House Judiciary Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (18)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB679
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ll our bills out. So, Senator, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 679.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB707
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “Opposed, no. Mr. Rice, you're recognized to run Senate Bill 707 as amended. Okay,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1419
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…sically, we needed to change a couple of things in this. In House Bill 1419 regarding the time period after which a person may file for…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB806
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…liott sitting there. Senator Elliott, would you like to run Senate Bill 806? What? I'm sorry, Mike. I'm sorry, Mike. Go ahead, Senator.…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB762
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “recognize for Senate Bill 762. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1869
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1869”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB679
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…e, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 679? seeing no one Senator would you like to close for your bil…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB806
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 806? Seeing none, Representative Wright, Mr. Vice Chairman, I a…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB1419
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “look like a member of the committee. He wants to concur in Senate Bill 1419. Is that correct? Yes,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB247
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB247”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB318
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB318”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB320
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB320”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB327
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB327”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB329
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB329”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB733
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB733”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB750
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…Bill 679 is somewhat a companion to the Public Safety Bill, Senate Bill 750, that was passed some weeks ago. This bill would simply all…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB838
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB838”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB863
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB863”
|
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 5, 2026
Worked hard. I appreciate it. The bags on your desk are just a small token of my appreciation for the many days that you missed lunch and skipped lunch and came back in the afternoons and worked. I appreciate you all's support, and I appreciate you working hard throughout this session. I continue to say that judiciary sees more bills than most convenies combined, and this year was no different. And I promise you that on today's calendar there's not a sex offender bill. And I just appreciate your work. And let me say that we have the best staff of all the committees, and as a committee, the staff has, if the vice chair will make the presentations, we have the gifts for our staff, Ms. Judy Stillman and Mr. Patrick Ralston.
We appreciate your hard work and dedication in taking care of this session. Senator Luker, you're recognized. Senator Luker, I appreciate you being here.
I don't know if you've been to House Judiciary. You've been on the Senate side all year. Thanks for coming to see us. If anybody wonders why I'm taking Senator Luker first, he is the chair of Senate Judiciary. He's taken care of us on our end. He's got all our bills out. So, Senator, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 679.
Speaker 6
1:35
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, and I certainly appreciate the good work that you all have done. And we have tried to give everybody the opportunity to present their bill, and I think we concluded that last evening.
Senate Bill 679 is somewhat a companion to the Public Safety Bill, Senate Bill 750, that was passed some weeks ago. This bill would simply allow. It does not contain any funding, and it's not going to be implemented any time soon, I don't imagine, because of lack of funding. but it allows for the conduct of a drug court program by a district court judge
or a probation or parole supervision program by a district court judge. The condition being that it would have to be a part of the administrative plan of the judicial district, which means that all the circuit judges would have to approve it, and it would also have to be subject to the approval and the funding through the Department of Community Corrections, which administers the drug court program.
It's in furtherance of my goal to, at some point in the future, be able to extend out into some of the rural areas of the state the benefit of some of these programs, such as drug court or such as some other intensive supervision-type programs for parole and probationers in areas that now have no chance of participating in those things.
I represent a district comprised of seven counties, only one of which currently enjoys the benefit of the drug court, primarily because they're all small counties that cannot in and of themselves justify or support a drug court program. Through an intergovernmental cooperative agreement and through the approval of the circuit judges and through funding by DCC, some of those small counties could band together, use a district court judge to administer and conduct a drug court program
or one of these other intensive supervision type programs. And that's the purpose of this. And it's picking up on language. The Supreme Court issued a curiam opinion about six weeks ago providing for the expansion of the drug court program and the jurisdiction of district court judges and stating that upon specific authority by legislation adopted by the General Assembly, district court judges were empowered to conduct these kinds of programs.
And so this is merely enabling in the hopes that down the road there is funding that would allow that to occur. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you,
Chairman Luker. Mr. Steele has a question. He recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
5:03
Chairman, and thank you, Senator. I think this is a good bill, and I wanted to ask if you think this might help assist us in the idea of having state district courts. I know in Maori and several other areas, in rural areas,
the caseload is not there to support as many judges as we'd like to have. But I would think that if we have district judges administering a drug court, that might actually increase those numbers and help facilitate full-time district judges in those areas. Do you see that
as a possibility? It would certainly strengthen the argument for a full-time district court
Speaker 6
5:31
judge serving multiple rural counties. Thank you. And so, yes, I would hope that that would be the case. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any additional questions, members? Mr. Walker, you recognize?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:53
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator Luca. I'm concerned with Section 3, number 2 under Section
3. It says a drug team court shall be designated by a circuit judge assigned to manage the drug court docket. Mr. Walker, I just want you to recognize that's current law.
That's not anything in this bill. That's put there just to make you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:23
understand the bill. That is current language. Okay, well, so there's really nothing in this for citizen participation or for this. It's basically
a managerial function. I guess it speaks for itself. Well,
Speaker 5
6:38
I've been somewhat, Mr. Walker, in response to that, I've always personally been somewhat disappointed. We
Speaker 6
6:44
really have not gone in the direction of a genuine third-tier lower court for the state.
We're still making them sort of the stepchild of the circuit courts. And I've always had a little bit of a problem about that. But that appears to be the only thing that's doable, the current thinking. And so, as the chairman pointed out, that's existing law that there must be that supervisory hand by the circuit judge, prosecutor, et cetera. Thank you, Senator Luca.
Members, any additional questions? Saying none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 679? seeing no one Senator would you like to close for your bill I would just appreciate a
Speaker 6
7:35
good vote and I've closed thank you thank you Mr. Eubanks
you recognize for a motion that's a proper motion any question or discussion seeing none all in favor of passing Senate Bill 679 indicate by saying aye opposed no congratulations Senator you passed your bill thank you Mr. Chairman and members thank you very much
members next on our agenda so Mr. Rice can go to rules is Senate Bill
707 we have an amendment that needs to be passed out.
Do you have a comment? Accept the amendment. All in favor, aye.
Opposed, no. Mr. Rice, you're recognized to run Senate Bill 707 as amended. Okay,
Speaker 33
9:05
and Mr. Chairman, do I understand that this needs to be expunged? Oh, I will take care of that. You're exactly right. I
apologize. Members, we voted Senate Bill 707 out of committee, and we need to expunge the vote on that. I've got a motion by Representative Gillum to expunge the vote on 707. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Now, we've expanded the vote and added the amendment you recognize from 707 as amended.
Speaker 32
9:32
Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, members,
Speaker 33
9:35
you can see all this does is change V to A and shall to May, two different places. It just makes it better what they did on the Senate. I appreciate a good vote. Close.
Any questions for Mr. Rice? Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 707 as amended? Seeing none, I have a motion from Ms. Schlinkert for passage of Senate Bill 707 as amended. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations. Thank you, committee. Members, next. Senator Salmon was first on our list. She's showing up. Well, she just left. Okay, well, she'll get her glasses. I see my good friend Senator Elliott sitting there. Senator Elliott, would you like to run Senate Bill 806? What? I'm sorry, Mike. I'm sorry, Mike. Go ahead, Senator. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 44
10:33
Members, this is Senate Bill 806, and it really does take up to some degree where the public safety prison reform
Speaker 46
10:40
bill leaves off because that's a very good piece of legislation that we passed. But one of the things that's a concern for me is if we are successful with that bill, what we will do is have many people who are no longer in prison, are no longer in the system perhaps, or on their way out in a more respectful way. But once they're out, and if they live in my zip code, 72204,
it's one of the highest crime-written zip codes in this state. and when people have done their due diligence and they are coming back to live in my zip code or yours or whatever I want them to be my neighbors and I want them to be good neighbors I want them to be a part of my community and my neighborhood and my church, Mosaic of Central Arkansas does a lot of work in this regard and my pastor who was at a as he describes it, a very cushy job
at a very large church in West Little Rock and everything is going well, but he wanted to be more of service and has deliberately relocated his church onto Asher Avenue in the middle of 72204 because, as he says, and I agree, he was spending a lot of time trying to build bridges to the community and he decided he needed to be the community. And that's what I feel about the people that have done their due diligence and are now back in our society. I want to help them to be the community, and I live where I live on purpose, and these
are folks who live among me, and I want our prison reform efforts to be successful, but they can't be unless we make it possible for these folks to assume responsibility. They can be taxpayers and that we recognize that they've been through a system we set up and not put up roadblocks. So it is with this in mind that I present to you this bill, and this is not one of those cookie-cutter-counter bills, and thus far it's only had one vote against it.
