160
1:00:17
the Division of Children and Family Services. It's actually both. It could be in cases where it's sibling on sibling, and then there's cases where it's an out-of-home offender,
so they're at a neighbor's house, and then something happens. So it's a combination of both.
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:00:37
May I have a follow-up question, Mr. Chair? Yes, you may. What is the average age of the
Speaker 160
1:00:45
children who are committing these acts? When we look at the underage juvenile aggressors, so those are the children, what we have is the
Chair
Unverified
1:01:02
Oh, thank you. I do have a question here because, and you may have touched base on it, but it says alleged sex offender if a child is under 18 years
Speaker 113
1:01:15
old, is there not criminal statutes already? Can
Speaker 160
1:01:19
they not be arrested and put into juvenile detention? There are, and this would, so that would be Ron Angels, the DYS kids, but there's a number of children, as Representative Alta has mentioned, around 3,000, that don't fit that category
where criminal charges are pending. Okay. So we're wanting to ensure that the victim and the alleged offender are at least given notice of where they can receive counseling information and that they're encouraged to get the counseling. And as the bill states, we will assist with them getting the referrals because one of the things that we often see is, especially in the rural communities, people really don't know where to go to get the information. They're reluctant to ask because then that disperse a lot of questions in the community
about wondering why they're wanting to know. This way the information is just given to them and
Speaker 113
1:02:19
seek that help. would it take to, how many personnel would it take for you to, I guess, treat those 3,000 or so, you
Chair
Unverified
1:02:28
know, kids that would fall underneath this if we had the resources to do it? Well, I think it's a little
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:02:38
bit more than just, I mean, I don't know exactly the number
that that would take because it's staff time, but
Speaker 160
1:02:46
it's also the therapy time that would be available in your community mental health centers, all the treatment options. I think the one thing, as we explained to Representative Autis, is that, you know, when you mandate counseling, are you really getting the effect with a family member that you're wanting? That was the other issue, because when you start just forcing yourself upon families, is that treatment regime really effective?
And what we're trying to do is make sure that we have a way to make it effective. And we taught with Representative Autis that this was kind of the starting ground so that we could see just exactly how many. And then we could also track to see if there's a repeat offense, then we would know that. And then we could come back in two years. And if we needed
Chair
Unverified
1:03:37
to propose something differently, then we could. Okay. Representative Scott, did you? No questions. Okay.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:03:43
Representative Feit, you're recognized. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Blucher, would a lot of these services be available through school-based mental health counseling, if the parents so
Chair
Unverified
1:03:58
chose? MS. Some could be, yes, ma'am. MS.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:04:01
Thank you. MR. Okay. Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just looking at, let's see, line, what is that, line 27. The way it reads, the alleged sex offender and the victim shall be referred for mental
health services, including a mental health evaluation and treatment, if determined necessarily by a mental health professional. I mean, it sounds kind of binding to me. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I believe
there's an amendment that's run to that that removes that language, that it just says that
Speaker 160
1:04:34
we will provide the parents or legal guardians of the alleged sex offender and the victim with a list of the mental health professionals or agencies available to evaluate and treat the alleged sex defender and the victim and, if necessary, assist the parents
or legal guardians of the alleged sex defender and the victim with a referral for a mental health evaluation. So we remove that
Chair
Unverified
1:04:56
restrictive language. Okay. Thanks. That is on page one of the bill starting line 31. It's already engrossed
in the bill. Representative Alexander, you're recognized.
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
1:05:12
I'm a little blown away by the ages that you mentioned there, and my concern is I mean
I assume that one of the reasons for not requiring it is just not having the resources if we did so, but it also concerns me that without some intervention what's going to
prevent this for happening again, and I suspect the number that you are aware of, the cases you are aware of, don't include all the cases that are actually out there. So I guess my question for you is, how do we address this?
