House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1026
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1026”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1192
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1192”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1193
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1193”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1250
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…resentative Hammer also has 1193, so we'll skip that. Next, House Bill 1250, Representative Whitaker. Representative Whitaker. I'll tel…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1264
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1264”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB242
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB242”
|
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 3, 2026
Representative Hammer. Representative Hammer also has 1193, so we'll skip that. Next, House Bill 1250, Representative Whitaker. Representative Whitaker. I'll tell you what, we're going to make this quick.
Chair
Unverified
0:10
Who's here that wants to go ahead and run the bill? I'm going to
go ahead and do Butch first. All right, Representative Wilkins. I need to move to suspend the rules to get this off the 3rd.
I have a motion to suspend the rules to get this off the 3rd. Representative Gillum, all in favor? All opposed, no. All right, the ayes have it. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized
to present House Bill 1026. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to invite Lieutenant Scott Baxter of the Jonesboro Police Department and Roger Smith of the Municipal Police Officers Association
to the end of the table with me.
Members, Mr. Chairman, this is a Arkansas Municipal Police Officers
bill. We ran it through judiciary last year. It passed the House. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to get it passed through the Senate. Basically what it does, it ticks up some violations against certain people, them people being police officers, nurses, paramedics who are working on the scene and are sometimes assaulted by individuals.
We consider this a pretty serious bill because, you know, an
assault against a person who would assault a police officer or a paramedic or a doctor or a nurse is often a pretty bad character. I'm going to let Lieutenant Scott Baxter talk to the bill for a few minutes. Thank you,
Scott Baxter
Unverified
2:07
Representative Wilkins. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate your time this morning.
You know, basically what the Arkansas Municipal Police Association, when we were looking at bills that we would like to bring before the legislature, a common theme had come up across the state was the need for assault enhancement penalties. We have, there's already in place enhancements for battery if you hurt an officer. But what the officers are seeing across the country and even experiencing firsthand here in Arkansas is that there has steadily been an increase in people trying to hurt us.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. And when they don't, there was no penalty enhancements for that. And we're just trying to get some enhancements to those penalties when they're trying to hurt us and don't succeed because it's still just as serious. We put these guys out there to hold the line for us as a society as a whole, and we just think that when a person disrespects that and disrespects society's rules by trying
to hurt these officers, they should be held accountable and to a higher standard. I guess that's just the gist of it and why we're trying to seek this legislation is to kind of help with when they try to hurt us or a firefighter or an EMT or whoever that person may be. Again, we're seeing it across the country where officers are getting assaulted and even firefighters trying to respond to fire scenes are getting assaulted and ambulance
crews are getting assaulted at accident scenes. And when these guys do that, they brag about it sometimes. And when they brag about it, hopefully part of their bragging will be what they had to, what their penalties were, and hopefully that message will be that to their friends of similar character, that it's not worth it for me. We hope to send that signal and that message, and I thank you for your time.
Speaker 19
4:18
Let me see if I can work through these wires here in just
a minute. Roger, you'd like to have any comment?
You know, the way I kind of look at this, if you throw a rock at a police officer or a fireman and try to hit him in the head with it, then it is a serious crime, and I think it ought to be dealt with accordingly. The intent is there. The action is taken. And if you've got to wait until he hits somebody throwing rocks or bottles or whatever he's throwing at them,
then you can have serious injury. so we'll take questions does the committee
have any questions alright representative Vines you're recognized
good morning gentlemen and I applaud and appreciate what you're doing here I had a quick question on I guess that's page 2 lines 14 and 15 when we get into
the different levels just curious what the the rationale was was the 60 to 12 and 60 parameters under 12 over 60 why you wouldn't include that to include all miners under 18 well actually
this language is already in the bill we could have
actually done and just included people over 60 and all minors.
I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. That's just a word.
Speaker 31
5:58
Yeah. I don't have a good answer for that.