So I think that's been very, very helpful and inspiring for me. So if you look at the bill, I'll walk you quickly through what it does. It is about restorative justice, but it's more about responsibility. In the first section on criminal history as not a disqualifier, presently, if you have done everything you are supposed to do, we automatically disqualify a person from a scholarship, any kind of training for grants, whatever the case may be. And this bill proposes to allow these folks to be held like you or me, anybody else, so
that if there are state funds that are being used for the purposes outlined in that section, they will be eligible for those funds unless it's a scholarship or some kind of training or something. If you look at that last sentence, if there is a statutory reason that they or a social reason they can't get these scholarships or the training, then they won't. For example, we're not looking at giving a scholarship for somebody to work in early childhood who's a sex offender. And I account for that in the last part of that section. And if you
look at Section 2, it's about employment training and placement. And what this requires in order for restoration to take place, we want these people to be self-sufficient. We have a Department of Labor that I asked to work along with other appropriate agencies to set up a program so that we can work with the public sector, the private sector for ex-offenders, a training program so that when they get out of prison, we will concentrate, if you look at Part B,
we will concentrate on high-priority service areas so they will have a job that really matters. I have not gotten objection from the Department of Labor nor from the Department of Corrections. But the whole point of this is to train people in areas so they can get job so they can be responsible and so they can be a part of the society that I want them to be. Those components are listed, of course, under B. On Section C, what I asked that department
to do further along with others is create a certificate of completion, and this is being done in some states, and principally in Minnesota, a state after which a lot of our prison reform was modeled. Once a person has gone through some kind of training program that has been certified by the Department of Labor, they will graduate with a certificate of completion and that certificate of completion will say to a state agency or to the private sector, Joyce Elliott is now ready for employment in this particular area or she is well trained
she's now ready for on-the-job training. Section 3, we have some of the same items that we had in Section 2. But in Section 3, this is about the same thing about the Department of Corrections and making sure that they are allowing inmates to be trained in these high-priority areas, unless, of course, there is some reason that they shouldn't be. So lastly, in order to encourage the private sector to take part, I ask the state to take a look at this is not mandated, take a look at the possibility of assuming liability for a private sector if they want to take a chance on Joyce Elliott, who's an ex-offender, so that I can prove myself as a good worker.
That is not mandated. It's just that they take a look at it.
Speaker 48
16:38
So with that in mind, Mr. Chair, I will take any questions. I really appreciate your hearing
me. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for that detailed explanation. I appreciate you bringing this
bill. I've been looking at a lot of this and studying some of the same things, and this is really timely in light of our prison reform bill. A couple of questions for you, because I've also studied Minnesota as well as New Jersey has done a lot in this area. And my research shows that those states that have, and it's pretty new in a lot of states,
but they've seen even early on a reduction in recidivism rates among former convicts. Is that what your research also indicates? Absolutely it is. And so, you know, in
Speaker 48
17:20
want to do better, but it's not just their wanting it. The research absolutely backs it up. Right. And we have a
council of examples of where these folks have gone from becoming tax burdens to being taxpayers and
really restoring their lives and doing a good job.
And so I appreciate you bringing this legislation. We've got a couple of questions. Let me start with Representative Wright is recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
17:46
Chairman. Senator, I think this is a great bill, and I
appreciate you bringing it. I have just one question. Okay. Have you talked to the Department of Corrections if there are going to be some additional costs or anything with implementing some of these? I have spoken with them, and they're good
Speaker 48
17:58
with the bill, and they're here as well today. Good. Thank you. That's why I'm so long getting here. I have talked to everybody. Thanks again for
Speaker 61
18:04
bringing this. You're welcome. Thank you. Reverend DeSteel, no questions?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:10
That was actually, if I might, just follow up. That was actually my second question. And I would preface it by saying I think we recently saw a bill that allows us to house certain inmates in Louisiana, and we found that that was significantly cheaper than housing them in Department of Collections here. And my understanding was the basis for that was that there were fewer programs for those prisoners. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing by any means. So I guess it follows that there are some costs associated with these kind of programs. In your experience, and I don't think we need any other witnesses,
but in your discussions with ADC, do you know
Speaker 48
18:48
people or they're going to be? No, they won't. Because I was careful with the language to say focus on certain things, but they already have a training program, so they don't have to hire any
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:58
more people to do anything that's in this bill. So this just kind of describes what kind
of training they would provide. Right. That's right. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 67
19:08
you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Deffenbaugh, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
19:12
I do have a question on, you know, the way I'm reading, page 2, line 18.
One, are the Department of Corrections providing education now? Yes, they are. They are doing that now. Yes. So I didn't know how that went. Yes. The second thing is on line 21, the department shall identify high-demand vocations, careers, and shall accordingly create and skills programs to prepare inmates for gainful employment upon release.
So do we have, here's I guess what my question is, are there people in prison systems already in place to do this? You said, you know, do we, I mean, I know it's probably been asked to you, this is probably the third time, Do you need new staff or are people in place here and or will they have to go through some training? People that are already there, will they have to go through some training to teach these skills?
Speaker 59
20:20
MS. Not according to my conversation with the Department of Corrections. That's what I'm going on, that they are fine. MS. Okay. MS. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
20:33
Chair. MR. Thank you. Mr. Eubanks, you recognize? I appreciate what you're trying to do, Senator, and I may not be able to find it, but is there a fiscal impact statement that has to go along with this? Because I've heard that brought up on many occasions in this committee, and I've heard that there are going to be some costs associated with this. There
Speaker 72
20:50
is not, because I try to be careful to not put anything in the bill
that's different from what these departments
Speaker 48
20:56
are already doing, and that's why there is not opposition from them, because this is within the
scope of what they do already. Mr.
Eubanks, a fiscal impact wouldn't be required according to our rules, House rules here. It's not changing the prison population, it's not expanding the prison budget. It's using the existing money, so there's not going to be a subsequent revenue impact, so it's not necessary here.
Members, any additional questions? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against
House Bill 806? Seeing none, Representative Wright, Mr. Vice Chairman, I already beat you to that. He's got a motion of do pass. All in favor of do pass on House Bill 806, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. We appreciate this
bill and thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 61
21:49
I'm so grateful for my last bill presentation. You've made my day.
Mr. Patterson, I apologize. I didn't see my good friend sitting down there. I know you've got a quick concurrence. You
Speaker 39
22:07
look like a member of the committee. He wants to concur in Senate Bill 1419. Is that correct? Yes,
Speaker 78
22:13
sir. You're recognized to present that concurrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, we needed to change a couple of things in this. In House Bill 1419 regarding the time period after which a person may file for executive clemency.
I was trying to go from six years to ten years, and we changed that to eight years. And we changed a couple of lines in the back, and it says eight years from the date of denial if the applicant is serving a sentence of life without parole for capital murder. So we made a couple of small changes in there, and I'd appreciate a good
vote. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Members, you've heard an explanation of House Bill 1419. Any questions? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for against House Bill 1419? Seeing no one, Mr. Patterson, are you closed for your bill?