I mean, I think this is a start, but it seems to me there's a lot of incentives for a parent to hide this information isn't there a better approach than well I think that done the only ones that we're
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:06:10
going to know or those that come through the child abuse hotline that will be the
Speaker 160
1:06:16
only ones that we're aware of as a child welfare agency and so what we're wanting to do is address those you know you the
other issue that you have is when you start mandating it then you've got to have the court intervention, who's going to do the oversight, and how are you going to hold the parents accountable? And so what we wanted to do is at least get families, because we work right now a lot with the victims, but the alleged offender is someone that we probably don't do as much with, and we should. And so this was just a way that we can ensure that the information is there, that we can encourage them to do that, and then we'll have a way to track if we do see a repeat,
and then we can handle that situation a little bit differently on the second offense,
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
1:07:07
should there be one. Ask a follow-up. Go
ahead. What, you know, I would, I'm wondering, you know, if I were the
parent of a child that was abused, I would think that I understand your limitations, but I would not be satisfied with a suggestion, a recommendation that counseling be sought.
And I'm wondering, do you have situations now where the parent of the victim brings a lawsuit against the child who is the offender, alleged offender? And I should
Speaker 160
1:07:40
clarify that, you know, there is a mechanism now in which, in your situation, that you could file a charge against that other child. And that's one of the things, too, that in our information is that we will ensure that parents know that that is an option for them if they so choose to file charges, because
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:08:02
what we're finding is many families do not know that. And so it's another way to educate about what is available to
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:08:16
them. Representative Feit, you're recognized. Yes, I had
a question that follows along with what Representative Deffenbaugh asked. On line 28 where it says, shall be referred,
is my assumption correct that just because you're referred, you don't have to do it?
For example, if my doctor refers me to a surgeon, I don't have to go to the surgeon. So this is just saying that, am I correct in reading this that they will be referred, but that does not mean that the parent will have to follow through? Can you give me just a moment? Sure.
Speaker 182
1:09:21
I thought we had a different do you want to say
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
1:09:38
yeah referred doesn't mean that they're bound to go the original bill mandated counseling and then she and and we we did some amendments for for Ron Angel and DYS and then and then
Cecile Blucher showed up and said there's 3,000 people we can't mandate counseling for all 3,000 of these people so we can refer them and we can counsel them to an extent you know we can say this is where you need to go for counseling but we can't mandate that counseling because if we did I mean you You know, Ron Angel said he's got Alexander's full of them, Dermont's full of them, and she said she's got about 3,000 of them. So, you know, that would just overwhelm us.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:34
Could you hit your mic? No, we want to make sure we hear you.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:10:39
I was just saying I wanted to be sure I was understanding the difference in being referred and being mandated. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With
Speaker 113
1:10:49
that said, I do not see any other comments or questions from the committee. Is there anyone who would like to speak either for or against
Chair
Unverified
1:10:56
this bill? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Julian, you're recognized. Move. Do pass. Has been made.
Speaker 113
1:11:05
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Congratulations, Representative Alts. You've passed your
Chair
Unverified
1:11:17
bill. Thank you, committee, Mr. Chair. Next up on the agenda is going to be House Resolution 1026 or 1025 by Representative Catlett and I believe Representative Wilkins is going
Speaker 113
1:11:29
to be the one to present it. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized to present your resolution.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:11:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee I'm here today,
it is a very high honor and a distinct privilege to be here today to offer this resolution to honor a young man who used his training to stop a extraordinary event in fact it was an extraordinary young man who stopped the extraordinary event in West Memphis Arkansas on March 10 May 20
Okay, I'm way off. May 10, 2000, and May
20, 2010. Recently, Officer Michael Neal had received the Presidential, the National Medal of Valor for his actions that day. I would like to show a video. So it is about 12 minutes long, I believe. And it pretty well is self-explanatory, and I think each of you will be able to see what really happened on that day.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:47
We are going to allow the video, but I do believe, Representative Wilkins, I do want to put a minor warning on, and apparently there might be some blood shown. Is that correct? Some. Okay, so for those of you that have weak stomachs. I've seen it, and I didn't
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:13:03
run from it. Okay. I've seen a lot
Speaker 113
1:13:06
of blood. For those of you that have weak stomachs, I just wanted to warn you about that before we begin.
