House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB403
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB403”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB404
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…Thank you. Members, Senate Bill 403 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 404 that passed out, I think, just recently out of the House.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2145
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2145”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2148
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2148”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB708
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB708”
|
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
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
0:00
A person is being terminated for some kind of cause, and that cause is explained to the person. And the person may choose at that point to challenge or not challenge through a grievance procedure that the department has. So, basically, when you say to a person, we can fire you for any reason, some people actually do, though, Ms. Klemmer, Representative Klemmer. And when they are, then they may have no recourse. Now, I understand the state for some agencies, if not most, has a process such as you described,
but I want it to extend to all state
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
0:40
agencies. If I could follow up, then is it just the language and more than the practice, or you want it more standardized then that you're trying to achieve?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
0:49
Is that correct? Well, I think it would be a big step forward if the language were removed. I think that as long as you take out the notion that a person can
be terminated for no reason, then it's a step
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:04
forward. Is this in the handbook?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07
Where is this language? It's in every handbook of every state agency that an employee is employed at will. and then the definition of at will is that you can be terminated for any reason at any time it does not guarantee a process such as the one you described now let me add one other caveat persons who are probationary employees
of whom there are many for the state are in fact at will to an extent because during a period of probation almost any non-unconstitutional reason will suffice for that person's discharge. So I'm not dealing with that time period. I'm only dealing with the time period after the probation period has ended, which may be six months or a year. And I think that this legislature has effectively made it for the state police 18 months
so the person can be terminated at the state police within a period of 18 months, basically for no reason. But I am saying that it doesn't cover everybody, but the concept is important. If I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:27
could just be indulged with one more question. Then what
about budget cutbacks? I mean, is what you're proposing, Would that prevent an agency from letting an employee go
when there's a cutback in their budget
or they just have to reduce? Would this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:47
affect that at all? Well, as
it works now, I think it works as you described it. There has to be a notice given to the person who's non-probationary, and you have some standard that's applied if it's not for work-related activity. The standard would normally be one of tenure or another would be one of necessity or the importance of the particular individual in relation to somebody else,
but it's always a comparative judgment. But I certainly think that this would not restrict reductions in force. I think that's what it's called, RIFs, reductions in force. I had the pleasure of being one of those once. Well, you understand how that works. And sometimes people just make arbitrary judgments, but I don't like you, so I'm letting you go. And then they proceed to develop a paper trail in order to justify one's decision. And we know that paper trails can be developed for almost anybody, for almost anything.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
3:50
Thank you, Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reverend Callie.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
3:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Walker, if someone's just not performing and doing their work and all, I mean, how are we going to do that? Would that be a reason for eventually getting rid of someone? Oh, I think so. And just by documenting it, that would be their trail that we need to do
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:14
is be documenting it. Yes, sir. But that person
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
4:17
then is not at will. Okay. What if you have, for some reason, all that I didn't want it documented on what I'm getting laid off for,
for maybe some reason, would that affect that? Let me
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:30
understand your question. You're saying that you have an employee you want to get rid of, but you don't want
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
4:38
to put the reasons in writing? The
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:40
employee don't want the reasons in writing. Well, it's not the employee's judgment that requires the documentation. Now, if you tell a person that he or she is not performing satisfactorily and you're going to put a particular thing in one's file
and that person resigns, then that's another matter altogether. But there is some process involved there. And that would affect the situation where you have someone who is being adversely affected because of some important reason, such as theft, such as criminal conduct otherwise than theft. or something that would be totally deleterious to the working environment.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
5:27
Thank you. Thank you. Representative
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
5:36
Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Walker, are you saying that there are
agencies now that are firing people for no good reason? I, too, supervised the state agency of several people, and our documentation was rigid, and we had to be, you know, signed this and signed that.
So I'm not aware of any agency that would
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
6:04
have that problem now. Well, let me say this. All of the, most of the agencies say that they have a process for addressing employment misconduct or poor performance. But in my experience, over the years, it has been clear that a number of people have been terminated at will simply because a person had that power.
And I'll say, especially for the benefit of some of the people who are in human resources, that it does not know color boundaries because people of both races do it. And some of my biggest problems have been with the persons doing it who are my race who are in those situations. I mean, somebody just gets mad at an employee and says, you go home, you're fired. And then the documentation is developed after the fact. And if a person
wants to grieve and the like, then there's just no opportunity to do it.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
7:06
Thank you, sir. I will say that that does not happen at the Arkansas Game and Fish
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
7:17
Commission. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative
Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Walker, you've used the term at-will employer. Could you tell me what the alternative is? I know we hear discussion of right-to-work states, at-will employment. What is the alternative to at-will employment, the designation? Just no designation at all. Okay, so changing the designation, I guess, from at-will to no designation at all, would
there be any implications of that beyond just providing
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
7:46
the notice? Well, the implication of it is this. You would, an employer would be saying to an employee, when you're hired, you're hired in good faith. And your work is expected to be in accordance with the standards. And if you meet the standards, then you will be retained. If you don't, then as you should, you'll be subject to performance review and appropriate
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
8:17
action. MR. All of that that you just mentioned, the bill just requires notice, it looks like. I feel like you're telling us that if we remove the designation of at will, then there are a lot more
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
8:31
implications other than just the notice that's provided for in the bill. Well, I think that once you give people, once you require a notice be given, then they're no longer at will because the person has to be given in that notice an explanation of the misconduct or the poor performance.
And then that person would have some opportunity to at least meet with the accusing party who's responsible for his or her adverse action. And that makes the person effectively not an at-will employee, but one subject to getting at least some minimal protection. As the Supreme Court has indicated, in many cases you're at least entitled to confront your accuser when he accuses you of many things.
And here's the problem. In many cases where state employees are terminated, they don't necessarily know the reason, and the personnel file may reflect something different. But in the situation that I hypothesize, a person's name is important so that there ought to be a consistency between the reason given and what's reflected in the personnel file. that's given in a letter of reference to a third party who's seeking to consider that
person for either governmental employment or private employment. MR. I guess that's what I'm concerned
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
9:58
about. It sounds like there are a lot more legal implications to removing the at-will designation that are outside of just what's
in the bill, and I think that's what you're telling me. There could be some legal implications. MR. No,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:12
no. The only – I mean, this is not a trick bill. I want you to know that. I'm not trying to trick you. The only thing I'm saying here is that you remove the term at will, and then you give
a person who's a non-probationary employee who's being separated from employment a written notice, or at least notice, or some kind of notice. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I think, Mr. Still, the name of the case is Laudermilk, L-O-U-D-E-R-M-I-L-K. I see a representative beside you saying yes. Representative Nichols, yes. So
Speaker 46
10:48
I would need to read that case to find out what this bill does.
