House Judiciary Committee Part 3
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB685
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB685”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1994
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1994”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2036
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…o accept that motion. All in favor of expunging the vote on House Bill 2036, indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Vines, you've got…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB389
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB389”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB390
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB390”
|
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
Without objection, I'm going to accept that motion. All in favor of expunging the vote on House Bill 2036, indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Vines, you've got a motion to send House Bill 2036 to interim study, correct? That's a proper motion. Seeing no questions or discussion, all in favor of sending House Bill 2036 to interim study, indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations. Your bill is now in interim study. Be sure
to talk to Amber to get your bill taken care of
Alright, let's see Mr. Steele, are you ready for your
bill? Senate Bill 685, is that correct? That's correct So you've got the prosecutors
with you We've got an amendment for this bill? We do, Mr.
Steele Alright, it's being passed out now, members This is Representative Steele's amendment to his own bill that he's carrying for Senator Burnett.
Without objection, I'm going to accept the motion from Mr. Steele to amend his own bill. All in favor of passing the amendment to indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Steele. Your bill has now been amended. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 685 as amended. And please recognize
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:19
your guess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll allow Mr. Hsu to introduce
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
1:24
himself and let us know who he's with. Thank you. My name is Daniel Hsu. I am the prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County. Also
here on behalf of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Mr. Hsu, welcome to House Judiciary. Happy to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:40
have you here. I'll take a stab at presenting this bill, and then if Mr. Hsu has anything to fill the committee
in on, I'll give him a chance to do that. this bill basically just recognizes a five dollar fee upon any circuit court fine that would be on the pay period in other words rather than paying a total sum of a fine at one time oftentimes defendants elect to to take it on over several months i guess even years possibly and when they
choose to do so many courts assess a fee for those for each month that they utilize that pay period This bill would put into statute the $5 fee per month for any month that this defendant is on a pay period. What the amendment does is it clarifies that this only applies to circuit courts. So we're talking about significant fines here. This is not a situation where someone might have a speeding ticket or some other kind of fine in district court where they would put it on.
They might take several months to pay it and have the $5 end up adding up to more than the fine is. This is significant fines. Very seldom is there a fine in circuit court that's less than $1,000, I think it's safe to say. So this is a drop in the bucket, so to speak, this $5 fee that would go on to that pay period. And, of course, the idea is to incentivize people to pay their fines as quickly as they can and to get off the treadmill, so to speak, so they don't go on and on putting off their fines for months and months at a time. I'll allow Mr. Chee to fill us in on anything else you'd like to add.
Speaker 18
3:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, representatives. Basically, if we
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
3:17
have what we're going to have, and that is prosecutors considering alternatives to imprisonment, the natural thing always has been to consider fines. And if we're going to have increased fines in situations where before there might have been imprisonment, You're going to have to monitor that, and you're going to have to have people, and you're going to have to have paper clips, and you're going to have to have copy paper
so you don't increase frustration on either the part of the defendants or the quorum courts where, you know, they're wanting to know where are the fine collections going. So, again, this $5 fee slowly will add up and will pay for part-time people for summer help, for paper clips and paper to make sure that you're doing a good job in collecting those fines each county is different in Arkansas might I add sometimes the sheriff does it sometimes the circuit clerk does it sometimes like
in my jurisdiction the prosecuting attorney's office monitors those fine collections I might add mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
4:23
chairman this is actually in practice and in my district not only in circuit court but
even in district court this is in practice. I believe it's in practice in both counties in my district. So this is not anything abnormal. It's just kind of codifying this practice and making sure that it's not codifying it for district court. So it only codifies it towards significant fines in circuit court. I'll be happy to take any questions.
Question from the chair. Mr. Steele, you said this is going on in district court in your area right now? Both district and circuit. And what's the fee that you all charge there? $5 per month. I appreciate the principle here and don't really have a problem other than you've got a $1,000 fine and you're talking about a $5 fee per month, you're getting pretty serious here. That gives me a little concern. Has any thought been given to what that would really equal to from an interest rate standpoint?