Okay. It was copied from the battery
section is what I'm looking for. Okay. Thank you. All right. Before
I recognize Representative Steele for a question, for a question. I just want to take a
point of personal privilege here and recognize my good friend John Walker, who's back with us today. Good to see you, Mr. Walker.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
6:33
Representative Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious to know if there's been any input from the Department of Corrections or the Sentencing Commission or anyone else to know what the effect is going to be, what the effect this might have on incarceration and sentencing, particularly the portion that deals with prison guards, for lack of a better term. Let's see here. I just saw them in here.
But basically, officers in the Department of Corrections, I imagine they probably get attempted assault on them regularly, probably every day. So is there going to be a major increase in sentencing or charges from inmates from attempting to assault officers in the Department
of Corrections and others? Have you had any
input from those people? Well, we had an impact statement, and it didn't have enough information to really show any negative impact on incarceration.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
7:34
Okay. I didn't see that impact statement. I think Representative Shepard's pulled it up here. It doesn't show a significant impact.
Chair
Unverified
7:40
It does not. Thank you. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, you recognize for a
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
7:49
question? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brother Butch, I'm trying to read the impact statement, can't really see it, so this great new technology and whoever's idea this was, I'm starting to look at the deal with
Speaker 44
7:59
it. MR. I thought I was the only one that didn't understand it, Darren. I feel much better now.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:05
MR. So does this impact statement tell us there's not – is that what it says, there's not an impact on the Department of Correction? That's the way I read it. Okay. Or it cannot be determined, is that what it says? Okay, I cannot. And I guess let me ask the – generally the overall purpose of the legislation, and the chairman is going to indulge me to talk a little bit about Act 570 at the end of the meeting. But is the purpose of this – I mean, is this penal in nature?
Here I'm just – someone who attempts an assault right now will be punished already. I mean, what's the – I guess we have to weigh the cost to our prison system versus the benefit of enhanced penalties. And not to get ahead of myself, what I'm going to talk about, if we continue to enhance every penalty, we're going to be right back where we were when we passed Act 570 last session. And remember, we went from – in 20 years, we went from spending $45 million on corrections to spending $350 million on corrections. And one of the things we saw is because we enhanced so many penalties.
I guess the question is, do you truly believe the cost of this to the state is worth it? Because while I completely appreciate that the law enforcement officials and others put their lights on the line for us every day, there's already a penalty if someone does this. So what will the enhancement get us that we're not getting right now other than additional costs to our prison system? Well, I don't know how much
it's going to cost the prison system. I don't really have that answer. I'm perfectly, as you know, on board with Act 570.
I was. But I believe just these special people here who do special things for us and who are subject to mistreatment in many cases. I come from law enforcement myself and perfectly understand what they're talking about here. I believe that it is, the enhanced penalties are suitable for these special
individuals. Just sorry for me not being able
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:10
to get my technology to work very well here.
So right now, if someone attempts an assault on a prison guard, for example, what are they charged with right now? I'm sorry, I can't find it. I can't get my technology to work here to figure out what that is. Well,
Speaker 54
10:32
I guess I'm trying to figure out what we're enhancing from. from, what would they be charged with
Scott Baxter
Unverified
10:38
right now? MR. A prison guard. MR. It depends on what they do to assault them, and if they assault them with any type of weapon or a modified weapon or anything like that, we'll determine which assault,
what degree of assault they are charged with. And basically what our bill is asking is to enhance that assault charge by one degree. So if it would normally be a Class C misdemeanor, it would move it to a Class B misdemeanor
Speaker 18
11:03
if it's on these certain persons. Okay, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
11:11
Most of the assault charges are misdemeanors. All right,
thank you. Representative Wilkins, I greatly appreciate what you're trying to do. And nobody in here questions, you know, what a good job these officers do.
