House Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB326
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ommittee thank you much we'll go ahead and have you present Senate bill 326 20 year 26 okay”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1975
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…'ll go ahead and recognize Representative Harris to present House Bill 1975 Representative Harris you're recognized”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB319
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “Vice Chair Powers will be presenting Senate Bill 319 for Senator Malone. Mr. Vice Chair, you are recognized to p…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB626
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…senator Madison you're recognized to present that thank you Senate bill 626 amends the juvenile code”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1544
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1544”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1037
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1037”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1006
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1006”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB751
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB751”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB858
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB858”
|
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
that y'all can do to make me look better, I would appreciate
it. Thank you. First up on our agenda will be representative... I set you beside me. Yeah. First up on the agenda is Representative Stewart to present House Bill 1544. Representative
Chair
Unverified
0:22
Stewart, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
0:29
being true to my word, I brought the military back with
me to run this bill. This
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
0:34
is a pretty simple bill, is to make the military code of Arkansas consistent with federal law concerning dependency and neglect actions. We're basically bringing a person who is on Title 32 or drill status, I mean, Title 32 orders or state active duty orders in line with federal law in stays of proceedings. And if we have any questions, I have an attorney from the National Guard here to answer questions.
Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Doc Gaskell, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:11
Thank you, Madam Chair. What is it now? What's the difference
Lieutenant Natalie
Unverified
1:17
in it now? Go ahead. You have to identify
Speaker 13
1:20
yourself and go ahead. My name is Lieutenant Natalie Garland. I'm a state attorney advisor for the state military department. Honey, you're
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:27
going to speak in a little more. I'm old and
Speaker 13
1:30
can't hear very well. Sorry about that. It's Lieutenant Natalie Garland.
I'm a state attorney advisor for the state military department and the JAG office. The law as it is right now, what is it they're changing it from? We're just
Speaker 17
1:47
adding. Adding to it. Right. Okay. Can you explain that? Okay.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:52
What we're doing right now, the law only covers active duty when you're doing a stay of proceedings. If a person is activated on state active duty orders or Title 32, he is not afforded the same protection under the federal laws as an active duty person is.
So a person who is involved in a court proceedings would get a stay while he is activated on state active duty or on Title 32 orders, just like an active duty person, no more, no less. And that's all we're doing. Okay. That answers my question. Thank
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
2:25
you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any other
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
2:36
questions from the committee? Representative Summers, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time, Madam
Chair. Seeing no further questions, I'll recognize that motion.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? If not, Representative Summers, you're recognized. Move, do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Motion carries. Your bill passes. I'm going to
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
2:59
say you're very professional this morning. Oh, well, thank you. Hear that, Mom?
Mother, would you please stand? There's a request to see which one you are. That's my mother, Debbie Malone. Thank you. next up
on our agenda is representative lee to present house bill or house resolution 1037 representative lee you're recognized to explain your resolution thank you madam chair and happy birthday no i'm not
Chair
Unverified
3:38
singing happy birthday was that the request
Speaker 38
3:46
i expect you to get up on the table here
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Excuse me? Thank you. This is the bill I attempted to bring to you last week, and the amendment had not reached you yet. Now you have the amendment in front of you. If any of you are coming through Pope County, I highly recommend you stop at Potts Inn. It's a really neat historical place in our county. And that's what this resolution is about. It's to honor the historical society and the significance of Potts Inn in my county. And I'd appreciate if you guys would pass this today, because it's Stephanie's birthday, and it's a good day to do something good.
Ms. Merge, you've heard an explanation of the resolution. Are there any questions? Seeing no
questions, what's the will of the committee? Representative Benedict, you're recognized. Thank you madam chair, and
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
4:48
I love to stop at these old stagecoach places one of my favorite and I'd like to make a motion to do pass
We have a motion do you pass is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the resolution Against the resolution if not we have a all in favor say I Any opposed no motion carries congratulations your resolution passes. Thank you madam chair and committee. Thank you
Vice Chair Powers will be presenting Senate Bill 319 for Senator Malone. Mr. Vice Chair, you are recognized to present the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I should say for the audience that talking about making the Chairman look good, I'm not really the Vice
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
6:01
Chair. They just picked out the ugliest person to sit beside you, and that was me, so all right. We're going to start with Senate Bill 319, and
this is Senator Malone's bill. It comes to us, obviously, from the Senate end, and it amends the Arkansas Child Safety Center Act. Just briefly, Child Safety Centers provide a child-friendly, neutral environment where children can be interviewed when they're suspected to be victims of child maltreatment.