Speaker 202
1:13:42
the Arkansas Game and Fish. I'm going to kind of go into a little
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:13:47
bit of explanation as we move along. What you're seeing here first is Jerry and Joseph Kane, they're admitted sovereign citizens. This is a traffic stop where it begins in West Memphis with the shooting.
of Officer Powder, and I'll let the video play. We moved along pretty quick there. Where is it at? This is Chief Powder. At the time, he was the chief of West Memphis Police Department,
on that day he lost his son. He was a drug interdiction officer in West Memphis and one of the worst things that could happen to any parents, they were leaving to go on vacation. The call come out of the shooting and Mr. and Mrs. Powder responded to the scene only to find their son had been shot and killed during this traffic stop. I wish we had the audio. I don't know what's going on with it, but But I'll try to narrate a little bit as we go along.
This is, if you read the first calls that come in about the shooting of the two West Memphis interdiction officers, what you're going to see here is some officers responding. FedEx driver pulled up behind and actually witnessed the shootings before the Dodge caravan left. This is his 9-1-1 call. What you're reading here transcribed is the FedEx drivers to 9-1-1 in West Memphis.
One of the other, it's all terrible, terrible, but the 9-1-1 operator that day was the fiancé to the other officer that had just been shot and killed, West Memphis PD. There's your FedEx truck. Just beyond it, you're going to see the scene where the shooting all took place.
Here we're picking up in the Walmart parking lot where the showdown ultimately ended. And in front of the suspect's vehicle is Sheriff Dick Busby and Chief Deputy Wren. Now you have Michael. This is where it all ended. Michael rammed the vehicle. There is a large exchange of gunfire if you look at his windshield. But these suspects are no longer mobile.
And that's where it all ended. And we'll never know how that all could have ended that day had Michael not rammed that vehicle, opened fire on the suspect. Ultimately, we know that he killed the driver instantly, the father. And if they would have got back mobile, what could have happened or ended up in Walmart or anything. But we do know for sure that he saved the sheriff and chief deputy that day that had both been shot. We didn't see it. It kind of buzzed through it pretty quick.
but they were both taking cover behind the vehicle. Chief Deputy Wren had suffered, I know, at least two gunshot wounds from AK-47 to his abdomen. I was colonel at the time, chief of law enforcement. I went over and visited with him some days after, and I know he sat there and cried. And for the record, Sheriff Busby and Chief Deputy Wren were retired, both retired state troopers. it was
the only thing that I found a little bit humorous about the whole thing when I got to listening to those two jawing at each other you could tell they were super good friends had been for years but when they responded to this scene that day they had been eating lunch neither one of them had a firearm on them they learned a lesson that day but I never forget the sheriff teasing or it's Mr. Wren teasing the sheriff, he said when they opened fire on him, he said, what in the hell have you
got me into today? But those two guys ultimately survived this attack on law enforcement due to Michael Neal's actions that day. I'm very proud of him. One funny thing that I, at the end, I was at the scene about two hours, hour and 45 minutes after I hugged his neck, I told him I loved him, was proud of him from what I'd seen that day, and the first thing he asked me, he said, am I in trouble because I tore my truck up? So I thought that was kind of humorous, but we got him in a
new truck pretty quick, but we're very proud of him. As Representative Wilkins said, he was just recognized by Congress with the Medal of Valor, and Vice President Biden pinned it on him, and I told him if he keeps going, his uniform's going to look like a Mexican general. So we
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:19:27
appreciate y'all having us here today. Committee, thank you for watching the video.
I think, as I stated, it's an extraordinary event with an extraordinary young man, and
Speaker 113
1:19:37
I'd ask for a good vote. Thank you. And, you know, words can't really, I guess, describe the appreciation and the thankfulness for Officer Neal and all of the officers who protect us and, you know, who do so much and sacrifice for us every day and everything, so we definitely appreciate that. Is there
Chair
Unverified
1:19:58
anybody on the committee that has any questions or comments? Representative Alexander, you're recognized. I don't have a question
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
1:20:03
about passing this, but there was something I saw on the screen that I had a question about.