Odise Wilson
Unverified
10:55
Basically, it provides minimal protection. Gentlemen, if you all want to have a court case on this, that's fine. I want you to stay on the bill. We've got three pages of bills up here. I need to get these
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
11:09
out. We've got a week left. I'd appreciate it if we could confine our comments
Speaker 55
11:14
to the bill, and let's get this moving on. Thank
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
11:20
you all. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Tyler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Walker, in your bill on line 24, you state for good cause shown or for
any reason that has a rational basis. Would you define for me what the word rational means and who will make that decision as to whether or not it's a rational basis
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:49
for termination? All right. Well, I'm using in this bill the
dictionary definition of rational, and it would be initially the decision maker who's making the recommendation or making the decision, and then it would
be subject to review if there is a court case by the judge on just ordinary language, what's rational. Now ordinarily, in my experience, judges accept the bases of the decision-makers unless they are just totally arbitrary and capricious. And I think in the teacher fair dismissal act, there's language like arbitrary and capricious. I'm not putting that here, just rational. something that you explain, if you can just say, hey, this person has a record of not
coming to work, and here it is, or was habitually late, and here's the record, disrespecting people and here's the evidence, that's all you basically need, but you're taking away the concept of at will. MS. May
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
12:57
I have one follow-up, please? MR. Short one. Yes, ma'am. MS. A short one. see reference in your bill to eliminate the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:08
words at will? Well, that would be the effect of the bill by giving a person notice, requiring
that a notice be given. That means it's not
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
13:23
at will. All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the committee? Is anyone in the room who wants to speak against this? I think we have a couple that signed that, Kate Terry, DF&A, are you here to speak against this bill? If you would, state your name and what agency
Speaker 69
13:45
you're with, and you may proceed. Yes, sir. Kate Terry, State Personnel Administrator, Department of Finance and Administration.
This bill does have significant impact on all state agencies right now, and I wanted to make sure everybody understood the processes that were in place as we speak. We have pretty stringent employment policies, and what DFA does is we produce guidelines for state agencies, and because of the varied nature of state agencies, going from Game and Fish to the Bank Department or someplace else, we have to allow those agencies to individualize those guidelines and their progressive discipline policy.
But they have to put those policies on file with the Department of Finance and Administration. I brought some statistics with me over the past three years on how many people we're talking about. We're talking about less than 3 percent of state government ever experiences an involuntary termination. And our numbers are going down rapidly. In 2009, we had 765. In 2010, we had 637. And so far this year, we've had 457.
And I think that's because most of your involuntary terminations, quite frankly, are because employees fail to report to work. An employee just never shows up again the next day, and that's why we actually have them. But we do have a statewide grievance process, and I would respectfully disagree with Representative Walker on the documentation. Most employees and employers get mad at me for the type of documentation that we do require for a lot of these particular decisions. And so I'd be happy to respond to any questions.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:26
Any questions from the committee? Director Nichols. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question because I know we have a long agenda here. You say that all states agencies
Speaker 69
15:40
must follow progressive discipline? All state agencies have to develop a discipline policy that's included in their handbook
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:46
that the employer should know. Okay. Now, I think what Mr. Walker was saying, that a lot of these handbooks also have statements that you're an employee at will, and that means you can be terminated with or without cause or for no reason at all,
and you can quit for any reason as an employment at will. But you said that the – so I don't see how a progressive discipline policy compares with that you're an employee at will, But yet we have to follow progressive discipline. So can you explain that somewhat of a disconnect? Yes, sir. Let me take that a little
Speaker 69
16:22
step further. Basically, I am aware of – I am not aware, quite frankly, of any cases when an employee has just been told you are no longer employed here without being told a reason.
I mean, we don't – we have classified employees, which is the majority of our employees, probably 98 percent of our employees are classified employees. they have to, when they are terminated, different agencies may have different probationary periods. For example, most state agencies use a probationary period of six months. Some agencies use probationary periods of 18 months over at DDSSA and some of the other places. At that point, you can just be terminated for no reason whatsoever. But after that point, when you are let go, you are given a reason for your termination.
And then if you are not happy with that reason, you can appeal that to your state process within the agency And if a satisfactory conclusion is not reached at that point, you can bring it to our office for the C-GAP ruling.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
17:22
Any other questions? Representative Wilkins, did you have a question on this? Okay. Thank
you for your testimony. Does anyone in the audience like to speak for this bill, on behalf of this bill?
Anyone else speak against it? Representative Walker, are you ready to close for your
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:49
bill? Yes, sir. I would appreciate a good vote on this
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
17:53
bill. Representative Walker is closed for the bill. What is the will of the committee?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:58
Yes, Representative Nichols. I'm going to give him an opportunity to get
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:03
a vote. I move the bill. You move. Do pass. Do pass. Representative Nichols, do pass motion. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? No. Representative Walker, I'm afraid that you did not carry
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:16
the day today. Well, thank you. I have another one,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:19
maybe sooner or later. Representative Walker, if you would, would you mind stepping to the side and let Senator Samples run one, and then I'll let you come back. I certainly have no objection. That will cool everybody down, and maybe you'll have a better chance on the next one. Thank you. Senator Samples, who is a good friend of mine, asked a personal favor.
And with the indulgence of the committee, I've let Senator keep it Sample, have the mic.
Speaker 97
18:46
Simple Sample. Senator Samples, you are ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's
Speaker 84
19:00
the number of your bills? Senate Bill 403.
Speaker 99
19:05
Senate Bill 403, thank you. You may present your bill. Thank you. Members, Senate Bill 403 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 404 that passed out, I think, just recently out of the House.
Senate 403 transfers about $42,000 that's dedicated to maintain the fallen firefighter memorial to the Secretary of State for maintenance of memorials on the Capitol grounds. It will also continue to raise funds for maintenance of memorials from the dedicated funds raised from the license plate renewal on the four firefighter license plate bills that just passed the House. I'll take questions. And I would like to introduce Mr. Roger Smith, and if you ask such a difficult question that I can't answer, I will allow him to take and take over.
Speaker 101
19:54
Is this former Representative Roger Smith? Introduce yourself, sir.
Roger Smith
Unverified
19:58
Yes, Mr. Chairman. All of us are a former something, and, yes, I was a representative and proud that I was, too. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Rep. Cheatham, are you ready for questions, Rep. Samples? Yes, sir. Rep. Cheatham. Thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
20:15
you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Samples, I really haven't had a chance to spend a while since I read your bill, but I think, and this goes along with a bill we passed recently.
Senate Bill 404. which was firefighters' plates and additional charge for those plates? Yes, sir. But if I understand this bill, the money raised will be used
Speaker 99
20:39
for any monument on the Capitol grounds? That's correct, and I'm
Roger Smith
Unverified
20:44
going to let Mr. Smith explain that particular part. Representative Cheatham, we had already raised about $42,000 that was already set aside for maintenance of the Fallen Firefighter Memorial. memorial, changes to the current statutes to help the Secretary of State's office,
they really have no money to maintain memorials. So this particular bill establishes that all future memorials, as well as ours, that roughly 10 percent of the cost of construction of that memorial will be set aside for maintenance purposes. We are going to go ahead and transfer what we've already raised so Secretary of State State will have access to that, and the balance of what we will be spending on the Firefighter Memorial is probably $500,000 to $600,000.
So once construction starts, we will also turn over to the Secretary of State whatever the balance of that 10 percent is, which probably is another $58,000, something like that. And the Secretary of State will have all of those dollars to use for maintenance of all all memorials on Capitol grounds, and this also sets the stage for any future projects of this type that anyone wishing to raise money to do this will also have to set aside funds for maintenance costs because it is something the state doesn't have other dollars
to use. So we are more than happy to help Secretary of
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
22:11
State with that. I guess when people buy the license plates, do they know when they buy that plate that That money is not going to the Fallen Firefighters Memorial? It could go to
Roger Smith
Unverified
22:25
other memorials? Yes, I think they know that, and let me say this. In the past,
up to this point, a dollar of those plates has been dedicated, and that's where the $42,000 came from.