If a person is already subject to a criminal penalty and they're having to pay this over that means they're really having a hard time paying the fine period. So now we're putting upon people who may not have the ability to pay a pretty stiff interest rate. That's the only thing that gives me a concern. Have you considered that, and how would you respond to that? We have considered that.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
5:39
I can tell Mr. Shue would like to answer that as well. We have considered that, and I think that goes into the calculation on what the fine would be, assuming that several of these defendants might pay it out
over a long period of time. Again, I think the idea is to incentivize early payment,
but certainly it would be part of the calculation in setting the fine. As it is, as I mentioned already in practice, in my experience, it has become part of the calculation in setting the fine amount. I'll let Mr. Hsu follow
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
6:06
up on that. As is always, judge is always the judge,
and oftentimes in these cases he'll say you're not going to have to pay that this month or you're not going to have to pay that. that, by the same token, an inability to pay a fine, it's unconstitutional to imprison
someone for that. So if they truly have an inability to pay, the judge will not order it to be paid. That's unconstitutional.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
6:33
And if I might add, Mr. Chairman, part of what you just mentioned is the reason that we have made this exclusively in circuit court, because I think from terms of calling an interest as you mentioned, it would certainly be a high interest rate for a $150 fine in district court. $5 per month would be significant, but I think it would be a very low amount in terms of compared to
maybe $1,000, $1,500, $2,500 fine in circuit court. Okay. Mr.
Rice, I believe, has a question. Yeah,
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
7:04
Representative Steele, and I don't know how this relates to that, but many businesses have transaction fees and handling fees even phone I've heard of phone fees for calling in so this really is not anything abnormal that should be considered an interest rate I don't think should it. Thank you Mr. Rice
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
7:26
I think that's correct and that's partly why it's already in practice in many courts in our state probably the
majority of courts in our state Mr. Reitliff you recognize I've got a motion proper time Thank you
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
7:46
Mr. Deffenbaugh Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to understand a little bit. Is there any minimum percent they have to pay on installment? Let's say they've got a $1,000 fine. Is there any set fee they have to pay per month?
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
8:00
No, Representative, again, that's discretion of Judge. He'll calculate how much they're earning, what is their ability to pay. And it's always on the low end, which it should be. I mean, you don't want to take monies away that they cannot pay. So no, that's by judge. He'll set that. The statute in Arkansas will say you've got to pay the fine immediately. So this is a default. The judge will say, okay, you can't pay it immediately, and, you know, I guess I probably
could pay a $1,000 fine immediately, but a lot of people can't pay a $1,000 fine immediately. and then he'll set up the payment plan and do these fees accordingly. So
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
8:45
let's say you had a $1,000 fine, and you paid over five months. It would be $200, and then add five every time. It would be $25, so that would only be 4%. Is that right? I think that's right. I just taught math for a living, but is it in there? Yeah, I think that's right. Okay, thanks.
Yes, sir. Mr. Deffenbaugh, that's close. I'm sorry. When I did my math up here, I was wrong. I was getting more like 16%, 17%. But we've recalculated our math. I was an English major, I mean a history
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
9:20
major, not a math major. So Mr. Walker, are you recognized for a question? Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Aside from these mathematicians and historians, the practice, isn't it, Mr. Steele, or is it, Mr. Steele, that judges often suspend parts of fans when those fans are assessed?
So that if the court has the power to award or at least to fine someone $1,000, they often suspend half of it, and that's often conditioned upon payment of costs. And then they give them a payment plan. Now, my concern is, I mean, has it been demonstrated, Mr. Hsu? It is Mr. Hsu, isn't it? Yes, sir. Has it been demonstrated that there is a need for additional costs to be imposed
based on some statutory obligations that the prosecutor's office or the clerk's offices have? Again,
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
10:21
the short answer to that, Act 770 of 2009, you passed, and that was a $5 fee on restitution. And that fee helps us to provide part-time employees and our summer help and, again, paper clips and paper to make sure that we're monitoring this correctly.
I mean, it's frustrating for defendants to call up and say, okay, well, I thought I had a $1,500 balance when, in fact, the balance was $1,700. You want to have good people in place to monitor the collection of those fines, and Sebastian County and Crawford County are both kind of unique in that the prosecutor does that, and we do it unsupervised probation, so we do not, even with the expansion under the Prison Reform Act, we're not going to be burdening probation with these issues.
Those are all handled. We in essence have the judgment and sentence in front of us and we know it's all computerized. We have someone who does the software for us. They can come in or they can call in and we can tell them exactly what their balance is, but you need people. Government sometimes is about people, not just dollars. Well, obviously by
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:43
coming up with this proposal, you want to be in a position to raise revenue to do some other things.
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
11:52
That's not correct, friend. What I thought you indicated... This says specifically in the act that it's only to be used to defer those costs for fine collections. So
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:02
I cannot... Well, I thought you indicated that you have to hire additional help and
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
12:12
things like that. Did you not say that? Well, the short answer to that
would be I anticipate, due to the Prison Reform Act, having to do more of this. I look to seeing us having cases where we do more fines rather than imprisonment.
That is the natural sentencing alternative is you consider fines. Now,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:35
there is another question that I have. Yes, sir. And $5 per month shall be assessed. What happens to the person if he or she doesn't pay the assessment on time? does that roll over or is it compounded and of course with compound interest Mr. Chair Mr. Deffenbaugh's arithmetic
I mean you'd be getting up if it's always compounded when a person misses a fine payment you'd be getting up to
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
13:09
usurious interest rate wouldn't you assuming it were interest perhaps but I tell people all the time Lady Justice is blind she's not stupid and I would not envision any of my judges telling me if you had the carrying fee going greater than the fine itself doing anything if I were silly enough to file a petition to revoke.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:33
Well, I guess that's where I'm really going. I think someone pointed up here that there is no limit, and this is on another bill, that there is no limit on what banks can charge. They may charge 100% in interest. You wouldn't want to be in a situation where we as state officials impose anything like that as a possibility.
No, friend. I can't imagine that. Thank you. Mr. Wright, do you recognize for a question?
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
14:04
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Either one of you all can answer this. I'll be quick. It's just $5 flat fee. It's 70%. Is that correct? Okay. And isn't it true that oftentimes the payment of fines are negotiated between the prosecution and defense regarding ability to pay, and that's
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:19
what the lawyers do, negotiate those? That's correct. And as I mentioned, whether or not it's going to be paid out over installments
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
14:26
or up front would certainly be a consideration. Okay. And lastly, would this money, if I understand this money, help like my county that's had to hire an additional person just to monitor this,
and we've had to pay salary and office space, this will help defray those costs. Is that correct? Absolutely.
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
14:42
It has to be earmarked for that, to use that phrase. And it
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:45
is being used to help in those costs in many counties. Again, I'll point out this is in practice in many places. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Wright. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, I have no one signed up to speak for or against this bill other than Prosecutor Hsu. Anyone else would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Mr. Steele, would you like to close for your bill?
I'm close for my bill, Mr. Chairman. Sounds great. What's the will of the committee? I'm sorry, Mr. Ratliff has a motion. Is that correct, Mr. Matta? Mr. Chairman, do pass. Mr. Ratliff has made a motion of do pass. It's a proper motion. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing Senate Bill 685, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Steele. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Committee. Members, I'm going to relinquish the chair so we can run, I think, the last House bill that we're going to run this session, I believe.
unless one pops up that I don't know about and that's House Bill 1994 I'm going to give the chair to our vice chair I'm going to go down to present this bill
Mr. Chairman, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members. I know I'm a much better looking James McLean. Well, your tie
sure is nice. Got a little more hair than he does, don't I, Mr. Vice Chair? I like his hair cut. Well, I am running this
bill on behalf of Representative McLean, who's at another committee,
and I am going to ask that with the chair's and the committee's indulgence that I turn it over to Judge Chaney-Taylor, former Representative Taylor, to explain the bill. Judge Taylor, you're recognized.
Speaker 66
16:58
Welcome. Thank you very much. I am Chaney-Taylor. I'm district judge in Independence County, and I served in this body in the House of Representatives for six years, four of which were on this committee. So I'm glad to be back here. This is House Bill 1994. It establishes a DWI court program, which most of you all are probably familiar with drug courts. It's based on the drug court statute.
In essence, this bill is already being enacted in the state of Arkansas. It's based, again, on the drug court statute, but it establishes authority for district courts to do DWI courts. It does not include any funding. We're going to do that later. I'm not asking for any funding right now. That will come later. But I will tell you that there are currently 39 operating drug courts in Arkansas.