Yes, sir. Mr. Rice has a motion of do pass. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Rice. Mr. Patterson, sorry to make you sit there
Speaker 81
23:05
so long. Thank you, committee, and Mr. Chairman, appreciate
it. Senator Salman and then Senator Harrelson will get to you. We had Senator Salman first on our list. She forgot her seeing glasses and had to go back, so I think she's got them now. Senator Shalman, you
recognize for Senate Bill 762. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mary Anne Salmon
Unverified
23:27
If I don't have my glasses, I might as well not be here. This bill is to reduce the cost of preparing a case record on appeal. Right now, to prepare a case record, it costs $250,000 per page, and sometimes corporations have to pay $50,000 to $100,000 or even just a very large case to get a copy of the record
so they can appeal the case. Even in a small case, it might take $1,200 to $1,400 to $1,800. And my bill says that you pay $2.50 for the first 1,000 pages, then it cuts it to $2 for the next 1,000 pages, $1.50 for the next 1,000 pages, and $1 for the next 1,000.
That's up to 4,000 pages, and then it's 50 cents for any pages over 4,000. I think it's a good bill. It will help people get the record on appeal and won't break them up when they're doing it. The rest of the things, as far as preparing a case, are the same. The certificates and seal is $5 still, and I didn't change anything but just the pages. I think it's a good bill.
Thank you, Senator. for that explanation. Anyone, Mrs. Rogers, has a question? Can you
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
25:09
vote? Thank you, Senator Salmon. My question is, what are these, what did they start at? Or what is the current price and what is
Senator Mary Anne Salmon
Unverified
25:18
it coming down? The current price is on page 27 there. It's $2.50 per page, no matter how many pages you get. Oh, okay. Okay. And I've talked to Martha Miller at the Association of Counties and she said they were fine on this.
Okay. Have the court reporters weighed in on this in any way? Now, this has nothing to do with the court reporters. Okay. This is on appeal, and it's just a copy of what they've already done. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I got some. They thought it did, and I got some pretty bad e-mails for some of them, but it does not affect them. This is the cost of an
official copy from the court, not from a private court reporter. A private court reporter can still charge what they want to for their own copy. all right
Speaker 92
26:02
this has only the clerk in them any additional question members
seeing no question anyone in the audience wants to speak for against Senate bill 762 seeing no one Senator Salmon would you like to close for your bill I've closed for it Mr. Steele has a motion of due pass on Senate bill 762 all in favor indicate by saying aye opposed no congratulations enter your bill passes Senator Harrelson this
Senator Mary Anne Salmon
Unverified
26:28
is probably the last bill I'll run in my career, so I appreciate your good vote. Thank you. Well, thank
you, Senator, and thank you for your long career service.
Former Chairman of House Judiciary, my Chairman, when I was a first-termer, Senator Helson, happy to have you here. Go
Speaker 14
26:45
right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's a very simple, straightforward bill. Senate Bill 863 merely has one sentence. All it does is change abuse of a corpse from a Class D felony to a Class C felony. And a lot of you all
Speaker 94
26:58
are like me. A lot of times I oppose a lot of these bills that simply ratcheted up the fence simply to make yourself look better or more tough against crime. But let me tell you the reason I'm bringing this bill.
And it comes from a family in Miller County, my home district, whose son was brutally murdered by two different people. And in order to conceal the crime, the person who committed the murder called some family members to help. And so someone different from the person who committed the murder doused the victim's car with gasoline, doused the victim's body with gasoline, and then set him afire. And the problem with this is that the person who was convicted of abusive corpse
and for setting the car to fire, a fire was convicted of a Class C felony for setting the car a fire, but a Class D felony for setting the body a fire. And, of course, the ultimate result of this was that the victim's family couldn't properly bury the victim, and the person was sentenced to three years for burning the body, but ten years for burning the car. And they came to me about that, and, of course, that seems inequitable to me as well. And so what we're trying to do here is at least make this offense as punishable as setting a car afire property.
So we're putting this in line with that. To give you a few figures here, there are 19 people who are currently serving in the Arkansas Department of Correction for abusive corpse. But 17 of those 19 are serving a concurrent sentence for something more serious like murder, etc. So this only affects two people, and for that reason, there is no fiscal impact. I'd appreciate a good vote. Happy to take
any questions. Thank you, Senator Harrelson, and members, I failed to tell you there is a physical impact attached to this. Mr.
Speaker 33
28:48
Rice, you're recognized for a question? This could be for Senator Harrelson, or if not, Mr. Chairman, you may know, but I'm
not making light of it, but we just had something in this range because it was from my county. How did what we voted? Did we vote that out of the House yesterday? That was concealing a
corpse, and I don't remember the penalty rank. Mr. Shepard would probably be able to answer that for us. I don't remember that bill.
Speaker 33
29:17
Well, it was Mr. Shepard's bill. Let me turn that to Mr. Shepard. It was Landlord's bill that Mr. Shepard ran for him.
Speaker 99
29:25
I was carrying Senator Landlord's bill. I don't want to make sure you were carrying a bill. That's right. But the bill that we had before us yesterday on the floor, it criminalized concealing a corpse. And then it also, the main purpose, though, was to cause concealing a corpse to be a continuing offense so that to rectify the loophole that was created in that someone could conceal a corpse if it wasn't found until 10 years later, that person could not be charged for that particular crime,
and so it's a continuing offense. Thank you, Mr. Shepard, for that explanation. Mr. Rice, any additional questions? Anyone else with a question? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 863? Seeing no one, Senator Helson, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you, Senator. Representative Wright has a motion of due pass of Senate Bill 863. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. You passed your bill. Representative Vines, help me out.
What bills do you have? Those first four are on the regular agenda. All right. Do you have any particular order? I'll get some witnesses here. Okay. All right. And I believe Representative Powers, you have some of the same witnesses as well. Mr. Vines, would you yield to Senator Hutchinson just for a second?
I apologize. I told you guys, I told both of you all you all could go early on. Senator Hutchinson would like to get back to the Senate side. He doesn't like it down here with us that well. So we'll let him go real quick. We've got an amendment to his bill. This is Senate Bill 838, is that correct? Correct, Chairman. We've got an amendment coming for this bill. This should be very quick. This is Representative Shepard's amendment to Senate Bill 838. I'm going to recognize Representative Shepard's motion to amend this bill. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no.
Senator Hutchison, you're recognized to run Senate Bill 838 as amended.
Chair
Unverified
31:56
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is the remnant of a KETAM legislation that we started over in the Senate side. And it's now been agreed to by everybody, which means it probably doesn't do a whole lot. But what it does do is in the state's Medicaid False Claim Act, there's a whistleblower portion of that that grants 10% of any recovery the state gets.
The whistleblower can receive 10% of that recovery. But currently it's up to $100,000. this would remove the cap so that they'd be incentivized and there was a recent case with a doctor who there was millions and millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud that was recovered and the Attorney General could only award up to $100,000 this would allow, it's probably going to be rare but in those circumstances where we're talking about lots of money that's been defrauded from the state
it would be an incentive enough for the whistleblower to step forward and risk losing his job and all the bad stuff that comes with that in order to inform the state of this fraud that's occurring. Take any questions
if there are any. Thank you, Senator. Any questions for Senator Hutchinson? Seeing
no questions, anyone? I'm sorry. Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And, Senator, I'm looking at where your amendment is deleting Section 3.
And that looks to be like a whistleblower type of protection. Yep. Is
Chair
Unverified
33:48
that gone now? I'm afraid so. The nursing homes were very uncomfortable with that section. I don't think they should be because there's already currently protections to EOC in the, what is it, 1864, I think, that provides whistleblower protections. This was just codifying it into the Medicaid reimbursement statute and Medicaid fraud statutes.
But they didn't want it, and I needed to amend it to be able to get it through Senate committee, and so I promised them I'd do it on the
House side. Do you know if there are any federal protections for whistleblowers in Medicaid? There are. So it may be taken care
Speaker 117
34:36
of there? Yeah, it's a, I mean, going through EEOC is a pain.