I think it referred to an automatic weapon. Was this really an automatic weapon or
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:20:18
semi-automatic? Yes, sir. It was a semi-automatic weapon. The AK-47, they had several weapons and a cache of ammo in that van on that day, but it
Speaker 211
1:20:27
was not a fully, quote, fully automatic weapon. Okay. Representative Julian, you recognized? I'd
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
1:20:39
just like to take the liberty to, as a former West
Memphis resident, to say thank you so very much, not only on have for the folks in West Memphis who Representative Ferguson represents, but for all of us. It was an extraordinary act of bravery, and we are grateful to you. Representative Ferguson, you recognized? Well, I am from
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
1:21:06
West Memphis, and I remember the event, and I do thank you guys. You
can't imagine that between the time that the officers were shot and you stopped them, there was a
lot of tension when everybody was very concerned for their own lives so thank
Chair
Unverified
1:21:24
you okay anybody else seeing none is there anybody that wishes to speak for or against the resolution seeing none what's the pleasure of the committee representative dickinson you recognized motion has been made to do pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in
Speaker 113
1:21:43
favor say aye All those opposed. Congratulations, Representative Catlett and Representative Wilkins, you have passed your resolution.
Chair
Unverified
1:21:49
Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and go on. I think, Representative Scott, you
Speaker 220
1:22:34
are ready to present your bill, so House Bill 1575. Thank you.
Speaker 222
1:22:42
And representative Scott you recognize to
Chair
Unverified
1:22:52
present your bill good morning Thank You
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:22:55
mr. chair and thank you committee normally I would say that's a tough act to follow and in many ways it is but I bring you something this morning that I feel is very important I have enjoyed many great meals since
I came to Little Rock as a legislator. I have dined with some of Arkansas's finest people. However, last night I enjoyed a dinner in the company of this young man, Aaron Mankin. Aaron is a Rogers native, an Arkansas veteran. He's handsome, articulate, intelligent, Very, very funny. I laughed so hard during dinner I could hardly eat, and that's usually not what happens to me.
I can always eat. He's a young father of two, and he has a very kind spirit. Aaron and other Arkansas veterans deserve this bill, Bill No. 1575. It will assure that the Aaron Makins and all of our dear veterans get the guide they need to gain the employment they seek and so rightly deserve. And
I'd like to introduce to the committee, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, Aaron Macon. Please go ahead and – okay, and
Speaker 115
1:24:13
he's – I'm sorry, he's with – just himself or with –
Speaker 225
1:24:21
Could he tell you who he's with? Yes, yeah, go ahead. That'd be fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee. I'm here today by invitation of Representative Scott to share with you the need for a bill that we have in front of you today, 1575, to allow the private sector to flex its muscles as it wants to, as it needs to, as it does so well when allowed to provide for and care for our veterans community.
I tell people that national service isn't an option, it's an obligation, and if you don't serve there, serve them, serve those who do. And the bill in front of you today is an opportunity to do just that, is to serve those who have served and it takes away I could let mr. Dunlop with the Arkansas Society of Human Resources Management explain further the details of the bill in front of you but if I could echo a sec the sentiment represent representative
Alexander recognizing Thomas Paine this morning my favorite quote of his is that But for those of us who wish to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. And there is a system in place now at the federal level that limits what the states can do under Title VII discrimination laws. And this bill would eradicate that and allow our state to become the third in our nation
to allow the private sector to show veterans' preference and to do so voluntarily as they see fit. So I thank you for your support and your time, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, could
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:26:13
I now introduce Thomas Dunlap? That would be fine. Okay.