My concern is these categories that you're creating, and we already have penalties in place. And like Representative Williamson says, we're just adding to something, enhancing something, for creating these special groups. And so it bothers me that we're doing this. Do you have any – is there anything else behind this other than the police officers? Mr.
Roger Smith
Unverified
11:50
Chairman, my name is Roger Smith.
and I represent the Municipal Police Association as well as some other police groups. I think that the groups you see primarily here within the bill are groups of people who work in an area of public service. They're either firefighters or police officers, they're ambulance workers, paramedics, people that are already exposed to a fairly high degree of risk. I think the bill's attempt here is to guarantee that if anyone does assault anybody in any of these areas
that the level of punishment might be at least one degree a little greater than it has been because they are, they really, we owe to them, I think, a certain level of respect and responsibility. We get that in this room. There's no question about the committee members understanding the risks they take. And I think the committee also probably appreciates that anything that can be done to deter, to lessen the risk to those people that serve in those areas is an appropriate thing. We're not trying to burden the prison system.
We're just trying to make sure that we have a level of deterrence that's maybe slightly greater than it is. If people feel they have absolutely no risk, very little risk, in assaulting a firefighter, police officer, a medical worker, they're more likely to do it than if they know that the level of punishment could be slightly higher. So I think that the motivation here is we want to be certain to protect this class of people because they're serving the public and they're very much exposed. And that's primarily, I think, the motive behind the bill.
Thank you. All right, there's nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill, So are there any other questions? Representative Williams,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:44
you're recognized. Representative Williams, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Roger, I appreciate
your answer, and that's kind of what I was getting at. I'm trying to figure out how this is a deterrent. If I'm going to – if I'm already a person who's willing to assault a police officer, I don't think because I know now I'm going to get a higher act – a criminal penalty, I'll be less inclined to deter a police officer. I'm trying to figure out what – that's what I'm really getting at. What's the – what are we getting from his?
We know we'll get additional time in jail, additional money. But I don't see the deterrence effect of this, because if I'm someone who's willing to assault a police officer or a firefighter or anybody, for that matter, I don't think I'm going to be deterred from this, particularly a person in uniform. I mean, you know, I might hit Mr. Steele, but I'm surely not going to hit a guy with a gun. And if I'm going to hit a guy with a gun, then I'm probably not going to be deterred by the fact that, you know, we passed this bill and we've enhanced this penalty. So that's my real concern here. How does that deterrent work in your mind, Roger?
Roger Smith
Unverified
14:38
I think anything like this, you're not going to see an overnight result. You're not going to pass this legislation and everybody's going to be aware of it. The average person certainly wouldn't be. But I think the folks who work in public safety would be in a better position to encourage people not to, you know. You can picture the situation where a police officer or anybody else is dealing with somebody that's a little bit out of control. I mean, they can at least threaten it.
Do you realize what the penalty is if you strike this officer or whatever? But I think over time it will be a deterrent. And I think from the standpoint of the folks that serve in these areas, they would see this as something encouraging, that you're supportive of the position they're in. But Representative Williams, I don't think overnight it's going to create any real deterrent any more than any other law does until somebody realizes they're going to serve more time. I think by example, it will ultimately be a deterrent.
All right. Seeing no further questions, Representative Walker, you're recognized.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was there a particular precipitating event that
caused you, Representative Wilkins, to come forth with this legislation? i
don't think there's any one event i think it's it's pretty common knowledge you know
that when when people even even ambulances answer calls to to certain individuals certain places they they
face uh you know they face quite a bit of danger in that that that maybe other people are
not uh a subject to but but i don't
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:32
think there's one particular event that brought it on may i follow up, Mr. Chair. I'm a little concerned because I recall a situation that occurred in the last 24 months where a military female, upon being in a hospital setting, was in the process
of having difficulties with birth. And her doctor told her repeatedly to be quiet and tried to hold her down, and she was responding. And in the process, an officer came in and tried to hold her down too. I didn't see why an officer shouldn't be involved in that, but by holding her down, he, in effect, told her to be quiet and he tried to repress her, and as a consequence, she was arrested for something that was naturally occurring
over which she may have had limited control, especially taking into account her level of sedation. But it seemed as if in that situation, having to go before a criminal justice system, having your life possibly adversely affected in the military because of the fact that you were charged with a crime, arising out of a pregnancy. It just didn't seem that it was appropriate. Now, that person will carry that stigma with her the rest of her life and will thereafter be limited in what she can do.