Chair
Unverified
34:42
Well, EEOC just deals with race. Well, no, there's a whistleblower as a protected class, or it can't be an anti-retaliation.
You can't fire somebody for retaliating them for whistleblowing. The concern I had with that is in order to receive that protection, you have to have whistleblowed on something that could harm or could infringe on public safety or public health. There's a question whether or not Medicaid fraud does that. So now with nursing homes, I think it probably could be deemed as public health or public safety. But to clarify that, I wanted to put it into state statute that there is a protection against retaliation.
But you can't get everything you want. Do you know if this retaliation could be an exception to the employment at
Chair
Unverified
35:39
will doctrine? Well, that's essentially what the federal protection would be is an exception to at-will employment. They can't fire you out of retaliation. But, unfortunately, it's fairly limited on what the definition of a whistleblower is, and it's still a pain to have to go through that whole process in order to be protected.
I think it would have been a lot better to put
it in our Arkansas statute. I support your bill, but I understand when you have to take things out to get a few
votes. I'm afraid so. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, anyone in
the audience wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 838. Seeing no one, what's the will of the committee? I'm sorry, Mr. Senator Hutchinson, are you close? I'm close, yes. Representative Nichols has a motion of do pass Senate Bill 838. proper motion. Any question or discussion? As amended. 838 as amended. Thank you, Representative
Schlinker. The question before the
committee is passed with Senate Bill 838 as amended. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. Your bill has passed as amended. While Representative
Vines comes for his bills, members, House Bill 1944 is on the deferred List, I'm going to recognize the Vice Chairman for a motion on that bill, if it's
Speaker 124
37:00
okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we pull House
Chair
Unverified
37:05
Bill 1944 from deferred and send it to interim study.
Without objection, I'm going to accept that motion, all in favor of allowing House Bill 1944 to come from deferred list and be sent to interim study and indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. We'll tell Representative Perry that his bill is now an interim
study. Representative Vines, help us out which bill we're going to take
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
37:33
first. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. These first four bills in your agenda, we'll go through if we can. These
are Senator Malone's bills from the Senate.
We'll start with Senate Bill 318, if that's possible with the chair. That's
quite all right. Representative Vines, you're recognized for Senate Bill
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
37:52
318. I'm going to give you a brief synopsis of it, and then I'm going to turn it over to my witnesses to testify for the bill. Senate Bill 318 amends the statute concerning availability of records
from children's advocacy centers. Last legislative session, the criminal penalty section was removed.
Then during the interim between last legislative session and now, There were several meetings and conferences, and
most everyone that has involvement with this bill agreed that that criminal penalty section need to be placed back in. So I'm going to let my witness, Lisa McGee, talk about the compromise that was reached and go from there. Lisa McGee, I'm assisting
Speaker 134
38:42
the Child Advocacy Centers on some legislation that came out
of the Child Abuse Task Force. The compromise was last legislative session we had some concerns from the criminal defense lawyers from Jeff Rosenzweig and from Trace Williams with the Arkansas Press Association because when we added in protective orders and kept in the criminal penalty section they thought that was like a double jeopardy issue. And so what the compromise now will be is that if there's a protective order issued on some records from a child advocacy center, the consequence is limited to what happens with the protective order. So either there's a contempt on that, and if there is no protective order and there's
an authorized disclosure of information of a child advocacy center record, then you have the criminal penalty section. And so they've got to go down one chute or the other, so now there's not an issue of the constitutionality. Thank you, Ms. McGee. Mr.
Vines, are you closed for your bill? Yes. complete with the explanation?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
39:35
I'm sorry. Through your explanation, I'd be happy to answer
your question. Sure. Members, any questions on Senate Bill 318? Same no questions. Anyone in the audience want to speak for it again? Senate Bill 318?
Same no one. I have a motion from Vice Chair Wilkins to do pass on Senate Bill 318. All
in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Vines. Members, Senate Bill
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
40:02
320. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 320, again, comes
from Senator Malone, and it extends the statute of limitations for 14 criminal offenses. When the offense is committed against a minor, the violation has not been previously reported to a law enforcement agency
or the prosecuting attorney, and the victim has not yet reached the age of 28. It's not 28 years old. Again, with that, I will yield the microphone to Lisa McGee for further explanation.
Speaker 133
40:36
Lisa McGee, we again did some compromising down on the Senate end. Originally, there was going to
Speaker 134
40:41
be no statute of limitations for these crimes, and we compromised on adding 10 additional years. So after the victim turns 18, it will be up to the age of 28 for these crimes.
And I think you have a fiscal impact statement. I think they did a really good job of looking at all the other states and where the
other states fall out on this. So I think
Chair
Unverified
41:08
we are in line with those. Members, any questions? Mr. Wilkins? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McGee, you all have done an excellent job with these bills. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask Ms. McGee, do you agree with my statement?
I agree. Then, Mr. Chairman, I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
41:33
proper time. All right. Well, we've got Mr. Walker for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vance, Ms. McGee, either of you. Does this extend the statute of
limitations civilly so that when a young person reaches 28, he or she may be able to sue the offender?
I mean, let's assume it's a child in a church who's been molested by the pastor or priest, and when he or she gets 18, normally one has three years in which to bring a civil action. Does that extend the time
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
42:20
for doing that? No, sir. All this does is extend the time on
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
42:26
the criminal prosecution, the statute of limitations regarding criminal prosecution. Well, what's the logic then? Basically, the only remedy to the victim would be the possibility of getting damages for the wrongful acts perpetrated upon him or her.
I mean, you know, I guess the public interest is served by allowing a trial, but the person may have been mentally endangered for the rest of his or her life and then have no remedy after he or she gets 21. What's the logic of that? You've raised a great point, and if you're here next session, we'd love to run
Speaker 134
43:04
that bill with you. What we were looking at this session was the criminal part of it, But if that's something you'd like to do, the advocacy centers would love to work with you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Wright? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
43:25
Chairman. Representative Vines or anybody else down there can answer this. I may just need you all to clear up. What happens on these offenses now if the victim is older than
Speaker 134
43:43
28? Lisa McGee, what happened before was they ended with the normal statute of limitations. So some misdemeanors were one years, some felonies were three, and some were six.
So they died earlier. And what we're saying now is because what do we know about brain development is that the brains aren't fully developed until their 20s is that why we wanted to get that 10-year period in. So right now all we're saying is let's go a little bit longer because before they could have expired at three years after
Speaker 146
44:11
they turned 21, I mean after they turned
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
44:15
18. So after the statute of limitation expires, there is no criminal prosecution. I guess what I'm getting at, maybe I didn't make my question clear, is these crimes, now this rape, sexual assault, A through G, the victim is over the age of 28.
Speaker 146
44:29
There is no prosecution. All we've done is extend the statute of
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
44:39
limitation. Okay, okay. Thank you for clearing that up. Mr. Steele, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that last session, maybe a couple of sessions ago, was there not a change to the statute of limitations for rape where DNA evidence could be used? Was it extended? I understood that I believe it became law that if DNA evidence is used, then there is no statute of limitations on rape.
Is that true? Is that true? Would this do anything to limit that? I mean, it mentions rape in here, and it sets the statute of limitations for
Speaker 140
45:11
rape of a minor to 10 years, basically. Just what I know on statutory construction, I'd say no, because if you look
Speaker 134
45:17
at where we took it from, it would have already limited it back on Section 2. Okay. And all we did was move
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
45:23
it, take it from here to here. Yes, and extended it. Okay. Of course, I guess previously that was law before the statute of limitations
was lengthened for DNA evidence and rape. So I would think since the statute of limitations was lengthened on rape subsequent to the underlying law that you're amending here, then certainly we changed that law regarding the statute of limitations when DNA evidence is being used. And I'm afraid that if we do this subsequent to that, we may actually be lessening the statute of limitations for rape where DNA evidence is used when we're dealing with a minor.