Speaker 229
1:26:22
My name is Thomas Dunlap, and I am an HR professional in Bentonville, Arkansas, But I also volunteer as the federal legislative director for the Arkansas Society of Human
Resource Management, or what we call AR SHRM. We have over 2,000 members throughout the state of Arkansas, all practicing HR managers, employment managers, employment lawyers, people out there recruiting and hiring candidates every day in private organizations and public, too. What we've done here with this bill is created language that allows private employers the option if they want it to pursue veteran candidates in employment whether it's hiring, promotion or during a reduction in force.
There's nothing in this bill at all that mandates that a private employer does anything. What we're doing here is creating a new law separate of the state's state government mandatory language that's already in the Arkansas Code. This would be a standalone part of the Arkansas Code that all we're saying is if you want to offer this, you can do it. It doesn't require the employer to keep any records or to justify any hires. Basically what it boils down to is if I am interviewing candidates for a job and I have
two people in front of me that are equally qualified, but one of them served their country, then I can choose that candidate because of their military status, their military history. That is currently in place in federal employment and in Arkansas and state employment, but But there is no mechanism to do it for the private sector, and all that we need to do that is the permission of the General Assembly, and that's why we're here today. I can speak at length about any HR-related issue, HR management is my passion, my career,
and how public policy shapes the human resource profession, but I'm not a veteran, and I cannot speak for the issues that our veterans deal with when they come back from active duty, particularly combat, whether they, you know, have issues related to finding a job or not. Of course, we know that unemployment amongst the veteran community is much higher than in the normal civilian community. Not so much true in Arkansas, though, as it is nationwide, and we're grateful for that. But we still have challenges with defense cuts, with sequestration, obviously, reassignment
of bases. We have a base in Fort Smith that's likely to lose some of their active duty reserve members, so that is why Corporal Mankin is here today to answer those related questions. So with that, I'll turn it over to you.
Chair
Unverified
1:29:03
Thanks. Representative Scott, did you have anything that you wanted to add? No. Okay. Just my question
Speaker 113
1:29:08
is, and I guess I just want to point out that this is voluntary.
It's not mandatory. A business or private employer does not have to participate. Is that correct? That's correct. MR. Okay. All right. With that said, Representative Armstrong, you're recognized? Move, do pass. MR. Okay. I'm going to hold off on motions for
Chair
Unverified
1:29:28
right now, but I'll keep that in mind for later on.
Representative Payton, you're recognized. Thank you. And Representative Scott, or maybe the gentleman on your right, could answer this question. So currently as a private employer, if we have a veteran's preference, we could be in
Speaker 229
1:29:44
trouble for discrimination against the others? The EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is the national, you know, federal basis, investigates and processes discrimination claims, has said that if you have a voluntary veterans preference program in the private sector, you have the potential for disparate impact. You could have a discrimination claim based on any of the other protected classes in Title VII. But there is a carve out for state law. If the state allows you to do it, then it's acceptable, and that's what we're presenting
Chair
Unverified
1:30:18
today is to allow the carve out. If I could have a follow-up. Go ahead. I want to thank you, Ms. Scott, Rep. Scott, for bringing this bill
that I can vote for. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else that has any questions or comments
Speaker 113
1:30:40
on the committee? Could I close? Yeah. Well, let's see. I'm trying to think here.
Chair
Unverified
1:30:44
We're going to do for and against first, and then I'll allow you to close after that, if you don't mind. We do have one person that has not spoken who would like to speak for the bill, and that's Corporal Aaron Mankin.
That's okay. And we already have Thomas. So Steve Schulte? Okay. All right. Anybody else that has
Speaker 113
1:31:00
not signed up that we should speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Scott,
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:31:12
you are recognized to close for your bill. Every day, we as God's children have opportunities to do good things. Today, you have that opportunity. This bill, number 1575, will truly be life-changing for our veterans.
God bless each of you, and God bless the Aaron Mankins of this great state. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Armstrong,
Chair
Unverified
1:31:34
you are recognized to present your motion. Move. Move. Move.
Speaker 113
1:31:40
Move. Do pass. Motion's been made. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Congratulations, Representative Scott. You have passed
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:31:51
your bill. Thank you. And we are the third state to do this, so thank you very much.