It seems that his intervention was unnecessary. But because she hit him accidentally when she was flailing, she was then charged with something in the nature of aggravation. Do you think that this is the kind of action that your law will allow to be enhanced?
No, sir. This is primarily aimed at on sight or on scene, not in a hospital setting, I don't think.
I would really question an officer's motives that would charge a woman with that if she was in that situation. I don't think you're going to see that happen every day. Well, here's the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:44
problem with it. Once you're charged, it's on your ASIS record forever. And then if you're in the military, then that means your ability for upward mobility is severely limited. And then you're regarded as a bad person otherwise, and it follows you for the rest of your life. When all the officer had to do was just leave that to
the lady and her physician or her other medical attendants.
That is certainly not what this bill is intended to do. Like I said, this bill is aimed at ambulance drivers who go to pick up someone somewhere and meet hostile resistance and people
that will throw bottles at them or rocks. I mean, to me, if you throw a rock at an EMT and miss him, it's just the same as
throwing and hitting him in the head because your intent is still there. But this, I mean,
I would question the motives of an officer. I'm not familiar with the case that you're talking about,
But that don't normally occur, I don't think. Well, of course,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:45
my concern is that most of these situations that precipitate the legislation are simply imaginary. There's nothing before us that normally occurs that would cause enhancement of a penalty under circumstances where the law allows charging in the first place. And you can charge with whatever you want. You can charge with an enhancement and then it'd be subject to negotiated reduction. Yes, sir. So I don't see a real reason, in all due respect, Representative, for this legislation, for the necessity of it.
If we just want to have some legislation to protect people who work in public service, then, you know, maybe. But I think our public servants also have to take the risk of being public servants. And the laws that we have have worked thus far. We don't see any body of evidence to suggest that anybody is in any particular fear or distress because of people under these circumstances. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Walker.
Chair
Unverified
20:47
And it looks like I made a mistake, and it looks like Representative Hammer has signed up to speak for the bill. Representative Hammer, you're recognized. And just
reminding everybody, we've got a long list, so let's keep it brief. I'll be
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:02
brief in my comments 1990 I was a medic for Mims Ambulance here in Little Rock and if any of you all know the phrase Granite Mountain you know the area of Little Rock that I'm talking about we were sent to a run one night and it was because a 14 year old girl had been shot by her boyfriend and when we got there
everybody else was there the police, the fire, everybody else was there we go in, we get the girl, we bring her out we do what we call the field packager get her ready for transport and everything and I step out of the back to go around the front and everybody's gone but us. The cops are gone, the fire department's gone, everybody's gone but us. I get around the front of the unit and when I take off the front of the unit, lo and behold, there were about 20 individuals who were coming in from behind the buildings. And that night, our unit was disabled so bad
because we were bricked, we were rocked, and we had violent actions waged against us that they had to disable our unit from service. Now, I'm going to tell you, as a medic sitting inside a unit, stepping out and realizing you're by yourself, I don't know back then, I didn't know back then that I was going to be a lawmaker, but I can tell you one thing. As a medic sitting in an ambulance in a real-life situation, it may not have had any difference to the level that you're talking about, but it sure made me feel better as a public servant to know that somebody that did that to me
would be held to a higher standard. As a medic, I'm held to a higher standard. I expect those who commit crimes against me to be held not just to the standard of everybody else, but to the higher standard to which their actions demand a response. We come down here as lawmakers, and we make laws because we want to communicate messages to one half of the population, those who do something wrong. There's as much of a message communicated to those who are doing right that we will protect you at all costs, even if it's to hold those who do those kind of things against you to a higher standard.