This bill amends the section concerning the Memorandum of Understanding between the Child Safety Center and community stakeholders by requiring that when the center is available and when it is appropriate, investigators with DHS and the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division will interview children at the Child Safety Centers when the allegation is sexual abuse or severe physical abuse. This bill also requires that the Memorandum of Understanding require that all persons conducting forensic interviews must be adequately trained and be prepared to testify in a hearing if needed.
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
7:04
And that's basically the gist of the bill, Madam Chair, and I'd like to have Ms. McGee introduced and also Ms. Beverly Eagle. MS. You're recognized to introduce yourself. MS. Thank you.
Speaker 58
7:16
Lisa McGee, I'm assisting the Child Advocacy Centers and Central Malone on their legislation today. MS. And I'm the founder and executive director
Speaker 60
7:24
of the Children's Advocacy Center in Benton County. I've been there for 11 years. Madam Chair, we'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 61
7:31
Committee, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Do we have any questions? Representative Gaskell, you're recognized for a
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
7:41
question. I'm not going to be quiet today. What are you proposing here that isn't already
Speaker 60
7:51
being done? One of the things that happens still sometimes is a child even being interviewed in a law enforcement car or at the home where the abuse happened. And what we're trying to encourage is that when there is a children's advocacy center in the area and it is convenient that that child be taken to that, you know, sometimes
it's just difficult to change, you know, the way we've done things in the past. But what we've seen, like I said, we've been open for 11 years, and we've seen over 3,000 children, and it's amazing. You know, to me, sometimes a trauma can be even where the child is being interviewed. Maybe they will disclose in that arena, but yet just to have a more friendly environment, to have people that are specifically trained to respond to it, I think that if any of you would think where you would want your child or grandchild to be interviewed at a child
Advocacy Center versus the place where it happened. Even schools, I think taking a child into a principal's office and interviewing him there is not an appropriate place when we have something. There's a lot of really nice police departments in our area, but a police department compared to a children's Advocacy Center is just that's . Okay. All right. Satisfied
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
9:04
me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Question.
Representative Summers, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
9:12
Madam Chair. Representative, by having Director Ingle at the table, that brings you even more credibility.
That's good. Her organization does a great job in northwest Arkansas. My question, are there child safety centers? Are there numerous ones around the state? What's the definition of that? I like the bill. I'm just curious about that part. Sure.
Speaker 60
9:32
We are developing more, but I believe there are 11 across the state now. Our goal would be to have one where a child only has to travel an hour. There are some areas that do not have that yet, but in the more populated areas, there
are. And they are called Child Safety Center or Children's Advocacy Centers, but they are
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
9:56
the same thing. And that language under D1, when available and appropriate, means that if it wasn't available, there would be another resource perhaps. Yes, sir.
And let me just expand on that a little bit, Representative Summers. Of course, I live in
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
10:12
Hope, and we have one in Texarkana, and kind of dovetailing what Dr. Gaskell asked, we have very good police officers, but over the years they've come
to understand that getting an appointment in Texarkana and letting the experts of the experts in this field deal with those interviews is certainly a benefit not only to the child but in how they proceed in their court cases. So I can't say enough about what these
Chair
Unverified
10:50
centers do. Representative Harris, you're recognized.
I'd like to make a motion at the proper time. Seeing no further questions, Representative Harris, you're recognized
to make your motion. make a motion that it do pass we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye aye any opposed no motion carries bill passes thank you committee thank you committee thank you much we'll go ahead and have you present Senate bill 326 20 year 26 okay
Speaker 80
11:36
Committee, Senate Bill 326 is, again, a bill by
Senator Malone that expands the persons who can report mental injury to
a child abuse hotline. Currently, the only people who are mandated to report mental injury are a medical or mental health professional, a teacher, or a daycare center employee. This bill will now allow a school counselor to make a report of mental injury if the child didn't disclose it to a teacher. If a child did disclose to a teacher, that teacher is mandated to report, and that report will be accepted.
And if a child did not disclose to a teacher, but the school counselor has cause to suspect a child is suffering from a
mental injury, the school counselor can now make that report to the child abuse hotline. And that is
Senate Bill 326. Committee, you heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any
questions? Representative Harris, you're recognized. Just a question. It's one thing
to know and then to suspect.