Chair
Unverified
1:31:56
Wonderful. Let's see here. I think is there anybody here that is wanting to present? Representative Gossett, are you going to present
Speaker 113
1:32:06
your bill? All right, Representative Gossage, you're recognized to present in House Bill
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:32:24
1620. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm carrying this bill on behalf of ACIC, and I would like to let my colleague here
from ACIC do all the explaining. This is just a simple change that they need made in
Speaker 113
1:32:37
the law. Okay. If you would, state your name and title
Speaker 240
1:32:40
for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brad Cazor with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. This bill came about from an incident last week. I got a call from the Faulkner County Sheriff who had received a court order directing him to obtain a criminal history record from ACIC and to deliver it to the judge in a child custody case. And the Sheriff's question was, can I do that? And I said, no, that would violate ACIC and FBI regulations, and I said the judge really
needs to direct the orders straight to ACIC and not to the law enforcement agency, and he went back and the judge was kind enough to do that, and the next day I got a call from the attorney who pointed out this statute to me that I did not know existed that required or allowed a judge in a custody case to direct a child support order or to direct a background check order to a law enforcement agency, and they, I guess under FBI regulations, don't have that authority to deliver criminal history information to a non-criminal justice purpose,
but ACIC does. So all this bill does is takes out the middleman, and if the judge needs that, has the order directed straight to
Chair
Unverified
1:33:48
ACIC. Okay. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, is there anybody that wishes to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, what's the Pledge of the Committee? Representative Ferguson, you're recognized. I move we do pass. A motion's been made, do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
All those opposed. Congratulations, Representative Gossage. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. And I believe that we've pretty much done everything we can do today. Yes, Representative Julian, you're recognized. Okay, I will go ahead and recognize you then to present House Resolution 1026.
Speaker 244
1:34:46
This will be fairly short. Yesterday we had, as our
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
1:34:54
guests in the gallery, the Arkansas Stars who received a standing ovation from us, these are first responders who are the very best at their service, not only on the job, but in terms of their community service. This resolution would designate yesterday, so it's a little late, as Stars of Life Day
and would authorize the presentation to each person who has been designated as a Star of Life a commemorative notation of the designation. And it's pretty straightforward, and I'm not sure why Representative Perry didn't have it here earlier, but they asked me to run it for him. So if you have questions, I'll try and answer them.
Chair
Unverified
1:35:55
Okay. Anybody have any questions? Representative Dickinson, you're recognized?
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:36:05
Well, okay. it's a comment more than a question two of those young men recognized are two of my former fifth grade students so I'd like to thank you and tell you how much I appreciate you doing this and to let
them know how very proud I am of them and I thank you I'm sure
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
1:36:31
they appreciate it I think it's representative Perry you ought to be thanking I'm just a last minute sub Well, thank you for
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:36:38
doing the sub, and I will thank Perry also. Thank you. All right, any other questions
Chair
Unverified
1:36:44
or comments from the committee? Anybody who wants to speak for or against the resolution? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Armstrong, you're recognized. Motion's been made.
Speaker 113
1:36:56
Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations. Representative Gillian.
Chair
Unverified
1:37:05
Thank you. You have passed your resolution. Okay. With that said, we do want to leave a couple of things at least to do on Friday. So we're going to go ahead at this point. Mr. Coach or Vice Chair, do you have anything? Okay. Nothing. We're going to go ahead and stand adjourned. Yes.
Agenda
HB1446
HB1565
HB1518
HR1024
HB1029
HR1025
HB1575
HB1620
HR1026
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 67
Speaker 69
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 32
Speaker 77
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Speaker 80
Speaker 81
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
Speaker 97
Representative Andy Davis Chair
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 113
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 119
Speaker 150
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
Speaker 160
Speaker 161
Speaker 163
Speaker 182
Speaker 185
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 202
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Speaker 211
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 220
Speaker 222
Speaker 115
Speaker 225
Speaker 229
Speaker 240
Speaker 244
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified