House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
contacted me on 1216 and he's going to deferred as well if any of you want to take note I see we had the immediate past chair of this committee in the room today welcome Clark Hall all right representative Hickerson you're recognized to present 1233 thank
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
0:23
you madam chairman I'm representative Hickerson I have with me Ken Watson from the Arkansas Municipal League to help
answer any questions about this bill HB 1233 will simply amend existing law to allow the governing bodies of the five cities in Arkansas that have a city manager form of government to approve new ward boundaries and these five cities are Arkadelphia Hope Hot Springs Texarkana and Little Rock currently the governing bodies of the 495 municipalities in Arkansas approve ward boundaries, and this bill is just simply to bring consistency to the local election laws by granting these five city manager form of government cities the same authority to set ward boundaries as the cities with mayor council or administrator form of government.
it has the recommendation of the Arkansas Municipal League the Arkansas County Elections Commission Association and the Arkansas City Management Association and madam chairman that's my presentation I'll be glad to take questions
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:42
representative Nichols thank you madam madam chair my question is I've heard that in some of these cities that after the census and the boundaries were changed in some of the wards in
essence what happened is that a holdover board member stayed in in a new area and there was never an election by them for that area mr. Watson are you familiar with that issue
Speaker 13
2:23
I'm sorry I think that there well I can't like our state senators after the census since their boundaries are changed or like every one
of them has to run they're all
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:36
on the ballot and I thought a similar rule applied in the rest of the elections and so what you have is people holding on staying in office but they've never been elected by the people that they're now representing and so that's that's an issue that I thought the Municipal League was involved in that I I don't want
Speaker 18
3:01
to get into too much detail but it's
my understanding that we are looking into that but that doesn't that's not this bill you understand that's not what this bill
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
3:15
is about okay well I know us is dealing with the federal census and it's
anyway I don't know if it could be addressing this bill or not but it I'm concerned if people are not being allowed to to vote for their representative and yes sir that needs to
Speaker 18
3:36
be addressed certainly and we'll be glad to look at it and I'm not certain that it's not already being looked at but in this this bill here is strictly for the five city manager cities in Arkansas and it's just as representative Hickerson has said it just get grants them the authority to set their ward boundaries in the same manner as the other 495 cities in Arkansas well like the some
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
3:59
of the issues that you're talking about came from one of those five cities and that's that I'm talking about so that's why I thought I'd bring it up at this
Speaker 27
4:17
chairman thank you represent Nichols representative Altus thank
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
4:22
you thank you madam chair doesn't governing body sound kind of vague who is the
Speaker 27
4:28
governing body is that the members of the ward the city commissioners the city board of
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
4:34
elders or who is body yes sir representative Altus it's it's your city council your
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
4:39
City Council members so is that is that
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
4:45
not going to be misconstrued somehow well the City Council's of all 495 other municipalities approved ward boundaries this is just simply adding these five city governing body is not they well that is the governing body of a city
Speaker 18
5:06
issuer City Council it could be the planning commission or whoever no sir the governing body is by by everyone's
understanding of a governing body is not the planning commission you
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
5:20
know they have separate duties and responsibilities so it's the tell me again who it
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
5:27
is Prissy I'm sorry the governing body of a city is your city alderman city council whatever that city calls their their board okay and it's not gonna be too big well it it's not to me a representative office but I mean
if it's something that you want looked into I there's
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
5:51
any way to be misconstrued or misunderstood I'm sure it will be in
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
5:57
the future well you know we can there's probably some type of definition in the statutes of the governing body that I
Chair
Unverified
6:08
would imagine if I can interrupt it I guess to represent about this is question is it used is that similar term used in other code in referring to City Council it's a governing body defined somewhere else
it's my understanding that it is I cannot quote you at this point my understanding that it is any other questions
Chair
Unverified
6:29
from the committee any questions from the public madam chairman
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
6:37
pardon me yes motion at the proper time I'll accept
Speaker 42
6:44
your motion now representative Hickerson thank you madam chairman recommend do pass all those in favor aye all those opposed nay
congratulations representative Hickerson you've passed it thank you and thank you for
Speaker 26
7:03
a good vote representative Bell are you ready to present House bill 1043 thank
you madam chair members of committee it's just a minute represent
Chair
Unverified
7:27
bill the committee will notice that there's a fiscal impact if you're looking on your tablets and there's also an amendment if I'm not mistaken representative Bell you're going to need to
present your amendment first that's correct madam chair and as the chair indicated there is an amendment to House bill 1043 and that amendment is primarily changes that were recommended by DF and a I believe they make the bill better have really appreciated their input and work with me on the bill and streamlines the bill makes the process a
lot cleaner and would just ask for a good vote on the amendment if anybody has any questions we'd be glad to address those if not madam chair I'd move that we accept the amendment to the
to the bill all those in favor aye all those opposed
Speaker 58
8:36
Okay, you've got a hard copy? Okay, because it is on the tablet. Okay, mine came up. Is everyone else able to get it? Okay.
Chair
Unverified
9:46
you have a question represent Wagner on the amendment you're recognized that that's incorrect today it
changes the location on it but the 10% remains in the bill any other questions on the amendment I've sent a
bell go ahead and present your bill now madam chair did we have a
vote on the amendment I if we did I missed it I guess I thought we did okay all right I had my nose in my papers so not a problem rumors committee House Bill 1043 is a bill to amend the whistleblower act that we have currently in Arkansas where a state employee or other public servant when they encounter fraud or negligent type waste in state
government have the ability to file a report and be guaranteed that there will be no job action taken against them for filing that report this adds language to that this bill does to make certain that that employee has a financial reward for doing so now one of the objections that I've heard regarding this bill with regard to that is well you know good people should do the right thing anyway well I certainly agree with that but we all know that most of us don't go to our
jobs which are in most cases good things simply because it's the right thing to do we also have our families to feed etc when a employee takes a job action like this it comes with usually some legal costs various other things and we want to make sure that we incentivize those folks to do what needs to be done and make sure that it doesn't come at great personal cost to them as well the second side of that is we want to make sure that if there is dramatic fraud or waste
that people who might not might otherwise fear coming forward choose to do so so that that's that's the general intent of the bill I do want to address some of the discussion that we've had with regard to the bill and some of some of the questions that I've heard previously about this the first and probably most common objection that I've heard is employees that in cat that
encounter situations like this as I said earlier well they should just do the right thing well
when you look at the considerations that come into what what they're having to deal with there and most of the people that are dealing with this are the more highly paid employees that were the others within the scope of this bill because the whistleblower act as it currently is doesn't allow those people or as it currently is kind of acts as a gatekeeper we're not going
to see a lot of the small efficiency related type things because nobody's going to initiate the process to go in that direction just to kind of walk you what happens in the process of somebody initiating this type of action the first step is they have to file a whistleblower action indicating that they found a problem within their agency etc and that they believe it should be reported that follows through the normal whistleblower process which after that's
been adjudicated then the agency is required by this bill to report that that there was a savings of taxpayer funds they're required to report that and it begins the process where that's reported to peer and then the agency has the opportunity to resolve that if if they choose to do so with in-house if the amount involved is less than twelve thousand five hundred dollars if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand five hundred dollars it's going
to go to the Claims Commission the Claims Commission then goes through their normal process and could choose to make an award which would then go just like any other claim through the budgetary process come before the the full legislature for determination of the award there is also a provision in this bill for if the appropriate authority doesn't follow through and make the reports that or disagrees about the amount that that employee can go
directly to the Claims Commission but only subsequent to a successful whistleblower action and that's very important when you read this bill and I know many of the questions that I've had from different agencies etc are when they've reviewed the bill as standalone and this bill and the entire process is not initiated until there's been a successful whistleblower action so that's that's a brief overview of where we are with it I just take any questions regarding that and try to try to address those we've been through pretty arduous
review process with various agencies with higher ed and with the F&A and have done my best to deal with their objections and at last count there were no technical problems with the bill at that
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
15:40
point thank you representative bail questions of the
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
15:50
committee I'm sorry thank you mr. chair on this amendment Nate can you try to follow me
it says on page to delete from line 16 or 17 through 22 and then insert 17 through 36
Speaker 81
16:14
okay just a moment representative Altus I'm letting
my tablet catch up here okay repeat where you were please okay I was
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
16:27
trying to follow how this is amended okay it says delete 19 through 22
substitute the following and then page one line 36 page page one line
Speaker 81
16:45
36 this is 1043 right I'm trying to get my tablet
to catch up with yourself page
Speaker 86
17:05
1 I think I need some tech help down here my
tablets not responding representing Altus I do have a copy that I had prepared for me with the amendment engrossed and that might make it easier for you if you'd like to if you'd like to look at that yes please thank
Speaker 74
17:28
you get this a moment to scroll and I just want to scroll if you don't watch representative
Altus if you can look at that and if it addresses your concerns I'd actually like to have that back if I have additional if I have additional
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
17:42
questions okay I can kind of see what what happened here thank you basically
representative once again the amendment takes the process the original bill had it entirely within the purview of the legislature and the peer committee to make the determination of the award the amendment more clearly directs it through the Claims Commission process and eases some of the concerns about separation of powers there were very early on some concerns that we might be