Is there anybody that might be able to speak to that? No,
we don't know. Do you know? Mr. Chairman, I think we've got a volunteer witness. Absolutely.
Speaker 159
46:27
Would you state your name for the record? Tell us who you're with. I'm Dee Dee Sallings with the Public Defender Commission, and I don't believe it would affect what the DNA statute that you're referring to, because my understanding
in this situation we're not talking about DNA. These are just kids that are coming forward with allegations. If there's DNA, then that, I think, would apply, that statute would apply rather than this statute. That's good enough for me, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you. That's right. Ms. Silence, please don't leave. We
have other questions for you. Mr. Nichols, you recognize? Mr. So you're telling me that as a public defender that if you're defending somebody and it's all they have is DNA evidence, you're not
going to relate back to this statute if
we pass it to say that the statute of limitations has run? Ms. No,
Speaker 164
47:16
sir, because that would be an incorrect application or argument of the Well, I think it's an
argument that somebody should make if they're in that position. I wouldn't make it, but I think
Speaker 159
47:37
would not be upheld by the courts, because I think the DNA statute is separate and apart from this.
Mr. Nichols, any additional questions? No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional questions?
Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
48:02
or against Senate Bill 320? Mr. Walker, do you have a question? Mr. Chairman, I have an unusual motion. I want to move that it pass and that upon its passing it be referred in the normal course,
but then it be also referred for additional study.
Well, I won't recognize that motion because I'm not sure if that's even a motion we have. But what I will do is allow you to talk with the, if it passes, with the bill's sponsor. And we can make sure that that's taken care of and you guys can address it. So since this is a Senate bill, if it comes out of here, it's law. So if you have a problem with this and don't have enough explanation, you'll have to vote it down. because this being the last day, we don't really have much time to do anything else with it.
Then the motion is sent to do pass. All right. Well, we have a motion in front of you. Let me first see if the sponsor is ready to close. You're closed? Yes, we are. Okay. Senator Wilkins beat you to it, Mr. Walker. He has a motion of do pass already. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of passing Senate Bill 320, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Mr.
Vines, you've passed 320 you're recognized for Senate Bill 327 Let me, if I can further
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
49:21
that comment on Mr. Walker on that 320 we'll be happy to go back with Senator Malone and see, we need to flesh it out because we don't
want to create further confusion on that rape statute as this dealt with
Speaker 171
49:36
just the minor we don't want to get in splitting hairs over the DNA
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
49:42
rape statute statute limitation Thank you, committee, Mr. Chairman, for that latitude. Next is Senate Bill 327, and it simply amends the criminal statute on sexual indecency with a child.
The bill has been amended numerous times. In its present form, it expands sexual indecency now to include when an adult 21 years or older with the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire of himself or herself or a sexual desire of any other person who is less than 15 years of age purposely exposes a minor to a recorded
Speaker 172
50:20
or printed sexual activity. I'll yield the microphone.
MR. No explanation, Mr. McGee? Okay. Members, any questions for Representative Bynes on Senate Bill 327? MR.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
50:39
Well, yes, I do. MR. Yes, sir, Mr. Walker. MR. What do you do in a situation where on television, which is so well viewed, a person, could be a parent or it could be an older sibling is watching something as innocuous as a dance show
uh... i mean where does this cover that where the suggestive possibilities are present what dance show are you watching Well, something
like, I go back, I go back to something. I'm from a different generation. I go back to things like Soul Train. I mean, even those things are suggested. That episode.
But, I mean, there are so many things on television that come across that different people may view different ways. I mean, don't you run the possibility of this statute
being void because it's vague in terms of
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
51:48
its definition. If I can point you, and I apologize to Mr. Walker for that comment. I will do that one. Yes,
sir. Touche. If I could point you to page two of the bill, as you can see,
the bulk of this is already codified, but the section
we're adding is 6A, and it deals with the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire, and then it goes in and lists, you know, purposely exposes a minor to the sexual intent, deviant sexual activity, sexual content. So I don't think
or I would hope Soul Train would not rise to those standards.
Mr. Walker, you have additional questions? No, sir. Thank you. Let me follow up
on Mr. Walker's question because I'm not sure how, as carefully as you can, explain to me a situation where this would occur because I don't, reading this, I don't really understand how this crime occurs, particularly from like a TV standpoint. I mean, if a 21-year-old is watching TV and the 15-year-old is there, they also, help me out how this works and why we
Speaker 182
53:04
need this. In 33 percent of, I'm sorry.
Speaker 183
53:06
Say your name, identify yourself, tell us who you're with. I'm Kathy Helpenstiel with the Children's Advocacy Centers of Arkansas. In 33% of sexual abuse cases, there was pornography used in the grooming process to desensitize the children to the norm of what's normal, affectionate behavior. And so in very frequent cases, children thought it was normal behavior to have sex with family members or neighbors or babysitters
through the use of pornography. So this is really what we're looking for, is to show the sexual gratification, the burden of proof would be on that, and to lessen the risk of normalizing these behaviors or this standard for children so that they take it to the school, the playgrounds, whatever. If they see it at home and they think it's normal, Then they go and offend on other children or expose it to other children. So those are the things that we're really looking at.
Chair
Unverified
54:12
Thank you. We'll take questions. Representative Hammer, do you
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:21
recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, did you mention 33 percent? Is that the number I just heard? Yes, sir. Just out of curiosity, do you know of the 33%, what percentage of that involved just, say, standard shows that are obtainable on TV as opposed to videos that are brought in from other sources?
Did that get distinguished in that report?
Speaker 182
54:48
I'm not aware of the distinguish, whether it was or it was not, but it does
Speaker 183
54:54
have to be considered pornography. So we're talking about magazines, we're talking about videos, we're talking about live acts, we're talking about probably TV shows that are on certain cable channels, things
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
55:09
like that. So would it be a fair statement to say then that some shows that are allowed to be on networks via TV
are a source of the problem that are leading to this kind of legislation. Is that a
Speaker 83
55:33
fair statement? It's really we're looking at the pornography channels. It's the channels where
Speaker 183
55:38
the intent by the offender is to groom the child and to desensitize the child to deviant behaviors so that they will participate with them. So if you can prove that the offender or the adult is being aroused or seeking arousal,
then that's the point that we're getting to, not just we're watching a movie on a Friday night and the kids walk through or anything like that. It's seeking sexual gratification. Okay, and so as far
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
56:11
as standard channels that are able to be picked up through TV, that 33% did not refer to any of that then? It was excluded out, or are you able to say again? I can't confirm or
Speaker 183
56:25
deny that because I don't have that information in front of me,
but that's not the expectation of this bill. But would you say
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
56:34
TV in some of the shows that are available is a contributor to
Speaker 198
56:47
it? I don't know. I don't think so, no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 124
56:54
Mr. Wilkins, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the folks at the end of the table know, I have always been a strong advocate of children's advocacy,
a close friend of Senator Malone, and I was hoping to be able to make the motion on every one of
Chair
Unverified
57:13
his bills. And so far until we got to this one, I've got some problem with the lack of clarity here and immediately.
Speaker 124
57:25
And this kind of follows up on where Representative Hammer and some others have their questions. When I'm flipping through my cable looking for religious television shows, I come across, I don't stop,
But I come across these things that say, wow, naked girls get loose and terrible housewives next door do dogs. And, you know, I mean, just, you know, okay, is that all right? I just want to make sure I had adequate everything. You know, so my point is that sometimes youngsters will buy those $3.99 or $5.99, whatever they cost.
I don't know what they cost, but they purchase those. And so I think this is a little bit vague in terms of getting to, oh, Chairman, you're confirming that they're $3.99? No, I was, okay, I'm sorry, I heard $3.99. I'm just saying I don't know how much they are. But my point is that this is kind of vague, and I'm a little bit hesitant to support it without us finding a way to provide a little bit more clarity to how that can be done.
So I just wanted to express that because I am definitely, definitely supportive of what you're trying to do and always have been and will continue to be. Thank you. And I guess I'm supposed to ask that in the form of a question, so
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
59:16
do you agree? Representative Wilkins, let me speak to that
because I think we may have gotten off point here. The section that we're discussing here on that section 6A, when you're searching for local ministry or the 700 club,
you would have to have the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire of yourself with another person under the age of 15. And your purpose would be to expose that minor to those acts listed. So, I mean, it's more than just flipping channels and seeing what's out there. I mean, you'd have to have the specific men's right to do that. Okay,
Speaker 124
1:00:02
let me give you a further example then.
Let's say that there are a group of youth from my church. You know, I don't know who they would be. There probably is one or two deviants in there somewhere. Let's say that there's a group of them at my house. There's a youth group there, and they find this channel, and they order it, and they're looking at it, and then the youth minister comes in, and he starts having a discussion with them about why that's inappropriate.
But nevertheless, that is now on my cable bill. Then somebody leaves there and says, well, we watched, goes home to tell their parent, We watched dogs, cats, and horses go wild on the television at the pastor's house. And then next thing I know, I'm having questions, and they're subpoenaing my cable bill. And, you know, I'm just questioning whether or not that could, you know,
because of the lack of clarity here, whether
Speaker 200
1:01:15
or not that could accidentally get somebody in the wrong spot there. Yes, and let
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:01:22
me address that. One, that was why this was amended to take it from 18 to 21, so that it was not a youth group, a group of teenagers, that sort of thing. It was taken to 21. Again, to address that further, and we keep getting back to this, you know as long as it was I guess the discussion
doesn't concern me as much because the purpose of this is or the purpose stated in this statute is that person that is of age 21 or older would have to have the purpose to arouse or gratify his or her sexual desire and if there's just a conversation or it's a teaching lesson
on whatever, I mean, it would probably be a defense to that charge
that they were not, that they didn't have the intent to do that. Yeah, and I know
Speaker 124
1:02:21
that's where you're coming from. The only thing that still gives me pause, a little pause, is that you did in your response say probably. So, but thank you. I appreciate you. Thank you. Well, and I can, let me let Lisa comment
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:02:35
on that just a little further because she's more familiar. Thank you, Lisa. I would agree with
Speaker 140
1:02:41
Representative Vines. And if you're saying you're not at home and the kids get in there and watch the television,
Speaker 134
1:02:48
then this isn't going to happen. It won't happen. You're not there. If you're the person 21 or older and you're not there and not putting the show on, this won't apply to you. Okay,
Speaker 124
1:02:59
but if my youth minister who's 20 years old is there and he comes in and this is going on, In the Senate,
Speaker 140
1:03:07
originally we had the language 18 and then younger than 15, and that was the concern that the senators had. And once we amended it to 21,
Speaker 134
1:03:14
that's when we got it out, all yes votes. And so it has to be an adult now with someone younger than 14.
Speaker 124
1:03:20
So he'd have to be 22 years old to even have a question about
that? Well, 21 or older. 21 or older. Correct. All right. Thank you. Let me follow up on that, just a hypothetical. 22-year-old brother purposely
at his parents' home, his college student at home, purposely watching one of these channels that he's ordered, purposely to sexually gratify himself, and his 15-year-old brother comes in the room. Is that a problem under this statute? No, because 15, it's less than 15.
Well, 14-year-old brother comes in the room, 22-year-old college student comes home, personally watching Girls Gone Wild and had paid for it on his direct TV and his 14-year-old brother comes in the room and sits there
also and he doesn't get him out soon
Speaker 210
1:04:08
enough. Is he in trouble? No, because his purpose wasn't to expose
his brother. His purpose was for his own graduation. It says purposely exposes him. He purposely did it to arouse himself and he purposely exposed his brother
because he allowed his brother to come in the room with him. So he satisfies both of those requirements because he purposely aroused himself. That's why he bought it. And his brother comes in the room, and he knows he's in the room and doesn't kick him out.
Speaker 208
1:04:37
Isn't he guilty under this statute? Line 34. Again, I'll go back to what the, you know, there's two purpose components here, not just one.
Speaker 134
1:04:44
And the second one is, did he purposely expose this minor to it? And I would say no. It was negligently that he walked through the room and he allowed him to remain. He didn't say, come in here, I want to show you something.
And so you've got to go back
to that second element of purpose. Okay, we've got Mr. Walker,
Mr. Powers, and Mr. Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's who I have
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:05:10
on the list. Others I didn't catch, so I'm sorry. Mr. Gillum. Representative Vance, my concern is that when you simply charge a person, and the prosecutor has great prosecutorial discretion in charging, when you charge a person a sexual offense,
there's almost like a presumption of guilt. Would you not agree? I mean, it's in the public domain. Whether a person's done it or not becomes something that is going to always be etched in the minds of people so that the person can never
Speaker 139
1:05:44
be acquitted. So you're saying if you were charged with this, you would
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:05:48
just be assumed to be guilty? Well, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose. You're thereafter a sexual predator or offender.
I mean, even if you get acquitted, I mean, the idea is that there had to be something there, otherwise the prosecutor wouldn't have charged. And the other thing is it puts the person in a position of having to make a defense of whether or not it was purposeful. I mean, prosecutors always put certain boilerplate language in prosecutions. I mean, they use this language whether or not there's any evidence for it. So how do you, I'm concerned about young people. I understand that we're always concerned about people not having, not engaging in too much sex,
whatever that means, or doing things that are different than some of us may have done and now you. But the question is, why do we have to, I mean, what is the necessity for
punishing or at least creating this crime? I don't understand this one, the necessity. I mean, is there some evidence that
other than the 33% survey from some unreported source that you mentioned, surveys don't have reliability to me.
Speaker 182
1:07:05
So what's the evidence? I'm a forensic
Speaker 213
1:07:09
interviewer for children that have been sexually abused. And just off the top of my head, I can come up with easily five different cases, situations where pornography was a part of the grooming process and it was a part of the normalizing of deviant sexual behaviors in the molestation of children. Well, here's
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:30
my problem. I understand what you're saying. But the concept, even the Supreme Court has had some definitional problem with what pornography is.
They can't define it. So, I mean, it's anything that somebody doesn't like that may be, to them, pornographic. You agree that pornography is undefinable. Yes and no. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know what the legal
Speaker 213
1:07:52
terms are. Well, you understand that there is no definition
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:56
that we can all agree on. Would you not agree with
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:08:02
that? All right. If I may, upon further review, we
found a problem that was pointed out by the chair and the co-chair,
and we're going to pull this down to work on and
hopefully bring back next session. All right. Thank you very much. That's proper. Let's move on to Senate Bill 329. We're going to pull down 327, Senate Bill 329. There is a physical
impact on 329. I don't have that physical impact.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:09:01
Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 329 amends sexual assault in the secondary
criminal statute. In the current statute, sexual contact is a crime if a student is less than 18 years of age
and the actor is an employee of the minor school or school district. Once the student reaches the age of 18 years of age, sexual contact is only prohibited between a teacher and a public school and a student. This bill expands the prohibition of sexual contact on a high school student who reaches the age of
18 to include the principal athletic coach and counselor. And with that, I'm going to yield the microphone to offer the rationale for this change.
Speaker 213
1:09:49
It's already a law that teachers are prohibited. I mean, this is already in place, and it's a law for teachers. And so the logical thinking is, is that why is it stopping with teachers? Why would it not be all people of power and authority over juveniles in a power position, such as a principal, a school counselor, or a coach? And
Speaker 183
1:10:11
in my area, we actually did have a coach that was molesting a child. And so you don't want them to be exempted.
teachers would be included without having equal authority of principals, coaches, counselors of that nature? Mr. Vines, does that complete your
explanation? Yes. Mr. Walker, I see your hand. We've got a few people in
front of you. Mr. Nichols? Yes. One issue to have, and it's not based upon I guess your meaning of the code here, but we had this type of incident occur in a private
school in my district, and you don't seem to be covering that, or is that covered in some other area of the law? And why didn't you put in
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:11:09
private schools? This just amended current law?
I mentioned that. I'm just wondering why that glaring omission is there. I think the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:11:19
response is going to be they didn't realize it was a problem.
This current statute had just dealt with the public schools all along. But my understanding is they'd
Speaker 114
1:11:30
be happy to look at that between now
and next session. I think that they should because, like I said, it's a major private school in my district, and it had this type of problem, and it was not necessarily a teacher, but someone who I think had been a teacher at one time, but it's more in the principal area. Thank
Speaker 224
1:11:49
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Nichol. Mr. Hammer?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:54
I understand the influence that teachers and, yes, principals, coaches, and counselors can have. I would just, I'm curious as to why it wasn't expanded to include all employees of any school, such as maybe the janitorial staff or the people that work in the kitchen, because relationships are developed over a long period of time with people other than those just mentioned on here. So I was just curious as to the explanation why limit it here and not just make it unlimited and all school employees. Originally, that was the language.
Speaker 134
1:12:25
We had all school employees and ran afoul of the Senate on the Senate end, and they wanted to have some type of a position of trust or authority and specifically used the janitor example and said for us to get the bill out, That was a compromise, which was to limit it to these and not include all school officials. And that was on the Senate
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:42
end. Is that right? Is that what I understood you to say? It was on the Senate end? That was on the Senate end. All right. Maybe that will come back next time around,
Speaker 39
1:12:52
too. Thank you. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question? Well, yes, it is.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:12:56
Now, who is the author of this? Who wants this bill? The Children's Advocacy Centers? Well, no, the Children's Advocate Center does read state law as it exists, doesn't it? And aren't you aware that the state law defends a teacher to include all these people? The definition of a teacher under the Arkansas Fair Teacher Dismissal Act is any person in a school system other than the superintendent or assistant superintendent.
Speaker 208
1:13:32
And I appreciate that. This is over in the criminal section, and if you'll look, and y'all don't
Speaker 134
1:13:39
have the whole statute, but if you had the whole statute, you would see an earlier section that says a teacher, principal, coach, counselor, blah, blah, blah, for a youth who's under 18. And then when you get to this particular section, once the child's reached the age of 18, who's less than 21, it just dropped back to teacher. So if you look at statutory construction, although in that other teacher dismissal act it may be very broadly defined,
in this particular criminal statute, they use all those terms in the earlier section but drop them off down here. So we had to add those
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:14:13
back in for them to be included. Well, it really, I mean, all the law that I
have seen, and I deal in teacher law all the time, but a teacher is any person who has a, who's a classified employee who deals with students.
And these are all classified employees for sure. And this seems like it would be totally superfluous.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Deffenbach, you
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:14:40
recognize? I think I got my question answered. It just kind of freaked me out. I'm an ex-Coach. You're looking right at me when you were talking about Coach. Thanks.
Speaker 32
1:14:52
Mr. Gillum, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to immediately consider my do-pass motion. Well, unfortunately, it's not a
proper motion yet because we don't have a motion on the table, but you're the last person to ask the question.
So with that, I'm going to ask if there's anyone in the audience who wants to speak for
or against House Bill 329. Seeing no one, Mr. Vines, would you like to close for your bill? I just appreciate a favorable vote. Thank you. Mr. Gillum, Mr. Vice Chair Wilkins here was ahead of you. And he's close to me, so I hear him. He wants to be sure that he makes a do-pass motion on Senate Bill 329 since he killed Senate Bill 327.
Please forgive me. That's a proper motion. Any question or discussion? All in favor of passing Senate Bill 329, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Thank you, Mr. Vines. Does that complete
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:15:50
your bills? You bet. Thank you, committee, and
Mr. Chairman, appreciate the votes. members we have mr. powers
mr. powers has house bill 1869 which is a concurrence and a Senate amendment mr. powers you recognize percent present
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:16:12
1869. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is simply a concurrence on a Senate amendment on my district court bill. Anyone that specifically asked me to address the concerns, those concerns have been addressed in this bill. I came back from the Senate with a 34-1 vote. Or actually, I think it was 34 to 1.
So just a concurrence in the amendment. We pass it out in the House. Senate passed it out easily. I think we've
taken care of everybody's concerns. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Any questions for Mr.
Powers? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate House Bill 1869? Seeing none, we have a motion by Representative Baker of Dupas. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations. You have gotten this bill out, Mr. Powers. Now we're going to run Senate Bill 733.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:17:16
Is that correct? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we are bringing you Senate Bill 733. It makes some amendments to the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act. And I have with me Mr. Charles Thompson, an attorney with DHS, who will help us understand this a little bit better. But I'm going to kind of hit the high points and explain to those of you that might be a little bit hazy on the Child Maltreatment Act. It's simply the law that provides for the system of reporting and investigation of child abuse.
Child maltreatment includes physical and sexual abuse, neglect of a child. And a large part of this bill makes amendments to clarify our maltreatment reporting and notification procedure and hopefully improve the efficiency of those procedures. Specifically, the bill cleans up terminology regarding maltreatment reports under another state's jurisdiction or reports under concurrent jurisdiction. It makes it clear that in such cases the report shall be documented and forward to the applicable child maltreatment
or investigative agencies in other states. It amends requirements of notification of reports to certain persons receiving such notification under current law, such as attorney ad litems and CASA. The amendments reflect that such persons will continue to receive initial affirmative notifications of a report, but give DHS flexibility in making affirmative notifications thereafter. The bill also amends definitions of sexual abuse to more closely track the Arkansas Criminal Code
as it pertains to sexual activities between consenting teens. It adds employees of the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division to the classes of mandated reporters. The bill amends administrative hearing procedure regarding continuances. Specifically, the bill states that a written request for a continuance can be made by either party if good cause is shown. It amends the act to maintain certain criminal defenses to maltreatment allegations but excludes others. With the exception of capacity, the excluded criminal defenses are procedural.
It clarifies requirements of confidentiality regarding administrative hearing records. also amends confidentiality requirements regarding release of maltreatment reports, provides for communication by health care professionals to DHS for plans of safe care for children born with fetal alcohol syndrome disorders. This is required by newly enacted federal legislation. And the bill raises the minimum age for which a child's name can be placed on a maltreatment registry from age 10 to 13 while ensuring investigation reports and services to alleged offenders.
under the age of 18. And those are the high points of the bill. We will certainly be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding Senate Bill 733. Thank you, Mr.
Powers. Members, any questions? Mr. Steele, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Powers. I was
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:20:14
trying to follow you through there while I was looking at this and I heard you say something about CASA. I saw some language in here that said something about court appointed special advocates. Could you tell me again how this affects CASA? Some about the notification requirements?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:20:29
Representative, I have Mr. Thompson with me, and we're going to let him address
Speaker 233
1:20:36
your questions. Thank you. Charles Thompson, Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Human Services. Representative, it doesn't change anything except for the way notifications, how notification and information is passed to CASA. CASA still has the information that already was available to them under the law. But the way the law was written, it said that each time and each stage throughout out that DHS would affirmatively reach out, whereas if CASA already knows the information,
it would be simpler and easier and more efficient for them to be able to call up and get confirmation from us, as opposed to DHS constantly having to reach out to all these entities each time. It saves time and money that can be better spent actually engaged in services. It's more a holistic approach. Everybody that's involved that has notification of this report can, you know, a two-way street with information as opposed to consistently spending time and money to get information to people that already have it or can already just go ahead and call us up and get it because they can get it under the law.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:21:33
Has CASA raised any objection to any of the provisions
Speaker 233
1:21:36
of this bill? We've had no objections to this bill, that section of this bill, or
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:21:41
to this bill, period. Okay. And one more question regarding the attorney ad litems. Could you tell me briefly what this does
Speaker 233
1:21:48
in terms of notification or otherwise? It's the exact same thing. At the time of initial child maltreatment report, if there's certain persons, such as certain CASAs, certain ad litems, depending on what the relationship to the case is, that gets the notification. It doesn't change anything. It's just in the stages after the initial notification,
the ad litem could call up or email DHS and say, hey, where are we at in this? I can get this information under the statute. Can you confirm this information? So it's just that constantly having to go through these rigid steps of information that they can already get, and they can actually reach out and get it from us. So this doesn't change anybody's role
Speaker 64
1:22:23
or anybody's authority. It just deals with notification as far as those two go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Steele. Mr. Hammer, you recognize?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:22:34
Two brief questions, a follow-up to what you said about CASA.