So I would just encourage you, having sat on this committee last year, last time around, I would just consider that you at least give us a due pass and get it out to the floor so that the rest of us can have some input on it. And I
appreciate your tolerance, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Hammer. Any further questions from the committee?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:10
Representative Williams, you're recognized. I have a question for Representative Hammer since he referred to my district because that's where I represent.
Let me ask you, do you think that those folks who did that to you would be any more deterred from doing that because we had this penalty enhancement?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:23
I don't think it's so much the issue of would they be deterred as much as it would be that they'd be held accountable to their actions to the level at which their actions need to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:31
be held accountable to. Well, their actions would be an aggravated assault right now. That's what it would be. And that's a felony. Is that not, I mean, I think that should be the case if it was against me and I wasn't a law enforcement officer, but that's already a felony what they would do. It would be an aggravated assault. And probably a good prosecutor would find a lot more things to charge him with. But prosecutors can find many ways to enhance if they'd like to. I don't understand how this bill, in light of the policy decision we just made this last session,
how does this bill really deter? Again, I go
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:59
back to what I said a minute ago. Sometimes the laws that we make are intended for the purpose of deterring. Some laws we need to make for the purpose of encouraging and rewarding those who would otherwise be victims by that. And I think you have to weigh out both. And I do understand your argument, a felony is a felony, whether you add more to it or not. But what happens if that person gets out and he or she has not learned their actions? Is this possibly something that could help deter them to the future?
If I knew that, I'd be at Oak Lawn, but I don't know that. But I do believe that there's a message that passing this law will communicate to the public servants that what we think as lawmakers, that they deserve a highest level of protection. I can't argue your point, Representative Williams. I can't, but I just want you to look at the other side when you make
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:48
your decision. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. I want to be perfectly clear to every uniformed personnel that I do not devalue their life,
and I respect their service, and I appreciate their service. I've just got to have a cost-benefit analysis of what we as a state do with regard to our policies because this ultimately comes down to how we divide our limited resources. And so that's really where I'm coming from. It's not to devalue what they
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
25:21
do, and I appreciate them very much. Thank you. All right, last question. Representative Brideway. Thank you. Thank you very much. And again, Butch, I commend you for this bill, but I have something that concerns me, and Representative Wright touched on it, and it is potentially the disparity in which this law could be enforced.
What brings my attention to me is I've been in very volatile courtroom situations, and this law would basically allow someone to be charged for assaulting a police officer but not a prosecutor or a judge or something. And so I guess my point is where do we draw the line? There are, again, I very much appreciate the intention of this bill and very much appreciate what our public servants do, but to the exclusion of others.
And it just concerns me about what groups we single out and where we draw those lines. And could you speak to that again a little bit for me? I think you'd like
Scott Baxter
Unverified
26:25
to speak to that. You want me to? Okay. If I may, I appreciate the chance to answer that. I think what the focus here was the guys that are being sent from the front lines, They're sent first responders, and they don't have an option to turn away. You know, if myself and Roger get in a fight,
even one of us have an opportunity to turn away and leave and go seek help or to do other things. These guys aren't afforded that luxury. They're sending in and they're expected to take action and do what they're sworn to do. And if someone resists that or someone assaults them for it, they still have a duty to carry out those laws they swore to uphold, or in the case of the ambulance drivers, they still have a duty to tend to the wounded or to the hurt and injured and that kind of thing.
And it is something that's coming up quite frequently. I mean, it's coming up all across the state. We're getting this from our member officers that it's getting worse and it's increasing. And, you know, we've even seen in national media where firefighters going to the fire scene have been assaulted and fired upon. Medics in southeast Missouri respond to a medical scene on the side of the road, and they get fired upon from the woods. And those are kind of extreme, but nonetheless, it's happening. It's happening more frequently, and hopefully we can send a message with this.
And these guys do talk to each other. They share with each other. They're friends of similar character. They share with them what they've got away with, what they had and what works, what don't work. And they'll share with them the extra penalties they've
Speaker 88
28:00
got, I feel certain. I think eventually it will hopefully be a true deterrent.
Chair
Unverified
28:05
Great. Thank you very much. Representative Wilkinson, seeing no further questions, would you like
to close for your bill? I would. These situations are very real. These people are on the front lines. We expect them to take care of us.
We expect them to respond when we call. We should not expect them to take undue abuse. And that's what I think they're taking in many cases. And Representative Broadway mentioned the courts, but in the courts you have a bailiff for protection of the judge and the prosecutor, and he's there for that reason. So we think this is a good bill, and I would appreciate a good vote on it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 24
28:47
Thank you, Representative Wilkins. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee? Do pass. Got Representative Bellinger. Got a motion
Chair
Unverified
28:56
to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. No. No's have it. Sorry, Representative Wilkins, the bill has failed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Representative Wilkins.
All right, again, we're kind of taking this out of order without objection. Is there anybody else that has showed up to present a bill? Representative Hammer? You're recognized
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
29:36
to present House Bill 1192. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two bills to run, 1192 and 1193. I would respectfully ask, if you would, to pass over 1192. One of the individuals, Saline County Judge Lanny Fite, who has some pertinent information to speak to that bill,
was subpoenaed to court this morning, not able to be here. He was not subpoenaed because of anything he did wrong, but the capacity of the county judge had to be in court. Could I have that lenience, please? Yes, sir. If you recognize, present House Bill 1193. Thank you. I'd like to start off by telling you, first of all, that this bill comes to you regarding the circuit clerk's office without any opposition from the circuit clerk's office. Just to give you a little history, as you know, in the last couple of years, There's been some debate about who should be able to sell the property that has been turned over to the circuit clerks for sale.
And basically what this bill does is it appoints the circuit clerk to handle the duty of the sale of property, and they would be charged with that responsibility. There was an amendment that was added to the bill, and I hope that it's engrossed into that bill. And basically what that amendment does is a couple things. It allows the circuit clerk to establish a fund that's referred to in the bill, and the purpose of that is that all the proceeds from the sale would go into that fund. It would still be under the jurisdiction of the normal course of doing business in the county with the county judge and with the quorum court having leeway just like all the other accounts,
but it would funnel that money into that account so they could be sure to recover their cost that they're going to incur as circuit courts taking on this new responsibility, be up for review, you know, down the road when we get a little history behind us as far as how much that actually is going to count. It does not change the fees for selling or anything like that. It just simply gives the circuit clerks the responsibility to sell. Part of the reason that amendment is also in there, their issue, and Mark, I mean, Jeff may be able to speak to this if you'd like him to come, but over in Sebastian County there's a unique arrangement,
and that amendment that's in there allows for that arrangement of who does the actual selling to be able to take care of that. This bill comes at the request of my circuit clerk, Dennis Milligan, and I've worked very much with Jeff Sykes and the circuit clerks, and they seem to have embraced it as a body. And so with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. And also, if you'd like to invite anybody from the circuit clerk's office up here to speak, I'd be glad to have them come. Thank you, Representative Hammer.
Chair
Unverified
32:02
Is there any questions from the committee first?
Seeing none, it looks like we've got Rhonda Wharton, circuit clerk here to testify. Looks like for the bill. Ms. Wharton, do you recognize? You'll just let everybody in the room know
Rhonda Wharton
Unverified
32:23
who you are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Rhonda Wharton. I'm the Faulkner County Circuit Clerk, and I'm president of the
Speaker 95
32:31
Arkansas Circuit Clerks Association. Our association has worked with
Representative Hammer on this bill to get the amendment on there to set up the special fund for the fees. He has done what we asked him to do on that, and we are not opposing this bill. Really, the only difference between what we are operating under now and this bill is the payment of the fees. they would go into our office account instead of to whoever is appointed commissioner personally.
Chair
Unverified
33:12
So y'all's organization as a whole is supporting that, is that correct? Yes, sir. Well, in my line of work, circuit clerks you for it. I'm pretty much for it myself, Dave. All right, is there anybody else for or against? Anybody else for or against? Representative Steele, got a question? MR. Quick
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
33:32
question for Representative Hammer. Representative, do you anticipate this to solve the problem that we've run into over the last session and this session? Do you anticipate any further legislation on this issue, or do you think this will be
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:42
the final resolution? MR. If I may ask, would you identify what problem you're referring to to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
33:48
make sure I'm speaking about the right one? MR. Well, we ran into an issue about particular clerks doing these sales in their personal capacity and making, obviously, in some cases, large sums of money. I know there was some legislation aimed at preventing that last session. I think it came late in the session, didn't have time to get through. And there was some opposition maybe from the associations. But in terms of these sales and how they're conducted and where the money goes
and just the overall issue, do you think this will be a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:18
final resolution? I think the circuit clerks and myself have worked well together to make sure that that issue is addressed. Will it address all the issues? I don't know. I'm just funneled in on one, and that is who's going to be charged with the responsibility of selling it. and equality and just, you know, just fairness across the board so that when we talk about sale of property, we know who it is or what the chain of command is and where the money generated from that is going,
which is back, you know, into the county. Okay. I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
34:46
appreciate that. As Representative Wright said, I'm inclined to support anything the clerk will support as well. I'm in the same line of work. But I don't want to go down a slope where we begin seeing legislation on the issue and more legislation and more and more and more. I'm hoping this will be a final resolution. I don't have anything the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:59
rest of my tenure this term to deal with on this issue. I'm done. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chair
Unverified
35:06
Chairman. Ms. Wharton, thank you very much. Thank you to all the other circuit clerks who are with us today that do an incredible job across the state taking care of your office.
We really appreciate it. Representative Hanna, seeing no further questions. Representative Neal, I have a question. Okay, seeing no further questions, we already had a motion by Representative Gillum. Representative Gillum, what's that motion? Due pass as amended, Mr. Chairman. Got due pass. as amended. Yeah, but it's already been amended. So we've got a recommendation. Do pass. Motion to be passed. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. All right. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you
Speaker 101
35:39
very much, members of the committee. Senate Bill 242.
Chair
Unverified
35:45
All right. Yeah. All right. We're going to move a little bit out of order here with no objections. We've got Senate Bill 242. Senator Irvin and Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Present Senate
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
36:02
Bill 242. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee, for letting us come before you. You have actually already heard testimony on this bill because Representative Meek's bill is a companion bill. That's exactly like my Senate bill. So to save time of your committee,
we'll just ask for a good vote on the Human Trafficking Act of 2013. And I'll answer any questions. All right, nobody's signed to speak up for or
Chair
Unverified
36:27
against the bill, so we're going to pass over that. Does anybody have any questions? Seeing none, we've got Representative Williams. It has a motion. Representative Williams, recognize? Got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. Your bill is passed.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:42
Thank you, committee. Thank you. All right, is
Speaker 61
36:54
there anybody else here to present a bill?
Chair
Unverified
36:57
Anybody else here to present a bill? All right, do we have a motion to adjourn? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Representative Williams. We're going to take a little moment to recognize Senate Bill 207. My apologies, Representative Williams. All right, Representative Williams, you recognize, present your bill.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
37:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promise I won't take a lot of time. I have Elisa White with me today, and we're presenting Senate Bill 207, which is an amendment to actually, let me back up, So the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Electronic Transfer Act and dealing with what we call remittance transfers. This is when a consumer transfers money to a foreign country via an electronic means,
so a wire transfer, things like that you're normally used to. The Arkansas Code, UCC, deals with transfers between commercial parties. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act originally only dealt with transfers for consumers, so for consumer to consumer, and the UCC dealing with them for business to business. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, which amended the Electronic Transfer Act, It took into account these remittance transfers. So it covers and provides certain disclosures, certain consumer protections. And with this Dodd-Frank Act, this amendment, it now takes all consumer and some commercial transactions.
So there's some confusion with regard to where Dodd-Frank applies and where state law applies. This amendment simply is to make sure that we understand that if Dodd-Frank is silent on an issue with regard to remittance transfers, then our state law applies. And so it's really – obviously the federal law takes precedent. It's superior. But where there is no law, the state law applies. So we fall back to state law. That's basically, in a
long way, what this bill does.
And if you have any hard questions, then Ms. White's going
Chair
Unverified
39:20
to answer them for you. All right. Does anybody have any questions? Seeing no questions, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative McElroy, you've got a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. All right. Is there anybody else here to present? Representative Broadway, are you ready to
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
39:43
present your bill? Yes, I'm ready to present bill number 1264.
You're recognized. Present 1264. Thank you.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
39:56
Thank you, committee. I decided to go ahead and move forward on this bill just because we had a little bit of time left. This is what I would call, as many have referred to, is basically a little cleanup bill. What this bill does is it basically increases the time to respond to a writ of garnishment from 20 days to 30 days.
While we have proposed this, it's basically a couple of years ago, the time extended to respond to process was also increased from 20 to 30 days. And this simply makes this rule consistent. 20 days, 30 days, they're really kind of arbitrary numbers. and we are just hoping to try to provide ease to the practitioner in determining these guidelines. All right, Representative Broadway, I've got a quick
Chair
Unverified
40:43
question. This is really just to kind of streamline things.
Isn't that correct? Yes, absolutely. Okay, is there anybody, any other questions from the committee?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:09
Representative Shepard, you're recognized. All right, we'll take just a second and see if
we can get those pulled up. While we're doing this, nobody's signed to speak for or against the bill, so we're going to skip that.
Does anybody else have any questions while we're trying to work this out? Representative Shepard, are you ready? I am. You recognize it. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:27
Chairman. Now that I've pulled the bill up, it does appear the only change was as to the number of days, correct? That's correct. After you and
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
41:34
I discussed the bill, I went and made the changes that you requested. Thank you very much. You're
welcome. Also, I would say that I'm not aware of anyone being in opposition to this bill at all.
Speaker 113
42:02
Representative McElroy, you have a question? I think we're on pause for technical difficulties just at the moment.
Chair
Unverified
42:35
All right, are there any other questions? It looks like we've got everything worked out. Seeing no further questions
Representative McElroy you got a motion Got a motion do pass All those in favor say aye All those opposed Looks like you eyes have
it Congratulations you passed your bill Do you want to present 1265 Representative Broadway Let me slide away from Patrick here.
Chair
Unverified
43:37
No, we'll see if we can get everything worked out. I'd like to make
Representative John Baine
Unverified
43:41
a motion we go back to paper at this time. Yeah,
Chair
Unverified
43:46
that's not a proper motion. That's going to go to House Management. So if we want to deal with it, it'll have to be addressed in House Management. Is there anybody else here to present a bill? Anybody else to present a bill? Do I have a motion to adjourn? Representative Slinker, do I have a motion to adjourn? All those in favor say aye. All opposing.
Agenda
HB1026
HB1192
HB1193
SB242
HB1264
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins Chair
Unverified
Scott Baxter
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative John T. Vines Chair
Unverified
Speaker 31
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 54
Speaker 18
Roger Smith
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 24
Rhonda Wharton
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 101
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 61
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 113
Representative John Baine
Unverified