And there's a lot of studies that indicate that drug court and DWI court programs are cost effective and do save the state in incarceration costs. There was a study done out of Michigan that showed that DWI court offenders were up to 19 times less likely to be rearrested for a DWI than a DWI offender in a traditional court. DWI courts have been endorsed by a number of national organizations, the Governor's Highway Safety Association, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, MAD, National Alcohol and Beverage Control Association, National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, District Attorneys Association, and Sheriff's Association.
The main thing that this bill does is establishes a standard for operating DWI courts, the 10 key components, which is identical to drug courts. And I've got two folks here with me. This is Jimmy Moore. He's one of my probation officers, and Warren Wade, he's another of my probation officers. They helped me run the program, and they've been very good, and they can tell you some personal stories, some of the success stories that we've seen with our program. And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:56
All right, committee. Are there questions? Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to find in this bill, it seems like I saw previously, that the prosecuting attorney would be charged with being in charge of these DWI courts, and we want to make sure that city attorneys also have the authority and obligation to prosecute these cases when they have a DWI in their city limits that they generally prosecute otherwise.
Would that be the case, and do you think that there would be any language that might be necessary to put in here to make sure that city attorneys as well as prosecuting attorneys have
Speaker 71
19:39
the obligation to handle those cases? I don't think there's any language needed in this bill because
Speaker 66
19:44
this bill is permissive only. If a court does not want to establish a DWI court, they don't have to. The way the courts typically get established is a judge puts together a team, which can include a prosecuting attorney, a deputy prosecuting attorney, or a city attorney. We currently have both on our team. We've got our deputy prosecuting attorney and a city attorney.
They both come to our meetings and participate on our team. So I don't think it's necessary. I mean, if the city attorney wants to participate, they're free to do so. If they
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
20:10
don't want to, they're free not to. But if the city attorney decides they don't want to participate, would that then put the obligation, where right now they would have the obligation of prosecuting those DWI cases, if a DWI court is set up and the city attorney decides he does not want to participate, would that put the obligation on the prosecutor's office?
Speaker 65
20:29
It could, but in my opinion, if a judge puts together a team and the attorney says they don't want to do it,
Speaker 66
20:36
more than likely the court's not going to be established. And
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
20:42
that's not the intention of the bill. So if that ever became a problem, we wouldn't have any problem, I guess, correcting that,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:50
correct? That is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Representative Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're combining the juvenile division of the circuit court with the city district court. No, sir, that is
Speaker 66
21:01
not correct. All this does is allows juvenile courts to establish a DWI court if they want to. It does not mandate anything.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:08
Well, if you're going to have them, juvenile courts, to set up a DWI court, that means more revenue is going to be needed, doesn't it? Even in a pilot study, a pilot program, you need more money for that purpose. If a juvenile court decides to
Speaker 66
21:24
establish a DWI court, that is correct, but this does not mandate that any juvenile court establish a DWI court across the state. Well, I understand, but if you think
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:33
it's a good idea and that it ought to be done, And that's really what this bill is saying.
You think it's a good idea? I think it's a good idea, yes, sir. All right. Now, that means you have to have some funding expectation. So I'd like to know, at least in the infancy stages, where those funds are going
Speaker 66
21:52
to originate. Currently, our program is operating on a federal grant. There are some programs around the state that are operating with local monies. No state money is involved at the current time. But to answer your question, Representative Walker, yes. At some point, there probably will be some funding as these courts grow and prosper around the state.
And let me add one more thing since you mentioned that. This goes along with the governor's prison reform bill on alternative sentencing. I think it's a big part of that. We've currently got 16 people in our program. That's 16 people that are out working. They're not in jail. They're not costing the county
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
22:28
a dime to be in jail. Well, I agree with the concept, but somebody
has to pay for it. We're in a cost-cutting environment with a cost-cutting legislature. And that means in order to finance this, somebody's going to have to either pay additional fees or raise taxes, doesn't it, sooner or later?
Speaker 66
22:46
I hope that we don't have to raise taxes. I hope that's not an option. I hope we can do this with current money. But
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
22:51
federal grants run out. They do. And when they run out, then it becomes a state's obligation to continue if they choose to do so. If they choose to do so, that's correct. All right. I just want people to understand that everything has a price tag, and while we have these good deals going, there is a cost associated with it. Yes,
sir, that's correct. All right. And Representative Walker, let me just say I would
Speaker 71
23:12
have felt slighted had you not asked me a question.
Speaker 68
23:17
Thank you. I'm throwing a themer out here. Judge Taylor,
Speaker 83
23:20
also I guess the question I wanted to ask is, What are your thoughts about uniformity? I see where that is addressed here, but do you think at some point that there ought to be uniformity across the state? Yes, sir, and that's the purpose of this bill is
Speaker 66
23:37
what we don't want to see happening is that these courts popping around just kind of operating on their own. My team, about 10 of us, wasn't there, about 11 of us, went out to California for three-and-a-half-day training.
We've been to other trainings since then, and we learned how to do this, and we are doing it the correct way. What we don't want to happen is
Speaker 83
24:05
incorrect way and causing more harm than good. Well, I just noticed, I was noticing on page 3, line 5 and following, basically says that there is allowed for a difference of
Speaker 85
24:17
how these courts might operate. So that was part of my concern.
Speaker 66
24:22
Well, if you look back on page 2, beginning with line 1, paragraph C there, actually goes down to line 5, shall include the following key components. And those are the 10 key components which are identical to the 10 key components of drug courts, which the state's
Speaker 33
24:43
already operating. I think there's about 39 of them around the state. Okay.
Speaker 67
24:48
Are there other questions? Yeah, Representative Williams. I'm sorry. I have
a question about my own bill. I apologize.
You're a wicked man. It's a little unique, but you brought up a point when you mentioned, Judge Taylor, the drug courts. Under the prison bill, you're right, we're encouraging the use of drug courts, but we are setting up a mechanism by where we cite drug courts in locations where there's a need for drug courts. Prior to that, we've not had any. It was kind of like we're doing here. a judge deciding it's a good idea and they kind of just pop up in different places. Now we're trying to cite them where there's a great need.
Would this bill, like the crime bill, would you consider allowing the entity that's going to cite drug courts also maybe cite the DUI courts so we make sure we're kind of putting them not just where some judge may want them but where there's also a need for them? Yes, sir, that's a good point. There does need to
Speaker 66
25:49
be a need before these are established. I agree with you there. All right. Other questions?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:57
All right. The question does not mean, then, that it probably ought to be referred to interim study because it's a want basis right now rather than a need basis to see whether or not there is adequate need to do it right now without some further study. Mr. Chairman, could I address that? Certainly,
Speaker 66
26:17
Judge. What I would like to see committed to an interim study is the funding issue that Representative Walker raised. I'd like to go ahead and get the bill through, if possible, again, so that these courts don't pop up and do them the incorrect way.
But the funding issue, I think, would be a good thing to do for
Speaker 82
26:36
an interim study. All right. Representative Walker,
Speaker 83
26:38
are you finished with that line of questions? Yes, I am. All right. Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there anyone here who is signed up to speak for or against the bill? All right. Yes, ma'am, if you would, come to the table.
Speaker 92
27:08
Actually, it might be more for information purposes. If you would, state your
Speaker 94
27:13
name for the record. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Tammy Harris from the Public Defender's Office. The way the bill is currently written, there is no juvenile court jurisdiction for a DUI or DWI. It's a traffic offense. And under the definition of delinquency, traffic offenses in DWIs would not be covered. So the way the bill is actually currently written now, we couldn't have a DWI traffic court.
And so for that reason, the way the bill is currently written, perhaps the best course of action might be to refer it to interim study as someone is requested. All right. Other questions? Actually, I
Speaker 66
27:52
think that's a moot point. If DWIs don't go through a juvenile court, they don't have to establish them. There's no requirement that juvenile courts establish these courts at all. That language was taken from the drug court statute, and that's the reason that language is in there. But it's a moot point. All right. Other questions?
Speaker 83
28:11
All right, committee. Representative Gillum. I'd like to
Speaker 18
28:15
make a motion of due pass, Mr. Chairman. All
Speaker 87
28:18
right, we have a motion due pass. We're ready to vote. If you would favor due pass, would you say aye?
Speaker 60
28:29
Aye. Those opposed? Your bill goes out due pass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see
you again, Judge Taylor. All right, members, we're on Senate Bill 389.
Representative Rice, you're recognized for 389. We've got about 15 minutes before we go back in session, so can we get this pretty quickly, you think? Thank
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
29:05
you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we can do this pretty quick. Members, thanks for the opportunity on Senate Bill 389. Senator Laverty's bill, this comes out of the Senate unanimous. And I'm going to ask Dave Laffoon to speak if that's all right, Mr. Chairman. Please give us your name and tell us
Speaker 100
29:27
Thank you. I'm Dave Laffoon, Director of Behavioral Health for DHS. and I have with me Dr. Stephen Dolman, who's the medical director for the Arkansas State Hospital. Senate Bill 389 clarifies the court's discretion in setting the length of time of conditional release from the Arkansas State Hospital. Although the law setting the term of monitoring of conditional release for patients found not guilty by reason of mental disease allows for the term to be set by the court at any length up to five years.
Experience shows that this is not widely known, understood, or practiced. Virtually all terms of conditional release are set at five years. This bill makes explicit that the court has the discretion to set the term of conditional release at lengths of time less than five years based on the patient's clinical status. The advantage of the change is that there would be more efficient use of resources for monitoring those on conditional release and that these resources would not be used where they are not needed and be more available.
No other parts of the commitment procedures are changed, and the judge still makes the final determination of the length of time of monitoring. We worked with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association to satisfy their concerns with the wording of the bill so it is clear that it is the court, not the treating mental health team, that determines the length of time of monitoring. Thank you, Ms. LaFoon.
Mr. Rice, any additional testimony? Mr. Chairman, would we take questions?
Sure. Members, any questions for Mr. Rice or his guests? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against Senate Bill 389? Mr. Walker, do you have a question? I'm sorry what was that believe it or not I
have a motion we're going to quickly recognize that motion do pass and we're going to ask anyone
I'm sorry you caught me on guard Mr. Walker I just stumped the chair no questions but a motion so Mr. Walker has made a motion of do pass all in favor indicate by saying aye aye opposed no Congratulations, Mr. Rice. You approved your bill and got Mr. Walker not to ask a question and make the do-pass motion. Let's see. We're going to roll here. Senate Bill 390. I think the same folks are there to present 390. Is that right, Mr. Rice? Yes. Go right
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
32:01
ahead. And let me just state this, the committee.
You know, I lost a friend with mental health challenges. I have known other people do, and that's my interest in this, and I believe this is a good
Speaker 100
32:19
bill. Let me let Mr. LaFoon explain. Thank you. Currently, SB39 provides for more efficient procedures in the forensic evaluation process and provides for charges for forensic treatment at the state hospital to be captured for use in the Medicaid spin-down process.
Currently, forensic evaluation orders only request an opinion on the defendant's competency to assist in his own defense. Then if the person is found competent to proceed to trial, a second order is frequently entered requesting an evaluation of the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the law at the time of the alleged offense. This law provides that the initial order for an evaluation would require that if the examiner's opinion is that the defendant is competent, the examiner then further examines the defendant
and offers an opinion as to the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. This, again, will increase the timeliness and efficiency of the forensic evaluation process. The current law states that the cost of evaluation and treatment of forensic patients will be borne by the state. This law makes the patient or person legally liable for the support of the patient, liable for the cost of forensic treatment, but not evaluation. The proposed change also provides that the charges do not exceed actual cost
and that the Division of Behavioral Health establish rules for postponing collection of charges based on clinical considerations and or the patient's inability to pay and waives the charges if that person enters the criminal justice system. The advantage of this change is that the substantial charges accrued for treatment in the state hospital could then be used in the Medicaid spin-down process so that Medicaid will be paying for a greater portion of the patient's outpatient care when they're released.
Having this assured funding source for care makes it easier to secure outpatient providers willing to accept what are frequently difficult to place patients. The Division of Behavioral Health Services worked with the Public Defender's Office to modify this language in this bill to address various concerns that they had, and
Speaker 33
34:35
we satisfied their concerns. Thank you, Mr. LaFoon. Any questions for Mr. Reiser?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:40
Mr. LaFoon, Mr. Walker, are you recognized for a question? Yes, not this time. I would like to ask, if you're not in effect in Section 3, B1 and 2,
sort of bribing the accused with a promise not to charge fees or collect fees if he or she pleads guilty or no low contender. And, I mean, it seems like you're doing that there. Ms.