And all of the money raised from the $5 fee on the plates will go to the Foundation, the Fallen Firefighter Memorial Foundation, into their accounts, and then when they start construction and they will simply remit to the Secretary of State. But, yes, they are aware of that and have no problems with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Hutchinson? We thought you had a question.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
23:08
Okay. Representative Garner? Motion to pass, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion to pass. Is anyone from the audience in the committee have any other questions? Anyone from the audience speak against this proposal? Anyone for it? Are you closed for your Senate bill, Senator Samples?
Speaker 99
23:26
Yes, and I'd just like to thank the committee for allowing me to come down
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
23:31
here. Absolutely. All in favor of the motion, do pass. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Senator, you've passed your bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Walker, are you ready to try for your next
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
23:48
to run this time, Rep. Walker? 2148? 2148
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:54
as amended. We're going to hand out
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
23:56
the amendments now, staff, if you would. We'll take up the amendment first. It'll just
be a little while here, Rep. Walker.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:49
to explain your amendment? Yes, Mr. Chair. The
amendment describes that this bill relates to cities of the first class, and it has language that deals with ward elections that supplements the bill itself.
So I would move that the amendment be accepted to 2148. We have
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
25:18
a motion from Representative Nichols to approve the amendment. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Your amendment has been adopted. Now you're ready to speak on the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:28
bill as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I guess I'm one and one. As long as we're not into a court. Well,
this is a bill that I ask you all to consider and to pass primarily because
it brings into being representative government. We are all here in the House of Representatives elected by what we call single-member districts. There was a time when we were elected by larger units, and they were called multi-member districts, But that was challenged and that was defeated. In 1964, the United States Congress passed a voting rights bill, maybe it was 68, and
that required that districts be drawn in such a way as to afford underrepresented people an opportunity to represent or elect people of their choice.
This bill addresses the opportunity to elect people on a ward basis or a district basis where the
districts are all equally drawn geographically in cities of the first class. Throughout the southern states, in cities of similar size to Little Rock and larger,
Almost all of those cities elect their representatives by ward. Little Rock and several other cities have a mixed system. You have in Little Rock, for instance, seven people elected by ward and three at large. And that has a tendency to dilute the votes of the people who live in the wards. There's no necessity for it, and it is not representative government.
This bill would, in effect, require cities of the first class to have persons elected on a single-member, representative basis. The law is pretty clear on this in terms of school districts, and we had that discussion with some of you yesterday, and it's no reason for it to be a mixed form of representation anywhere.
So I would be happy to answer any questions that you may
have. Okay. Are you finished, Representative Walker? Yes. Okay. Questions from the committee? Representative Roebuck, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
28:28
Chair. Good morning, Mr. Walker. Good
morning. My question has to do with criteria for first-class cities.
Could you tell us what that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
28:37
criteria is? It's the same definition as the legislature now provides. There's no change in first-class cities. Those are the largest cities in the state, and they have a, I think they
have a population of, I'm not certain of what it is, but it's probably around 50,000. MS. How many are there? MR. That has changed, and I'm not certain what the present census says. At one time, Pine Bluff had 50,000. I think that there may be two, three, or four.
They would be North Little Rock, Little Rock, and probably Fayetteville and or Springdale, but I'm not certain. MS. Madam Chair, is there someone in the room that
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
29:17
could give us a definite answer? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, you switched over. I'm sorry. I apologize. Is there someone in the room that could tell
us what the criteria is for a first-class city and how many there are in
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
29:35
the state? Ken, you're going to take the end and take your name and who you're with and answer,
if you would, Representative Roebuck's
Speaker 150
29:48
question. Right there. I'm Ken Wasson with the Arkansas Municipal League. Ms. Roebuck, in answer to your question, there are about 114 cities of the first class, and by definition, that's cities of 2,500 or greater. Now, that does not take into effect the last census, but you can get an idea that it's approximately 114.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
30:11
All right. I stand corrected. Follow-up for Mr. Wasson. Mr. Watson, I know you're from my hometown, Arcadelfia. Does
it include Arcadelfia? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
30:31
Chair. Representative Klammer. I raised my hand a minute ago. I've got to remember my question. Was this plan, Mr. Walker, was this plan voted on when Little Rock,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
30:43
was it voted on by the voters? It
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
30:50
was in 1993. I had just moved here when that happened. Would we not be then undoing something that the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
31:00
voters had put in place? And is that appropriate? Well, the concept of that was a compromise decision reached by several factions in the city at that time.
The demographics have changed twice since then. In 1993, you had a different population and a population base. In 2010, the population demographics were changed. And in 2000 and – well, this year, 2011, the demographics had changed. The vote was on a particular bill for a particular form of government at that time, which included representation.
That form of government, however, has been modified in some respects since then. Okay. I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
31:58
think – oh, I had another one. Is it, and when I say I moved here, I meant central Arkansas because I don't live in Little Rock. Is it not a reasonable, I'm looking at it from the outside somewhat, is it not a reasonable position to think that the at-large representation would look out,
would be the chance to unify the body as opposed to having everyone just representing a zone or a ward? would that not help to reach
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
32:35
compromise and agreement? Well, of course, that's always an argument. That was the argument in favor of multi-member districts. That took out the concept of being provincial and trying to protect my own. But we're all here trying to protect our own in the legislature.
and what we do have to recognize and I told you when I came here I'd be honest with you we have to recognize what life is about we have a situation in some places now where the racial population has changed and when you have at large voting at large voting advantages one particular segment or one particular race over another and in a place like Little Rock that advantage is very obvious
and there are no standards for this election the other thing is this you can have three people on the same street win the election at large and when you're talking about promoting unity in a city that is totally anti-democratic but those three people in one ward if they elected that means that that ward may have four people three at-large and one from the ward. So that means that that ward has 40 percent of the vote on any
decision-making action that is brought before the city council.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
34:03
But could that not be remedied by setting a maximum number of persons that could be from
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:10
each ward? Well, you have presently a maximum number of one per ward. But I mean the at-large positions that you would
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
34:18
not have more than a certain number from each ward. Well, then that would be
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:27
redistricting because you would have no more than one or perhaps two from each district.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
34:35
Last question, Mr. Chair, I promise. It does seem like, though, if your argument is partially that the racial makeup is changing, it
Speaker 162
34:45
would seem that this could benefit the new majority, at least at large,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:51
because they would have the most votes. Well, here's the way things work in the real world. There are people who cannot vote who are counted in the population. So you have voting age population.
As you all have dealt with, I know Republicans and Democrats have dealt with this issue and you're trying to deal with congressional redistricting. You know that if you have certain areas where prisons are located, those prisoners are counted as the population for that area, but they can't vote. So it may look as if you have a majority population, but in reality you don't. You don't have a majority voters. You don't, right. Okay. So the other thing is this. History shows that lower-income people do not participate in the political franchise
in the same way that middle- and upper-income people do. So the at-large situation gives advantage to those people who are already upper-class, middle-class, and it leaves the power equation unchanged, notwithstanding the change in
population. I see your point. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
36:00
Before we go to the next one, I'd like to
remind the audience that it is against the rules of the House for any member, not a member of this committee, to approach the committee
chairs or the committee members while they're at their desk. If you want something handed out or note or comments, would you please come up to the chair, and
we will decide whether it's appropriate or not. Next on the list
Speaker 168
36:32
is Representative Lee. Would you please repeat for me how many current city council members are in
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
36:39
Pulaski County? Well, you have several different governments in Pulaski County.