Were they involved in the crafting of this bill? And you said there was no objections, but are they aware of the
Speaker 233
1:22:45
content of the changes in this bill? They were not involved in the crafting, but the Administrative Office of Courts and
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:22:52
CASA were all made aware of the bills. Okay. And secondly, on page 1, line 21 and 22, the wording has been changed, whose health and physical well-being is in immediate danger. Just briefly, could you explain the process whereby that is determined, number one, and number two, there's nothing referencing mental status of a child?
Is that considered to be covered under the health aspect,
Speaker 233
1:23:15
or could you speak to that, please? That is, there's a companion bill regarding the Arkansas Juvenile Code that references that this, yeah, we passed
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:23:32
legislation he's referring to in regards to mental abuse of a child. It's already been voted on on the House floor this week.
Speaker 233
1:23:42
So this bill just tracks, this is the change in this area of the code to track that change in the law that has already been passed out
Speaker 165
1:23:51
by this committee. And would either one of you all
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:55
remind me, in that bill, did it cover what qualifies as far as the standards of health or physical well-being being violated because of the
Speaker 233
1:24:03
terminology that was changed in here? It's still the standards within the, when you go further down in the definitions, the what constitutes a bit abuse and neglect including mental abuse those are
still within the definitions if you follow down and further along in the bill okay thank you thank you
mr. hammer any additional questions seeing none anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate bill 733 seeing no one mr. powers are you close for your bill mr. powers has closed for his bill what's the pleasure of the committee representative Rogers has a motion of of due pass. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations, Mr. Powers, you've passed your bills. Members, I'm going to
yield the chair to run two bills to our
Chair
Unverified
1:24:45
Vice Chair, Mr. Wilkins. Committee, the first one we will consider is 2096, House Bill 2096. The amendment is attached. It is on the back of House Bill 2096. Mr. Williams, Chairman, you are recognized.
Members, this is a concurrence in a Senate amendment. This is the district court judges and other personnel salary bill. The bill got to the Senate. The Senate, in their wisdom, thought that the Little Rock
district court judges should not make as much as the Arkansas State Supreme Court judges. So it has been a minute to remove the Little Rock District Court judges from the salary bill. Their salary will remain the same. With that, I'd appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
1:25:41
good vote. All right. Other questions for Chairman Williams? Mr. Hammer.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:46
Just real quick, this isn't going to change my Saline County judge's salaries, right? They are at least what
they were. Well, this will be – were you one of the amendments? I'm sorry. I can't remember
Speaker 120
1:25:59
where. Did you? Selene, Mr. Chairman, you don't mind me interrupting. I think Selene County is full-time. Yeah, Selene County is. It's no effect. No,
Speaker 239
1:26:06
no effect on Selene County. Thank you. All
right. Representative Nichols. Explain to me the Little Rock District judges.
Were they part of this bill at one time?
The Little Rock District judges were a part of this bill on line four, I believe, on page four, line three. That, let's see, one second. I'm trying to read the amendment. I apologize.
Speaker 119
1:26:39
Section... Hold on, hold on one second.
Yes, Mr. Powers, they were a part of this bill. That actually amendment has already been engrossed. This amendment on the back deals with Loanoke. I apologize. Okay,
this bill. They've been taken out. That means their salary ranges stay current like they were previously. Okay. Okay,
but we are amending the part of the code that, I guess, had the Little Rock salaries in it.
Is that correct? I believe that portion has been engrossed in the bill. This amendment on the back deals with, looks like
it deals with Lone Oak. Well, my question
is, if it's part of the code now, and this act or bill amends that code, how does the Little Rock part
stay in there? I'm sorry. What we did is
we start with the current code. We only amend if we're going to change.
So Little Rock, the amendment, when I say it's engrossed, the amendment on the Senate took Little Rock out, so Little Rock will stay just like it is currently in the code. So you don't see anything. So we're acting as if Little Rock never wanted to be touched. And so you don't see anything about Little Rock in this bill. When we sent it to the Senate, Little Rock was in the bill. On the Senate side, they took Little Rock out. So that
means Little Rock's salary range will stay the same as it currently is right now
in the code. And currently right now they're paid more than our Arkansas Supreme Court justices? No, they're not. The salary range in the amendment would have gone to as high as $175,000.
I don't know exactly what they're paid now, but their range was raised several thousands of dollars in the amendment that we approved.
Speaker 247
1:28:53
We're taking that out now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 124
1:28:57
Chairman. Certainly. Are there other questions? Representative Walker. Can
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:29:02
you draw my attention? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you draw my attention to the place
where a provision for the Wrightsville district court salary is found?
If you do not see a district court in this amendment, that means their salary range is staying the exact same as it always has been. So it's going to be whatever, it's going to continue to be as current law. So if they're
Chair
Unverified
1:29:32
not in here, they didn't change. Are there other questions? Representative Rogers. Motion at the appropriate time. Representative Rogers, Representative Wright has already indicated a do-pass motion. Are there other questions?
We have a motion do-pass by Representative Wright. Is there anyone in
Speaker 124
1:29:50
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, we have a motion before us. If you would favor the motion, would you signify with aye? Aye. Those
Chair
Unverified
1:30:02
opposed? Representative Williams, your bill goes out do pass. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman We now turn to Senate Bill 247 Representative Williams, you're recognized
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is Senate Bill 247, a code revision bill. This bill initially came out. There was significant concern regarding a definition in this bill This is the animal cruelty section of the code portion that had a concern. The code revision committee simply removed the section that people were concerned about. This bill removes additional other obsolete language, clarifies certain language,
and makes technical corrections. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:30:49
All right. Are there questions from members? All right. Representative Nichols moves to pass. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes
Speaker 124
1:30:58
to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, the motion is before us. If you would favor the motion, do pass. Would you signify
Speaker 34
1:31:07
by saying aye? Aye. Those opposed? Chairman, your bill goes out. Do
pass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee. Members, we have to be in session at 11. We will have lunch here sometime around noon if we take a break on the floor.
So if we take a break on the floor, come down here for lunch.
And if we don't take a break, lunch will still be here. Lunch will still be here, but also the committee may meet again, so just to call the chair. So just listen for announcements. Thank you. We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
Call to Order
SB679
SB707
SB806
HB1419
SB762
SB863
SB838
SB318
SB320
SB327
SB329
HB1869
SB733
HBb2096
SB247
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 33
Speaker 32
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Speaker 48
Speaker 52
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 63
Speaker 67
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 72
Speaker 39
Speaker 78
Speaker 81
Senator Mary Anne Salmon
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 14
Speaker 94
Speaker 97
Speaker 99
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 124
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 133
Speaker 146
Speaker 140
Speaker 159
Speaker 164
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 182
Speaker 183
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 198
Speaker 200
Speaker 210
Speaker 208
Speaker 139
Speaker 213
Speaker 180
Speaker 219
Speaker 114
Speaker 224
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 233
Speaker 64
Speaker 150
Speaker 165
Speaker 120
Speaker 239
Speaker 119
Speaker 244
Speaker 247
Speaker 34