Speaker 105
35:16
Walker, I'm Dr. Steve Domen from the State Hospital. The intent
Speaker 106
35:21
of that was to prevent the fear of charges from being a disincentive to pleading if a...
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:31
Well, it's the charge. I understand. It's the fear of charges or the fear of fees. I mean, on the one hand, you can say, well, we may have to charge you $5,000 or $10,000 for this treatment. And a person may say, well, hey, I'd rather go to jail than pay these fees. I mean, it seems like that's something that needs to be reconsidered. Wouldn't you agree? Because it does sort of bribe a person, and waive a charge for treatment of defendants who plead guilty are no low contender
or are found guilty at trial. I
Speaker 106
36:07
can see where the point that you brought up could cause a potential conflict. If I can speak a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
36:13
little bit about the intention. Well, I understand the intention is good, and I support it. Don't misunderstand me, but it's just that people who are already mentally challenged would not be competent, it would seem, to make such a judgment knowingly and
Speaker 100
36:30
intelligently. May I comment, Mr. Walker?
I think that the process of them pleading guilty or not guilty really is a total separate process. And also in the bill, the Division of Behavioral Health Services will set up procedures which will be set up through the Administrative Procedures Act, to write off these accounts. From a practical standpoint, most all these patients coming into the state hospital have no funding,
and we collect almost zero. I think I can almost say zero. So I don't really think that that would cause someone to plead guilty or not guilty, since we have no intentions of collecting the money. It's simply a way of setting up charges that we can use to do the Medicaid spend-down. Pardon
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
37:26
me, but now these people are usually Medicaid in the first place, aren't they?
And when they come to state hospital, you all can charge the appropriate federal authorities for care. No, sir. It's paid by the state. Yes, sir. The state pays
Speaker 86
37:48
it. Isn't it subject to some reimbursement by the federal government? Only if
Speaker 100
37:52
they had Medicare or Medicaid, which most of our clients do not. All right. Thank you. It's basically paid through state general revenue, sir. If
Speaker 106
38:03
I might add, Representative Walker, what this allows us to do is something that we already do for our civilly committed patients.
We have patients who do not have a payment source for a less restrictive setting than a state hospital, And so we have difficulty placing them in the community. Now, what we're able to do right now is for civilly committed patients, we're able to use some of the hospital bills for Medicaid spend-down. For our forensic patients who are on the forensic unit, we're not necessarily able to use that for spend-down purposes, which causes them to not have a payment source in the community, which causes them to stay in the state hospital for longer periods of time than they need to.
And so this was an attempt to put them on even footing with our civil cases so that we could have easier time placing them in a community in a less restrictive environment. All right,
another motion. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Members, any additional questions? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill? I see we have Senator Laverly here. Senator Laverly, would you like to add anything? No, that's covered. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments? Seeing none, we have a motion by Representative Walker for due pass.
All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Terry. You got both of
your bills out with recommendations from Mr. Walker. There's only one question and two bills, or two questions and two bills. Members, we are going to stand in recess until just we may have additional meetings on the call of the chair. We've got to get further instructions. We're probably going to go back and have B committee meetings for a period of time. and in talking with the parliamentarian, we may have additional A committee meetings. I don't know. So just pay attention to the announcements on the House floor, and we'll see what happens. If we do come back, it's my intention to run only three bills, 810, 666, and 834.
834 is a Senate bill. All the Senate bills has an amendment that we need to get out today in order for Senator Hutchinson to be able to run that and get that concurred on in the Senate. So I'm really going to suggest that we probably will be coming back at least for that. And so just be able to listen during a floor discussion for an announcement.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB2036
SB685
HB1994
SB389
SB390
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Daniel Hsu
Unverified
Speaker 18
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 71
Speaker 65
Speaker 68
Speaker 83
Speaker 60
Speaker 85
Speaker 33
Speaker 67
Speaker 82
Speaker 92
Speaker 94
Speaker 87
Speaker 6
Speaker 100
Speaker 105
Speaker 106
Speaker 86