You have Jacksonville, Sherwood. I'm sorry. You mean Little Rock. Little
Rock, thank you. All right. You have seven elected ward or district representatives and
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
36:59
is covered by someone. There's one person for each ward. The wards are larger
Speaker 168
37:04
than they would otherwise be. Correct. And currently the law, if I'm correct, currently the law gives the city council the option to decide how they're going to be elected.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
37:15
Is that correct? I don't know. There is a question about that. But
there is the city council may be able to do it. We may be
Speaker 168
37:27
able to do it or the courts may be able to do it. Has Little Rock City Council had a discussion about this and chosen to be elected the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
37:38
way they currently are? There has been no decision by the Little Rock City
Council since 1993 when the compromise agreement was reached.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
37:46
Thank you. Representative Hutchinson. Representative Hutchinson and Representative Nichols. Next. Thank you, Mr. Walker,
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
37:58
for bringing this, and it seems like you do have some concerns about some of the cities in Arkansas, but you talked about trying to tell us what reality was. When we pass bills, they have to work across the entire state.
And out of 114 cities that have nothing to do or any makeup that you are describing, this wouldn't work across the entire state. And do you really believe that 114 cities have the problems that you have mentioned concerning Little Rock and maybe three or four others? Well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
38:41
all 114 of them have the problem of representative government
and who should govern. Now, I'm not talking simply about Little Rock. I mean, it seems that way, but Little Rock has special problems because it's the capital city and we live here, and there are concerns. But almost all of these 114 cities, I would venture to guess, have district representation. I don't know about Arkadelphia, but I believe Arkadelphia has district representation. The cities around us have district representation.
I believe Sherwood and Jacksonville have district representation. North Little Rock has modified district representation. They have the city divided into four wards, and each of those wards has two representatives. I mean, so almost the pattern of life in Arkansas is that people are
elected from single-member districts. Would you not be taking away the right
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
39:45
of the citizens of these other cities to switch to a different mode of government?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
39:52
Well, the question really isn't whether, I mean, you've already determined
how they shall elect their people, and if they have the right now to change, then they have that
power to change. Nobody has, not many have seen fit to change from district representation to at large. It's the other way around, Representative Hutchinson. You change from at large to districts.
But if they wanted to go
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:20
back for some reason, you would be taking away their right to do that.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
40:25
No, I think that what we're saying here is that they should have single-member districts. If they wanted to do otherwise, then they would have the power to do that provided they would be willing to undergo or withstand a challenge from one of their citizens as to the propriety or legality of it. Representative Nichols.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
40:55
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say my comments. I want to speak for the bill, so at
that appropriate time, I'd like to note it. Representative Slanker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Walker, we mentioned
114 cities in the state.
Speaker 187
41:17
Are those all just first-class cities? Well, I rely
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
41:21
on what the Municipal League said. I didn't know that we had 114, and I certainly think that there is a distinction between
first-class cities. I mean, there is no distinction between a city of 2,500, I mean, no equality or comparison between a city of 2,500 and one of
200,000. MS. I understand that. I think
my question, though, is that under the am I to understand that city director form of government is also available, and under city director form of government or
city administrator form of government, the city administrator form of government is when the city has elected by an election to have three at-large and four by wards. There's only about three cities in the state I know of that has city administrator form of government, and under the city director form, I'm not too familiar with that, but when the city administrative form of government is also a city of the first class, and this
would affect those cities that are city administrative form of government also. Well, I don't know how
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
42:42
many city administrative form of government cities you have, but I I know of
Little Rock, and I know that in Little Rock you have a mayor and a city administrator, and that's unique. I don't know of any other city who has a mayor who's paid the same as a city administrator, and then you have ten directors, seven of whom are elected by wards.
I mean, you have a city director system, and you've had in Little Rock a city director system in the past. no reason not to have people elected by wards. I mean, you may say that the will of the people, but what you're saying there is that the will of the people that you know will vote and who have the resources can trump the concept of one man, one vote, and can otherwise diminish the
weight of the vote of the majority.
Well, but wouldn't you agree, if I may, Mr. Chair, wouldn't you agree that, I mean, since this affects cities of the first class, with those, I mean, it would affect our city
Speaker 191
43:56
administrative form of government as well? Well, just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
44:01
a moment. Just a moment, sir. I'm reminded that House Bill 2148 applies to cities with populations
greater than 150,000. That is a city administrative form of government.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
44:26
no. No, no. I mean, it's suggested to me that it would apply there. It does not at this time. I don't choose to make that amendment
at this time because it would be too time-consuming. But what we have here is the capital city not affording its residents an opportunity to elect
representatives of their choice. And It doesn't matter. And here's the thing about the majority vote concept, Representative Slinker.
The majority vote concept cannot be dispositive
of the kind of system you have because the majority may always wish to see to it that the minority does not have the same equal opportunity to elect their own representatives. I mean, this is about having people be in a position, whether they are white or black, whether they're rich or poor, to be able to elect their own representatives and to have them live in the area from which they run and which they represent.
MS. Okay. But would you agree, if I may, Mr. Chair, that your amendment here covers all cities of the first class? MR. Yes. MS. That's my point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reverend Blocker,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
45:44
are you through with your presentation? Yes. Is anyone in the committee in the room who would like to speak against
this proposal? If you would, take the end of the table and to speak against, state your name and who
you're with to speak against the proposal.
Speaker 150
46:04
Mr. Chairman, I'm Ken Watson with the Municipal League. My statement will be very brief, and that is one of the most cherished freedoms that your municipalities have is the freedom, if you will, of home rule. The idea that they can – the citizens back home can decide what form of government and how they want to be represented is something that's a cherished right with them. They would attempt – they would perceive any attempt to change this from the state
level as pretty hostile, if you would, and would not look at this too favorably. If I may continue, just again briefly, there's some questions about the form of government and so forth. As we're interpreting the bill and the amendment, again, cities of the first class and I'm just looking at the committee, Hot Springs, Fort Smith, Arcadelphia would definitely be impacted by this. It would be a mandate for them to change their form of government.
The city administrator form of governments, there's three cities that have chosen that form of government. Their voters have elected to go to that, and there's five cities with the city manager form of government. So again, it's pretty, without looking at the amendment any further, it's pretty wide sweeping and would have an effect on a lot of different cities. So we are obviously opposed
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
47:28
to this. Thank you. Representative Nichols, are you ready to speak for the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
47:53
bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I had not consulted with Representative Walker and had not known
of this bill until I arrived here this morning. But I do have what I think is a unique history with this issue. I'm from the city of Sherwood, and several years ago we had our city council elected at large. So what that – the
politics of it – Reverend Nichols, I appreciate the history lesson of Sherwood, but what I'd like you to do
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
48:23
is speak directly to this meeting because we are going to – we got to go to Rose here in a little while, and we're going to lose half our members.
So please, let's kind of keep it to the point, focus,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
48:37
and let's move on. Thank
you. The deal with that large representation is that in my city, you had a mayor and eight vice mayors. So you could actually have a person who lost in their ward, but they had enough votes from the other wards to be on the city council representing that one ward. So I initiated a petition. I went around to houses in the city of Sherwood, got signatures, put it on the ballot.
They thought that the world was coming to an end in the city of Sherwood when they went from at-large to ward elections. It overwhelmingly passed, and they would not give it up today. So that's why I'm speaking in favor of ward elections. It is more democratic. It allows people to run for a city ward position who could not afford to run a citywide campaign. And it is grassroots democracy, and so for that reason, I'm speaking in favor of this bill. Thank you. Is
Odise Wilson
Unverified
49:37
anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill?
Odise, take your seat and tell us who you're with and what organization you belong
Speaker 203
49:55
to. Good morning. You speaking against the bill? Yes, I'm speaking against the bill. Okay. My name is Odise Wilson. I'm the Intergovernmental Relations
Speaker 205
50:03
Manager of the City of Little Rock, and we're speaking against the bill for basically it's a mandate for us to do something other than what the citizens of Little Rock have voted to do.
And one other thing I think to clear up a couple of things about the City of Little Rock government, probably one of the most unique government forms of government in the city in that our people are elected by plurality. Most ten, both all seven wards and all three of the at-large positions are elected by plurality. Most votes win. And the mayor, even the mayor has a 40 percent threshold. So in 1993, over 500 citizens went through a year and a half of strategic planning and
put this referendum on the ballot and it passed substantially over 65 percent. And so we feel that if the citizens of Little Rock want to change the form of government in Little Rock or any of the other first-grade cities, they have the authority and they also have the statutes to do so. I think the will of local government and the Home Rule should prevail, and we're also going through a needs assessment process in Little Rock, but we're actually – that's one of the issues that's probably being discussed at the local level.
I think it's a local issue that should
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
51:24
be decided by local governments. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. We have Ms. Kathy Wells of Little Rock who wants to speak for the bill. If you would, state your
Speaker 206
51:38
name and where you're from, please, ma'am. Thank you
Speaker 207
51:41
for the opportunity to speak. I'm Kathy Wells, K-A-T-H-Y-W-E-L-L-S. I live near here, close to the Governor's Mansion. I'm a civic activist. These three at-large Little Rock directors are viewed by many of us as a thumb on the scale
against truly representative and democracy government in our community. We voted against the form of government that you see today. We lost. I think over the years we have seen several manifestations indicating it's still a heavy bias against really good democracy, really good involvement. Going out in my community, I can testify that many folks in Ward 1,
the area right around here and to the east and to the airport where I live, my part of the city, cannot sign my petitions because they are ex-felons. They have no right to vote. I'm probably the single greatest deliverer of those restoration of voting rights brochures from our county clerk's, circuit clerk's office, you'll know. But that indicates that our voice is lessened, our turnout is low. People think they've got the three at large that are going to overrule whatever we want down in Ward 1
because there's no second representative on the board from Ward 1. So I would support this bill. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am, for your comment. Anyone in
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
53:15
the audience speak against the bill? We have on the list
here Mr. Jim Lynch to speak for the bill. If you would, state your name and who you're with, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Jim Lynch
Unverified
53:30
Chairman. My name is Jim Lynch. I live at 16 Lennon Drive in the city of Little Rock. and lived in Little Rock for 50-plus years and very, very familiar with this issue.
The bill is an excellent bill. There's been some discussion about the effect on other cities and so forth. Representative Walker is correct. The pattern now is single-member districts across the state. The exception is the at-large. And so almost every city that I know about has single-member districts, except Little Rock and a couple of other mixed systems that we've already discussed. And so the bill would simply default those few cities to what is already the major pattern across the state.
I would like to correct, in fairness, the comments made by the director of the Municipal League. You don't have to change the form of government to change how you elect people at the city council. You can still have city manager government, city administrator government, mayor, all-minded government, and so forth. This is simply the election map in the election. You're not changing the form of government. You can still have city managers, city administrators, whatever you want. You're simply pinpointing that relationship between the voter and their elected representatives.
Everything else stays the same. I would point out that the at-large folks are essentially multi-member districts. In Little Rock, their boundaries are the city limits. And Representative Nichols is exactly right. What we have in Little Rock, as well as the other mixed systems and so forth, is
Speaker 211
55:02
that you end up electing a mayor, which we do in Little Rock, who is now the chief executive by ordinance, but you end up having three vice mayors. And so talk about accountability, talk about confusion, talk about who's in charge,
talk about who do I call, talk about who's, you know, trying to get something done that's good, bad, or indifferent. It is not conducive to good government. and so that we have the seven wards. They absolutely cover the city. We know exactly what part of geography they're responsible for, and you can call your ward representative and talk about police, fire, garbage pickup, parks maintenance, or whatever, and have a responsive conversation. Call the at-large and so forth, and it's, you know, if you're responsible for everything,
what it really, citywide, what it really means is you're responsible for nothing. I would point out that the at-large format impedes everyday citizens from access to the ballot. They've got good ideas. They're smart. They're recognized as leaders by their neighbors. They would make excellent representatives in local government and so forth, but they can't run. Now, why? Because it costs a lot of money to run citywide. We've got folks running for city at-large ward directors in the city of Little Rock spending $60,000, $65,000, $70,000, $75,000 in a campaign.
In a ward, you're spending $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000. I was very much a part of the change from the at-large system, which Little Rock had for 50-plus years until 1993. Wards were very popular. We knew it. We campaigned all over the city. and the idea was elect someone from your neighborhood to represent you on the city board because what we had in Little Rock was a majority of them. Sir, sir, sir. I know. Sir. I know. You don't want to his list.
Speaker 108
57:01
Representative Walker has already discussed the amendments and he
Odise Wilson
Unverified
57:04
discussed the bill. If you want to talk, you're trying to rehash what Representative Walker has already presented to this committee. All right. And that's your, if you want to have another bill, you get a sponsor and file one. All right. Let me make one final point.
Speaker 211
57:19
Make it short. Once we went to the boards in 1993, that was a compromise because everybody was exhausted. We had had all at large and so forth. So we got seven, and we thought it was pretty good.
Since that time, it has improved the election of people of color to the city board and also women to the city board. Women don't have as much money as men, and people of color typically don't have as much money as others. It has greatly improved the city board. It looks like the city of Little Rock.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
57:58
Representative Cowling. Mr. Chair, I guess I need maybe a limited debate, maybe just two minutes to the presenter
before we can get through this right quick and do something and all. Can we do that? Yes, sir.
Odise Wilson
Unverified
58:10
Is that a motion? That is a motion. We have a motion to limit debate for two
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
58:15
minutes on each side. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 108
58:19
Thank you. Motion passed. Representative Walker, do you want to hold your two minutes for your closing,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
58:25
or do you want to let some other citizens speak? Well, I think that I want to further
amend the bill. Do you want to pull it down? To pull it down to cover and then to amend it to cover populations of cities of 150,000 or more.
Speaker 89
58:40
Without objection, we'll let Representative Walker. Is there objection? There's objection. We
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
58:44
have an objection, Representative Walker, to allow that. We will have to tab a motion to pull it out of the proper order. And I thought I was just going to do this once in my career, but this is the third time, I believe. We need a motion to pull Representative Walker's bill out of the proper order in order to let him pull it down. Do I have a motion? You objected. Do I have a motion, Representative Nichols?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
59:10
I move as a courtesy to the owner of the bill that we allow him to do that. As a courtesy to the member who's presenting this bill that we own, I move that we take this out of proper order. This requires a two-thirds vote of the body. We're going to roll call it. Representative
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
59:29
Walker will know the consent. I'm sorry, but we're going to do it this time. No problem. So we're going to roll call this one because I want to make sure we have the proper numbers.
Speaker 224
59:48
out of the proper order. Representative Cheatham. Representative Cheatham. Representative Gardner. Representative Roebuck. Representative Hutchinson. Representative Cowling. Representative Penards Representative Baird Representative Hobbs Representative Lee Representative Wilkins
Representative Tyler Representative Hopper Representative Hopper Representative Klemmer Representative Klemmer Representative Nichols Representative McLean Representative Rogers Representative Steele Representative Vines No. Representative Splinkard? No. Representative Splinkard? No. Representative Splinkard? No. Representative Hall? Yes. Representative Nichols, your motion
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:00:53
to take it out of proper order failed.
Representative Walker, you need to close for your bill. All right. I would like to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:00:59
take one minute to do that. We have two minutes left on your... Right. Mrs. Hendricks. All right. We have one person to speak. Yes, sir. If
she would state her name and what organization she's with. Do we have a clock? Yes, ma'am. State
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:01:09
your name. Irma Hendricks. Can you turn the mic on for our Rep. Walker? It's on. My name is Irma Hendricks.
Irma Hendricks
Unverified
1:01:27
I'm a city director for the city of Little Rock, and I am asking if you all would support this bill. This is not my first time speaking over here. I am a resident of the city of Little Rock, a native of the city of Little Rock, and I want to express that so often in these committees. We talk about making things better for our grandchildren. Well, I want to make it better for my great-grands. Mr. Walker did not go into detail, but three of those at-large positions, Those individuals reside in West Little Rock, where the more affluent neighbors or residents live.
And I think that giving us this opportunity to eliminate the at-large positions would give us true representation across the board in the city of Little Rock. I know the question has come up from Representative Hutchinson about where she lives, but I don't think that this would impact your city. It's not mandatory from the way I understand the bill. But I would certainly ask if you all would really be considered to vote and give it a due pass.
Speaker 77
1:02:36
Thank you, ma'am. Representative Walker, you have 40 minutes,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:02:40
40 seconds. Thank you. 40 seconds. I've given my reasons. You have an opportunity to strike
a blow for people having the right to vote and to elect people of their own choice and to make this city a representative city as you seek to keep it as a city that's biracial. Now, without representative government, you're going to have the tipping point is already here. It's a majority-minority city.
And you have to have representative government just like you have to have schools that work. And the state won't work unless Little
Rock works. It is important that this bill pass for that reason, and I ask you
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:20
to vote for it. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Walker. Representative Walker has closed for his bill. Is Representative Nichols? Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. Representative Walker, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Representative Walker, I apologize, but you have struck out again.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:39
Well, I expected to, but I'll be back. Representative Walker, before you
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:43
leave, I've struck out the first three times I was at bat down here. Thank you. Right now, we're going
to take up representative of Cheatham. No, you cannot. Okay, we're
going to see what we've got here.
Speaker 108
1:04:12
Let's go down the list. House Bill 8. No, we didn't
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:04:38
get time. Is Representative Cheatham here? Where did he go? Okay. We got Representative Salmon, Senator Salmon, Representative Rodgers, are you going to run
that bill for Senator Salmon? Well, it's just going to be very short, Representative Rogers, 708. It's not going to be controversial. It should not take
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:05:11
a long time. No, sir. You have the mic. Present your bill for Senator Salmon. I'll get started, but we do have someone moving to the end of the table that will be here as well. law. Senate Bill 708 is a bill that would amend the definition of exempt commodities
and services under the current Arkansas procurement law. Because of the existing proprietary software is already in place on many of our college campuses, this bill would allow campuses to buy additional copies, upgrade their software, renew licenses, and technically support the software without having to either bid or justify the purchase as a sole source after the initial purchase. The initial purchase follows the standard competitive bidding process. I can
attest to this personally because of my work with Phillips Community College and Ripley Rogers, is your mic on down there? We're
Speaker 77
1:06:07
having a hard time hearing you. Green light is on. I mean, I can
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:06:10
try to trade. Try the other one. See if it'll work better. Okay. We had to
Speaker 137
1:06:17
turn it down. We're going to have to readjust the volume down there. That may be the problem. Okay. Can you hear
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:06:23
me now? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to start over, but I'm going to talk fast.
Speaker 247
1:06:31
We heard the first part. Let's keep going. As long as...
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:06:33
What I was just going to give as an example, I work at Phillips Community College. Within the several years past, we purchased a computing system that would have been our records management, accounting, purchasing, enrollment records, and this in itself would allow us to continue to go with that particular company without having to bid it out, to be able to get the software that is compatible to those programs so that we can maintain.
And in essence, it would be very cost-efficient for entities to be able to maintain this and to be able to stay with one proprietary company in purchasing these types of software. And I will be happy to answer any questions, and I do have someone from the U.A. system. Representative Tyler, you were first. Motion at a proper time. Representative Lee. Any other
Speaker 139
1:07:29
questions for the committee? Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:07:37
I'm not, so I'm a little confused. This is relating, you purchased the stuff the first time, and then after that, these These examples, one through IV, those are exempt from what? From going and bidding it? Is that
Speaker 187
1:07:57
it? Right. If you need to have technical updates, if you have to have additional software, it allows you
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:08:04
to be able to stay with the same company that you made the original purchase from without
having to bid it and be subject to changing companies, which could be an additional expense in the long run. So let
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:08:20
me just ask you a question. Are normally these types of things after the initial procurement, under what cost figure level are they usually? I'm not sure I follow your question. Well, how much does it cost to have a renewal? Next.
How much is it for a license upgrade? Well, that varies on what you're trying to
Speaker 187
1:08:46
do with software and packages and stuff. That's why I'm saying, is it under $10,000, is it under $20,000, or is it under $2
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:08:53
million? I mean, I think it makes a difference what that amount is. I'm going to let Ms. Yee. I'm going to let her
Speaker 256
1:09:08
speak to this. Thank you. I'm Suzanne Leslie with the Contract Services Office at UAMS, and it is true that it could
be various different dollar amounts because it totally depends on the kind of software that you're talking about. But in essence, this is software that you've already got in-house, you've already procured it, and you just need to support it, maintain it, renew your maintenance agreement every year, or buy additional copies. What we currently have to do is if this was over $5,000, we would need to, for instance, sole source it. And there's a lot of approval levels a lot of paperwork a lot of administrative well let me stop you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:09:48
there because I don't need a long answer I just need a response to my question was generally are you indicating to me either the this these activities can indeed can cost more than the initial expenditure is that what you're saying? No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Okay, well then, can it, I mean, right now it's over $5,000. I understand that. Give
me, I'm just asking for a figure, if it's $20,000, is that okay? If it's
$2 million, is that okay? You're asking us to exempt from bid potentially a $10, $20 million project. I'm not going to do that. I don't
Speaker 256
1:10:33
think it would be a situation where it would be in that kind of dollar range, but essentially you're supporting the, let's say you had a medical records system software, and annually you needed to get the maintenance contract for that. And just tell me how much would that be.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:10:52
And that's going to be a few thousand dollars. Okay. So in your experience, in
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:11:01
your position? I'm the director of contract services. Okay. You have plenty of experience to speak to this issue then. In your experience, what is the typical range, since you can't give me an exact, what is the typical range of these different 4i through IV? What's the typical range
Speaker 256
1:11:21
of expenditure? I would say statewide with all state agencies, you would be looking at less than $10,000, $15,000 probably sometimes.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:11:31
Okay, that I'll give you. That's all I wanted. You know, if that's what we're talking about, we're not talking about $2 or $3 million worth that should be out to bid, then I'm fine. That was my question. I'm sorry I didn't make it very
Speaker 261
1:11:46
clear, Representative. I apologize for that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Anyone from
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:12:00
the committee in the room would like to speak against this proposal?
For it? What's the will of the committee? Wait a minute. Representative Rogers, are you ready to close the Senate bill? I'm closed. Thank you. We have a Senate. Representative Rogers is closed for the Senate bill. What's the will of
the committee? Representative Tyler? Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Representative Rogers, you have passed the Senate bill. Thank you. Thank you, committee. Representative Cheatham, would you
Speaker 267
1:12:30
take the end of the table? Take up House Bill 1836.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:12:36
We have an amendment that's coming out to all
Speaker 269
1:12:42
the members. Yes, Representative Lee. I have a motion if
Speaker 271
1:12:48
it's appropriate. What's your motion? My motion is that we do not vote on any congressional map until
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:12:55
we've seen them all. We have a motion to not vote on congressional maps until we've seen them all. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Is that the will of the committee?
All right. Thank you, sir. We have a motion that was to not to, the
will of the committee, The motion was not to vote
on any constitutional maps until we sent all the maps. It was passed. Do you want to reconsider?
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:13:40
I just need some clarification. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I just need clarification. We're talking about until we see them. Are we talking about when we see them when we're voting? Do we see them 30 minutes before? I mean, can we clarify when we're going to see them? I mean, I don't want to wait until tomorrow
Speaker 271
1:14:03
or whatever. Rep. Lee, can you explain? MS. Gladly I'll explain that. Until we have all maps in front of us in this committee, I do not think we should vote maps out.
I mean, I think we should hear them. We can have them presented to us. You want to do it
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:14:21
like constitutional amendments? MS. I want to do it better than we do constitutional amendments. Thank you.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:14:25
Rep. Robott? Yes, that clarifies. Thank you, and thank you, Representative Lee. Representative Cowley?
Speaker 279
1:14:31
Well, my only point is we're limited on time. And it's
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:14:34
not that I want to just look at one and all. I think we need to get them all in here in one day, and let's get with it. Well, when do you want to do it?
Today? I don't care what day we do it. I'm just saying we need to get them in here and get it over with and don't drag this thing out three or four days. Give me
Odise Wilson
Unverified
1:14:57
a time. Not that much time. Give me a time. This afternoon? Don't make me no difference. Upon the recess of the committee, all in favor say aye. No. Is that a motion, Representative Cowley? Lines in members'
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:09
own. I mean, can we? Representative Cowley, do you have
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:15:11
a motion? Well, I don't know exactly, but I'm just saying we just need to set a time.
Are we going to do it next Friday
Odise Wilson
Unverified
1:15:21
morning? No, sir. I will not accept that motion. i'll accept the motion to do it during the recess of this afternoon and that's the only motion i will accept what time we can do it then upon recess 10 minutes on the interim recess at the afternoon session i'll i'll accept
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:40
that motion that's good for me you're making that motion point of information on the floor to uh meet this afternoon to hear this all in favor say i
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:15:48
Point of information, please. What's your point? Well, my point is,
Speaker 164
1:15:55
this is one of the most important things we do as a session.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:16:01
We are not going to have an hour at least to look over the event. We made a
motion. It was accepted. Representative Cowling made a motion. It's accepted. We're going to vote on his motion. Okay. His motion is to, we're going to hear
Speaker 281
1:16:12
this afternoon upon the recess. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Ayes have it. we'll meet up on adornment, too.
Let's roll call it. Roll
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:16:26
Mine's in members' own. Roll
Speaker 224
1:16:28
call it. Representative Cheatham. Representative Cheatham. Representative Gardner. Representative
Speaker 289
1:16:36
Gardner. No. Representative Roebuck. Representative Hutchinson. Representative Kaling. Representative Pinard's. Representative Pinard's. Representative Baird? No. Representative Hobbs?
No. Representative Lee? No. Representative Wilkins? Representative Wilkins? Yes. Representative Tyler? Yes. Representative Hopper? Yes. Representative Klemmer? No. Representative Nichols? Yes. Representative McLean? Yes. Representative Rogers? Yes. Representative Steele? Yes. Representative Vines? Yes. Representative Slinkard? No. Representative Hall?
Speaker 281
1:17:20
Yes. Motion passed. We will be upon a recess to hear the constitutional amendments. Point of information? Yes,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:17:28
ma'am. I thought we approved. We have now two conflicting motions. We passed Representative Lee's motion that we would have all the amendments before we voted. They can have them here now. They got time to be here right now. There's one in members' own in the process of being finished. They ought to have time to have it here. Rep. Tender
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:17:48
Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question and then possibly a motion.
Mr. Chair, do you know how many amendments to mass exist? No idea. How many bills? You do know how many bills are filed? No idea. For this? My motion is to suspend the rules of the committee to allow bills in members' own to be heard in committee on the same day.
Speaker 299
1:18:25
I will take that into consideration and rule on it in one second. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:19:07
I will not accept your motion. Members, this is a bill that has been filed, Representative Cheatham has the right to run his bill. It can vote up or down, and if you vote it down, then we will continue. He has a privilege to run his bills. That's the ruling of this committee, Chair, and that's it. moving forward. What about the motion, Mayor? I need a motion from someone to reconsider
the representative of Lee's motion. Motion to reconsider. We have a motion to reconsider the representative of Lee's motion. All in favor say
Speaker 224
1:20:14
representative Cheatham representative Cheatham representative Gardner representative Gardner representative Robeck
representative Hutchinson representative Kaling representative Kaling representative an art representative Karen representative Hobbes representative Lee representative Wilkins representative Wilkins representative Tyler for Sam halper representative Klemmer representative Nickel represented McGيم representative Rogers represent still
Representative Vines? No. Representative Slinkard? No. Representative Hall? Yes. The motion
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:08
to reconsider has failed. So we are back where we are at square one. Representative Cheatham, we're going to have to meet on during... Yes, Representative McLean. I just need a little clarification. Are we
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:21:19
going to do this today? Are we ever going to do it? But, I mean, I was under the
impression this was going to be done today.
Odise Wilson
Unverified
1:21:28
Okay? I mean, it's on the agenda. The bill is on the agenda.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:34
Representative Cheatham was going to run the bill. There was a motion made not to do it until all the maps are available.
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:21:40
Well, can the chair give me an indication when the maps
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:43
are going to be available? I have no idea. I have no idea when the maps will be available or if they ever will be available. I don't have that. I'm not in charge of individual sponsors' maps. So I can't answer
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:21:55
that. Well, that's a significant problem, and I just want that noted.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:58
The answer is, is anybody that files a bill has the right to run their bill at the proper time. Rep. Cheatham is going to run this bill. The problem seems to be that there are members who don't think he has the right to run his bill. And this bill is not like constitutional amendments. This bill is just like any other bill that runs through this body. It has to be approved to a committee, runs to the main floor, the assembly, vote, pass it down to the Senate,
and they have to do the same thing. That's simple. I understand.
Representative James McLean
Unverified
1:22:35
Just like any other bill. So as of right now, Representative Cheatham is not going to run
Speaker 294
1:22:44
his bill? Apparently. Okay, well, I mean. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I shouldn't.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:22:48
My understanding from the motion is that we run them all, we look at all of them, and then we vote when we've seen all that are available. And we're setting a time to run them. I didn't think it precluded Representative Cheatham from running the bill and presenting the map.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:23:05
If he runs the bill, if we get a motion to pass,
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:23:10
we're going to vote on the bill. Yes, I understood that motions for voting would not be heard until all the maps that were available to be seen would be seen. That was my understanding of the motion. That was the motion. You're right. But in
Speaker 97
1:23:25
the essence of time. We're running out of time, and the time
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:23:31
is this afternoon on the interim. We're going to hear, if you haven't got them here, you don't get them.