going too far in the Claims Commission process as well established has been reviewed and has withstood those that type of scrutiny so we just make certain that we we stay in an area that's been previously reviewed through the legal system and so far has been
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
18:32
successful at while allowing us to have a little bit of enhanced oversight Representative
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
18:44
Hobbs, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
18:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question online, and my tablet's probably going to
be similar to yours. But I think it's line 12 or maybe 18 of page 2 where it refers to an appropriate authority. Is that identified somewhere else in code? That is. at the last meeting I
asked that everybody receive a copy of the whistleblower act and
it is defined in the whistleblower act if you'll hold on just a minute I have that here let me get it out it is and it is very
specifically defined there's a there is a long and very specific list of what the appropriate authority is thank
Speaker 101
19:29
you thank you mr. chair any further questions from
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
19:39
the committee represent primer I was gonna try to resist but I just need some clarification probably from the statute but I'll just go ahead and ask you what kind I mean if I make a report just say I mean I haven't seen any first
of all gross waste fraud and abuse at any of my places of employment does this include things though just like improving general practices like spending i don't know spending the money at the end of the budget year i mean and and at some point is when is when is maybe oh i don't know i mean someone could say the general assembly committed waste by using tablets i'm i'm i'm i'm I'm not suggesting that we did.
I'm just saying, but is there a matter up for discussion about when does it become a fraud, not just maybe a
ill-thought-out decision? There are actually several layers in this, and it's one of the reasons that for the purposes of this bill that we chose to put it subsequent to a successful whistleblower action. So they, first of all, have to be determined that it met those requirements and went through that process. in the whistleblower statute there's a lot of language that deals with good faith communication and just as an example under good faith the
communication should be made at a time and manner which gives the employer a reasonable notice doesn't need to correct the waste or violation so if that hasn't already occurred then this doesn't start for purposes of this subsection there's there must be a reasonable basis in fact for the communication of existence or waste. Good faith is lacking when the public employee does not have personal knowledge of factual basis or when they knew that the action could be malicious, false, or frivolous. It's gross. It's
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
21:31
defined as being some sort of gross waste.
The Whistle War Act, the original act that we're adding this
language to, puts a very high hurdle on what it takes to initiate it. I just wanted
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
21:45
to be clear on that, and thank you for doing remedial work here. with
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
21:49
me represented over you recognize your question I can
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
21:55
see a lot of problems with paying people to do this because you know if we think we're going to get some extra money we're going to work harder to do it not suspect that's
probably what your whole thing was about but then when when a state in a state agency is audited and this is what used to be so I'm sure it still is if they get a call the department heads get a call that they think something is going on a miss that that shouldn't be they're going to have to do an audit I'm going
to say which is going to cost the state extra money to come up there and look for the problem they get up there and there wasn't a problem at all so they've had to pull their people their auditors out to go to an agency to audit which is going to mess up I can see this cost in the state's money representative over be
I appreciate that and that's the specifically why we
located in statute where we did locate it because any of those type of actions would not result in a successful whistleblower action to start with and if there wasn't a successful whistleblower action action none of this bill what this bill would simply not take place there would be no effect but with regard to the the overall point that I think you're looking at one of the attorneys that I visited with in the process of developing this said you know if this thing becomes law we'll probably only make one payout because once people
realize that you now have 50 odd thousand state employees that have a financial incentive to report if something fraudulent happens it is going to have a very chilling effect on anything like that happening you know like representative Clemmer said we certainly would like to hope that there isn't anything like that happening in state government but one thing is clear if we put something like this in statute the chilling effect that comes along with it makes anybody who is involved in something fraudulent or you know
criminally negligent to look over their shoulder and think twice because every around them has a financial motive to expose it and that's that's the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
24:32
purpose here hopefully it's not happening and hopefully the the
Speaker 114
24:39
bill never gets utilized represent Wagner you
Speaker 116
24:50
recognize for a question thanks mr. chair representative Bell my concern is with this 10% financial
reward do you I mean do you see any situation where someone might not come forward knowing that in the next fiscal year the the
Speaker 118
25:06
the fraud and abuse would be higher in return their 10% reward would
be higher I never after many many years around
in and around law enforcement underestimate the ability of someone with rotten motives to do bad things people I'm certain that they will But the only person eligible for this reward is the first person to make the report.
And if that one person knows, somebody else probably also knows. Thank you.
Speaker 116
25:37
I mean, I just think there's still an ethical duty there, and we have to believe in everybody is operating, you know,
Speaker 118
25:43
under their ethical duty to report whether there's a financial gain or not. But I do appreciate what you're going to do. I concur that people should do
the right thing. what I what I also am quite confident of is that a large number of people choose not to for a variety of reasons and one of those is financial representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
26:04
Hickerson thank you mr. chair it represents develop there are multiple people that come forward are you saying that the reward or award would go to the first reporter that's for what if they came forward as a group
the current language in whistleblower is not does not permit a group whistleblower action
and this is subsequent to the whistleblower act that's a very important to remember so the person who files the initial whistleblower action would be the only person eligible thank you
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
26:47
so if I'm true tops is the reward
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
26:50
tax at the same rate as standard income tax or is that addressed representative Hobbs I don't specifically know
the answer to that question idea fan a's here and I'm certain that they could probably answer that question if I if one of you guys
wouldn't mind coming over and addressing that
Speaker 134
27:17
I'd appreciate it please identify yourself mr. leather we all know
Speaker 137
27:24
you but Tim others with Tim others with Department of Finance Administration it would be taxable in my opinion we currently work with the claims Commission on awards that they
Speaker 138
27:34
do and other employment type awards that we do for withholding so it would be
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
27:39
taxable do you happen to know what rate rewards are
Speaker 138
27:46
taxed it would be at withhold based on withholding rules
Speaker 137
27:50
and then the tax rate depends on the total income level at the end of the year so you follow the regular withholding rules and it would be reported and then it would be depend on your total income at the end
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:05
of the year what rate okay thank you I know sometimes you know bonuses rewards
Speaker 137
28:10
or tax at a different rate but withheld at different rates but your
ultimate liabilities based on your total income it's not a lot of taxpayers have that misconception that they're paying they're losing money by getting a payment and that's not really
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
28:29
get thank you represent mr. leathers you
Speaker 144
28:35
knew where I was coming from while ago didn't you yes
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
28:40
ma'am I think I understood that do you look do you agree that this may cost the state
money but you know I'm sure it still is but used to the auditors we worked on a a skeleton crew they're there their work is very hard and very long hours or that's the way it used to be I can see this in the end cost in the state money am I wrong well
Speaker 137
29:15
if if this does create more of these type of reports and
complaints you're correct that the way we respond to those is we have to do an investigation and that includes an internal audit in most cases in the area you worked we had a special group that that did that and the more of that work they have to do to follow up whether it turns out to be frivolous or not frivolous you know we have to check more that we do then there'll be more work and more bureaucracy so if if this works in that fashion to create more of that then there'll be more work and more costs obviously thank you but once again
represented over be the the key point is this initiates subsequent to a
successful whistleblower action so unless the employee had already initiated a whistleblower action and it had been judged successful this act doesn't even have it has no effect at all it has there has to have been a successful whistleblower action prior to the initiation of this process representative
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
30:20
Nichols you recognize your question oh I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
30:27
sorry but the point I was making I'm not arguing with you I was just making a point that when DFA gets a report or a call I should call it they have to investigate whether it falls under this has nothing to do with that if they have I'm sure mr. leathers will agree with this that when there's a report made by
phone or whatever they they have to investigate that then it'll go into the whistleblower deal right mr. Leathers
Speaker 113
31:08
am I am I this being hard-headed anytime we
Speaker 137
31:16
get a report whistleblower or otherwise if it's if it's a internal and it's done is through that process we would follow the same investigation
based on the area where it was so we would do that and we would use our internal auditors in any case that we had involving that we also have an internal audit section that deals with other agencies and other agencies have that so any you know currently under whistleblower if we have one of those then we'll do that same sort of process on the front end the representative is right that it has to go through the whistleblower process but that's how we we respond to any of those currently is by doing that sort of audit
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
32:01
investigation represent both we are you representative Nichols
you recommend for a question thank you mr. chairman maybe for
mr. leathers or there's a AG here might be appropriate for for that office but this is all tied to the whistleblower protection act correct that's correct and the whistleblower
protection act requires a lawsuit to be
filed correct I'm not an attorney I'm not
going to be the correct person to answer that as I understand it can be held it can be processed outside the outside the judicial system
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
32:47
but most of them go to the judicial system well there is a mr. leathers can the state be a defendant in her courts well the when
Speaker 137
33:02
sovereign immunity has been waived only in the state be made a defendant in her courts or if there's a civil rights action of some sort based on freedom of speech or others but not our then we can be in our own courts on a federal issue so there are some circumstances where we can but as a general rule their sovereign immunity however whistleblower does not require that you go to court in a whistleblower situation you make those complaints and you will not necessarily go to court matter of fact
the most i would think most of them that i've ever seen we have not gone to court where someone had made a report and said that they wanted whistleblower protection we get a lot of complaints or issues or things raised by employees that they don't invoke whistleblower and where they will report something and we'll follow up on it and then sometimes some invoke whistleblower but you do not have to go to court for that hmm okay
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
34:05
but I think the the act itself though my recollection of it I think it was passed in the early 90s,
I believe, did give a cause of action, and I think at that time
they called it Chancery Court, and I just have always wondered how, and I don't recall the statute itself trying to waive sovereign immunity, and since sovereign immunity is part of our Constitution, it's pretty hard to
waive sovereign immunity. Would you agree?
Speaker 137
34:45
that have been passed by the legislature that provide legal proceedings. And if you provide those legal proceedings and processes, then those have waived sovereign immunity in various areas. For instance, our tax laws provide an appeal to the court, or our driver's license laws have appeals to the courts, where we have waived sovereign immunity so that taxpayers can take us
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
35:10
to court. Okay. Well, that's just a concern I have about the statute. I like the statute. I think it's something we need, but I don't want to see it knocked out on the constitutional grounds because of sovereign immunity, and I'm afraid that if the state gets hit with a 10% award that is extremely high,
I'm sure that the lawyers for the state of Arkansas will argue sovereign immunity unless there's some strong language in the statute itself that waives that. And I haven't seen that. So, Mr. Bell,
that might be something you need to look into. I will say, Representative Nichols, that the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association has approached me and said that they support this bill. And I support the bill.
Speaker 65
36:02
I'm just concerned about the bill. that's all so thank you mr. chairman
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
36:07
represent much that you recognize for
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
36:09
question thank you mr. chair I just want to say first of all representative I support you a hundred and twenty percent on this I just learned by experience the past week though even it's even if it's a good things sometimes there might be some things to make
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
36:33
it up committee if we would let's let's ask questions now we're we're you'll have a chance to vote
on the bill but let's let's keep our comments to questions please
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
36:42
I'm sorry sir I guess I guess I'm making a comment I'm not sure if I agree or disagree at at this point representation well I
was I mean I mean well I mean we need to keep it
Speaker 167
36:57
to question all right all right time please representative Clever you're right here is Mr. Leather still down there did he
Speaker 169
37:05
walk away he just stepped to the side okay
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
37:11
I'm I have a historical question what prompted the original whistleblower act and
I figured he might have been around I was around two it's a 1999 act so I'm sure none of the rest around too but
Speaker 137
37:30
I wasn't in the legislature I'm still a baby that's right yes ma'am I I made the point that the revenue and tax committee you guys took out my green chair that I sat in for 30 years over there that had my mold in it disappointed to have to sit in a different chair but I don't remember any specific event that led to this particular bill or anything in that time
period that that I recall but I do remember it having been done and we've operated with it and have had very few issues with it well my next question
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:03
if I can as the follow-up is how many investigations have there been well in any given recent time period a year five years I'm sorry I don't don't
Speaker 137
38:13
have that history we could see if we could find that for you I don't know that there's a central repository I'm looking at Joe's done some he says no over there because
it's you know back in those agencies and there's no bureaucracy set up to manage that thank goodness representative Bell
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:30
have you been told of anything about the number
of these I have not the only the only anecdotal data that I have with regard to this type of statute and not the whistleblower specifically but with a reward type statute South Carolina is the only other state that has a similar statute they had their law has never actually been utilized and that and the
reason that I was told by some of their legislators in visiting with them about it is that they have a two thousand dollar maximum cap on the award and they actually have legislation pending in front of them right now to remove the cap on the award and go to something very similar to what we have in this bill they have a 25% is what their percentage is but it has
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
39:19
never been used prior in theirs when it was limited to two thousand and we have nothing no reward in our law currently Chris so that would indicate probably some of the
motivation behind your behind your legislative proposed legislation if I could one more follow-up and the language on the ten percent so you're just walking me to my next question is let's say may does that mean I mean obviously they don't have to award but does that may allow for anything less than 10% or it's if they do it it has to be 10% I can I can only again I'm not
an attorney or a judge but I can speak to the intent and the intent is that that
10% is a fixed amount of award but but some of the constitutional issues as we go through this we have we have to use some of that permissive language as opposed to hard language to make sure that we don't get into trouble as I understand it
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
40:17
and I'm fine it's interesting I just wanted if that is the intent that it be
10% or we can't direct what the Claims
Speaker 175
40:24
Commission will do basically okay thank you thank you very
Speaker 159
40:27
much madam chair Linda Catlett to recognize for question thank you mr. chair representative Bell
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
40:33
do you understand that there are some disgruntled employees that work for the state absolutely if you thought about that this may cause some undue pressure or what I'm trying to what I'm trying to ask you sir is we're all human and some of our directors of our agencies have good intent to make decisions and they may make a decision that loses you know that may be non-efficient and and I'm sure all of us that have been in state government any length of time know that occurs
Speaker 177
41:05
do you think this will become a burden to the state to pay this at times
I do not and let me tell you specifically why if you go back to the whistleblower act the language that's in there defines specifically when good faith is lacking it would be very difficult for a disgruntled employee to first of all initiate a whistleblower action successfully and on the bat on a a bad faith basis if there actually truly is a savings to taxpayers that's significant enough to initiate this because somebody made a mistake I still think it needs to come forward that's the intent of the bill and at what what
the goal here is to if there is a situation such as this occurring that 90% of money that we're not paying to that employee the taxpayers are going to benefit and that's the ultimate goal is if if such situations are occurring we want that 90% coming back into the back into the mission of the agency and that that problem be dealt with that's that's what we're trying to incentivize well
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
42:08
the point I'm making and the question that I'm trying to get you to answer is
the fact is is I don't care who you are you're human you the director of any agency is going to make a mistake absolutely and sometimes those mistakes are costly and a lot of those mistakes are made that are corrected so the employee if he calls attention to that then he's going to be rewarded if it's a hundred thousand dollar mistake he's going to be making some pretty good money so what I'm saying is we reward those state employees with their
performance evaluations you understand that process and we have merit raises they get merit raises for good good work and what I'm worried is it's just going to cause a burden to the state and the additional cost not only the mistake that's made by the agency head whoever it may be but also a rewarding an employee all representative
cattle with with all respect I have personally in my years in business as an employee both as an employee and employer I've never
encountered a situation where an employee received a much more positive performance evaluation for exposing the fact that their boss was operating in an efficient manner I think the general situation that that employee is going to encounter is going to be current under the current situation would de incentivize exposing that and that is what the purpose here is to say employee if you will bring this forward so that we can fix the problem then we're going to make sure that you don't take the hit because that let's face it if
representative Catlett as a former state trooper had he gone to his head of troop and said hey you know I think you're misusing two hundred thousand dollars a year you need to fix it if if there was resistance to that and it didn't and they didn't do it and you took it to somebody else and said hey you know my this is not being taken care of your next performance evaluation is probably
not going to be very good from that person who was who was over you the idea here is to say to that employee who encounters such a situation we're going to make sure that because your next performance evaluation is probably not going to be all that great that we're going to make sure that you're that
Speaker 180
44:43
your fiscally have the opportunity to not take a hit that's that's that's what
Speaker 178
44:48
we're trying to do here that that goes directly to
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
44:51
what we're trying to accomplish most most state employees serve are good people 99.9% of them I'm
telling you all want to do a good job I would say the percent is higher than that and and most of the time if in my experience as a state employee if I drew attention to a grossly inappropriate act that it was corrected Mr. Catlett do you have a question please so what I'm yes I'm responding to his comment to me directly sir let's stick to questions all right and what I'm saying is if if the if the action is corrected okay the action is corrected
due to his bringing it to the supervisor's attention or management attention does he still get the
money there wouldn't be any reason for him to file a whistleblower action if the action
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
45:39
if it's taken care of within the agency thank you
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
45:43
representative Hickerson question please thank you mr. chair
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
45:45
Mike my questions been answered thank you any further questions not we'll go to the audience and he wants to speak for the bill or against the bill seeing none I'll go
to of representative altars for a motion motion do pass how the Canadian all in
favor say aye all opposed eyes have it congratulations you
Speaker 187
46:15
passed your bill thank you mr. chair members committee I
Chair
Unverified
46:37
agree representative Altus your motion was due pass as amended correct thank
you representative Wardlaw you're recognized for House Bill 1237 thank you
miss madam chair I've got a couple of amendments if we want to address those first please amendment one adds co-sponsors and fixes a little bit of language for the Attorney General's office
nothing really major I appreciate a good vote
Chair
Unverified
47:16
motion to adopt the first amendment all those in favor I all those opposed
and your second amendment thank you madam chair second amendment correct some language for the human search and seizure dogs it searches cadaver bodies it changes one word on line 31 on the second page and it adds the word canine officer appreciate a good vote
Chair
Unverified
47:45
thank you motion to adopt the second amendment
Speaker 3
47:48
all those in favor I all those opposed all
All right, go ahead and present your bill.
Representative Wardlock. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since lack of time, I'm just going to tell you, I think we've got a really good piece of legislation here that's agreed upon now by everyone that we know of, and we'd sure appreciate a good vote. All it does is goes in and creates a requirement from the ELITA to handle all the requirements of training these canines and registering these canines for court activity. right now we've been paying outside agencies for this and it's fifty to a
hundred dollars per year on these canines so we're gonna save all this money for city county and state police canine dogs thank you be happy to answer any questions notion
Speaker 46
48:39
at the proper time does anyone have any questions representative bill just make sure it's a question
it will be madam chair just one quick question representing Ward law and in reading this
bill just a minute ago I'm pretty sure I understand but I want to make
certain this bill would not address volunteer or other type of canines it's specifically to those that are in an employee of a public agency is that correct that that's
part of the reason we ministered amendment to was to make sure that we address that and yes you're correct it only occurs to folks employed by
law enforcement thank you I thought I understood it correctly but I appreciate the clarification
Speaker 58
49:23
any other questions by committee any comments from
the public there was someone signed up are they still in the room all right it now would be the time for comments from the
Speaker 42
49:51
public I like hearing that okay representative Hickerson thank you madam chair do pass do pass all those in favor
Speaker 58
49:58
aye I'm sorry all those opposed as amended
thank you I will hear an adjournment motion at this time thank you all right Let's head upstairs, guys.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 18
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell Chair
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 58
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 81
Speaker 86
Speaker 74
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 101
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Representative Betty Overbey
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 116
Speaker 118
Speaker 134
Speaker 137
Speaker 138
Speaker 140
Speaker 144
Speaker 113
Speaker 156
Speaker 65
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 175
Speaker 159
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
Speaker 177
Speaker 180
Speaker 178
Speaker 187
Representative Jeff Wardlaw Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 46