That is the will of the chair. That's the ruling of the chair. Yes, sir. And at the end of the, when we take a break from the body this afternoon, we're going to meet right here, and we're going to hear those. And if you've got them ready, be at the end of the
Speaker 316
1:23:52
table. If you don't, you don't. So if you've got your map this afternoon, you're good to go. If you've got
Speaker 281
1:23:57
your maps and things ready to sit at the end of the table to run your bill, you're good to go. Otherwise, that's it. And
Odise Wilson
Unverified
1:24:04
we're going to do it this afternoon. We're doing it during the recess of the assembly this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Craig. Point of order.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:24:17
Representative Bernard. Point of order. Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am asking for clarification from the Chair or the Parliamentarian. Do we or do we not have two motions that are in conflict?
I ask for a ruling from the parliamentarian. With respect to whether Representative Lee's motion which was passed and the subsequent motion that were passed, are they in conflict? And if so, what is the conflict? between the two, because I'm a little bit amidst in the sea right now, and I need some clarity about how we're going to proceed.
And I would just ask for a ruling on that. One
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:25:19
second. We'll get that. Can you state, Rep. Lee, would you restate your motion that you had for clarification? Or do we
Speaker 271
1:25:31
need to get it off the record? Yeah, I was going to say, I don't remember
Speaker 97
1:25:36
my exact words. I can tell you my intention. Well, your words were a motion to see all the maps.
Speaker 271
1:25:42
That was your motion. Before voting, if the committee could see all of the maps. I mean, that was... That was your motion.
Speaker 320
1:25:49
Yeah. What was the other motion, Representative Bernard, that you had questions on? Well, now
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:25:58
I'm confused about which of the two subsequent motions that were made. Well, we had Rep. Garner's with
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:26:08
a subsequent motion. And his was. We'll let him speak
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:26:11
for that. Was your motion, Rep. Garner? Mr. Chair, my motion was that because we have one member who has filed a bill under members' own,
It cannot be heard in this committee, under this committee's rules, unless we suspend the rules of the committee. By doing that, we would be able to see Representative Lee's map today. Okay. And I did not acknowledge or accept that motion. Right. So
Speaker 268
1:26:33
I did not accept that motion, so I don't know if
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:26:37
we have but one motion that was passed on this slide. I have a question of. Then I had Representative Cowling's motion. Representative Cowling, state what your motion was. There were two subsequent motions, and that was one of them.
Speaker 284
1:26:52
Here's the other one. Mine was that we would meet this
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:26:56
evening to discuss them. To vote on them? A discussion. What did you say? It was my impression that we would vote on them. I thought so. And did that pass? Did that motion pass? I think it did. I think it did. It did pass. That
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:27:07
was a motion that Representative Callie made. It was going to be during the recess to hear these bills and vote on them. Mr. Chair. We've
got the parliamentarian here, so if he'd step up to the plate.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:27:22
I have a final point of order. After
I hear from our House parliamentarian, if there's any further clarification, which I'm sure that he might be able to add. Mr. Parliamentarian? Well, the worst thing you can do
Speaker 328
1:27:39
like this when I wasn't around and I don't know what was going on. And the phrase you use,
Speaker 329
1:27:45
the P.O. word, I'm going to do P.O. 50% of you either way it goes, you know, on the ruling.
If I understand correctly, y'all are trying to debate whether somebody had a bill on member's own this morning. Yes. Is that right? Is that what we're talking about? Okay. Well, if you meet this afternoon in an adjourned session up there, that will be a new meeting. And so then what your staff person is supposed to do when you quit this meeting today is take everything that was read across the desk yesterday afternoon, today or whatever, and put it on a new agenda because we've got a new meeting. If that helps you, then that's
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:28:24
what you're going to do. That was my final point of order is if, in fact, that we did meet,
and it really depends on whether if we do meet in the little interim that is planned, then in that little interim, if we go like we did yesterday from 2.30 to 3 or whatever it was, 2 to 3, then that interim, in fact, all those morning hour member zones would have been taken care of. Is that correct? Yes. All right. And if so, then our agenda for that little period, if we do indeed just that little period or whether it's upon adjournment, those bills that had that would then come before the agenda of this committee.
Speaker 329
1:29:11
Is that correct? No. The bills that are on bill, on amendment, are bills that have been read across the desk yesterday afternoon will go to the bottom of the current agenda. They can't take a place over the others that already have. Well, I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:29:25
understand that, sir. I'm just saying they would be on the agenda. Is that correct?
Speaker 329
1:29:28
Oh, yeah, they'll be on the agenda, but they're going to take the place behind those that are already on there. I don't have the agenda, but I can tell you where
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:29:36
they're going to go if I look at it. I can understand that, sir, but my question was they would be on the agenda.
Speaker 329
1:29:42
That's what I said earlier. I said that second, here's the deal. The House, and Ms. Tyler's in here that can testify to this because I visited with her yesterday about this, I came to each committee chairperson and I said, make an announcement that there's a possibility that you may have a mid-afternoon meeting. I didn't say adjournment time. That's another time. Mid-afternoon, where we would quit at 2.30 or 3 o'clock or whenever and have a committee meeting. If that's the case, and I have no idea whether that's going to happen or not, because that decision is going to be made up there after the speaker consults with the committee chairman
or the big committee to find out what their agendas are and whether they want to do it. For example, yesterday, I think, only maybe four of the five committees met. I think a fifth one didn't meet. Anyway, that constitutes a new meeting, a new agenda. You can't meet when the House is in session. And the House can only give you permission to meet when they're in recess. And they're going to give you permission this afternoon if, in fact, he decides to do it. He's going to say, we're going to recess for a committee meeting.
And what he's telling you is you've got permission to go meet even though we're sitting in recess. Okay? That's going to take a new agenda because that's a new time for you. He's supposed to adjourn this meeting when you quit here today. Meeting's supposed to be adjourned. And then when we do, the speaker's going to create another time frame, and we're making this announcement to meet the two-hour restriction that's in the House rule, that you can't have a meeting unless you call it and give a two-hour notice. And that's what we're trying to do. So I don't know how that helps you or not, but that's what we're going to do.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:31:18
Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Yes, Representative Bernard. Motion for adjournment. Motion for adjournment. All in favor say aye.
Speaker 279
1:31:44
Aye. Motion. We have adjourned. No. You didn't even ask for the no votes. I wrote. I heard nothing. I didn't hear any. I hope all that helps you all. I'm not sure where we're going, so.
Agenda
HB2145
SB403
HB2148
SB708
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 46
Odise Wilson
Unverified
Speaker 55
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 69
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 84
Speaker 99
Speaker 101
Roger Smith
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 72
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 150
Speaker 162
Speaker 168
Speaker 169
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 191
Speaker 203
Speaker 205
Speaker 206
Speaker 207
Jim Lynch
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 108
Speaker 217
Speaker 89
Speaker 139
Speaker 224
Irma Hendricks
Unverified
Speaker 77
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 247
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 176
Speaker 261
Speaker 267
Speaker 269
Speaker 271
Speaker 279
Speaker 164
Speaker 281
Speaker 270
Speaker 289
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Speaker 299
Speaker 218
Speaker 185
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Speaker 294
Speaker 316
Speaker 320
Speaker 268
Speaker 284
Speaker 328
Speaker 329