What are the lines that are going
to be drawn? Well, I think there's a reasonable cause to suspect, and frankly, you know, making
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
12:53
a report to the hotline is just simply giving the hotline an opportunity to decide what they want to do at that point, possibly weed it out or to go forward. So I'm sure,
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
13:06
and the hotline gets plenty of calls in regards to this particular issue and many others, those are professionals that are trained to pick up on certain instances
and do a good job. So we probably have some that maybe suspect and don't have the reasonable cause, but it But still, in my opinion, better be safe and sorry on this deal. Seeing no other questions from the committee, what's the will of
the committee? Representative Summers, you're recognized. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Any opposed, no. carries and your bill
passes thank you committee thank you chair and I have one more madam chair I think that's Senate bill
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
14:08
626 by senator Madison you're recognized to present that thank you Senate bill 626 amends the juvenile code
and the bill clarifies when a person is allowed to use a restraint such that it doesn't constitute child abuse in compliance
with new federal law, adds that reasonable efforts are not required to reunite a child with a parent if the parent is required to register with the sex offender registry. It amends the definition of sexual abuse to mirror the changes in the Child Maltreatment Act. It matches the criminal code and raises the age for a juvenile offender from 10 to 13. It defines temporary and permanent custody. It clarifies that juvenile court has jurisdiction to hear cases when the permanent order of custody disrupts.
It clarifies when juvenile court has jurisdiction when child maltreatment is involved and a person files a pleading in another court. It expands the authority of the juvenile judge to enter emergency orders to protect the health or physical well-being of a juvenile from immediate danger. It allows the adjudication hearing to be continued for an additional 30 days if necessary, and relevant evidence cannot be obtained in a timely manner. And it clarifies service of process on parents on the petition to terminate parental rights, And those are the highlights of Senate Bill 626, Madam Chair, and we'll be happy to answer questions.
Members, we've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions? Seeing
no questions, what's the will of Representative Gaskell? We have no
questions, so I'll go ahead and recognize you for your motion. Do pass. We have a motion due pass. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed no? Motion carries, and your bill passes. Thank you, members. We appreciate your support. Representative Williams has stepped out of the room to call Senator Madison to see if she wants him to run her other bill, but while he's doing that, we'll go ahead and recognize Representative Harris to present House Bill 1975 Representative Harris you're recognized
Thank You madam chair I Wanted to hurry and run this bill just before representative Walker gets
here, so that was my whole Purpose they're not because I wanted to go out of turn But this House Bill 1975 was brought to my attention by some constituents. It's an act to require a criminal background check by a private business that provides
short-term childcare. And the whole point of this bill is they're in athletic gyms like World's Gym, Pulse Fitness
are different. They have childcare facilities in their business, but they don't have to be licensed. There's no oversight of who they hire to take care of these children, and so this would just require a background check and a central registry check to make sure that the people who are working in these short-term facilities are not sex offenders or child abusers
in any way. Representative Hickerson,
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
17:43
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Representative, is this – how easy is it to do a background check? I mean, can a private
business just very easily get online or call the state police, or what's the
process? There's forms provided by the Department of Human Services, and they just fill out the form. Either the employee or the employer pays the $10 to get the background check. They send it off, and then it comes back. It's real easy.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
18:15
It's an easy process. Okay, but you can't do it quickly, like online or whatever. They would have to wait until
Speaker 108
18:24
that's processed and back to them. Currently, I don't believe
you can do it online. Okay, thank you.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
18:33
Representative Gaskell, you're recognized for a question. Is this going to essentially cover all these kids now? Because we've got long-term criminal background checks, So by the short term, we're going to give checks on all of them, right?
Speaker 110
18:47
That is correct. People working with children. Thank you. Thank you
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
18:55
very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Benedict, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Harris, just give me an example of a situation of who provides the short-term child care. What kind of employers provide
that? Well, some that we have, of course, in my rural district,
we don't have it, but we're eight miles south of Fayetteville, we can go to Pulse Fitness. They have a child care facility, or I think it's Fayetteville Athletic Club.
They have a child care facility in there. The children are there an hour to two hours or less, and they go in there. They're monitored. They're taken care of by a particular employee. And so during that time would give them opportunity. if they're with a sex offender or someone that hurts children, that would be
an ample opportunity for that to
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
19:42
happen. So these people are already hired working in that position, and it's not like, let's say, in a small business
and somebody had brought a child or two to work with them for an unexpected reason. You know, they didn't have somebody take care of them or that, and they had them on the job with them. And then let's say they just had to leave that facility for 20 or 30 minutes and wanted to leave the children there. I mean, I have a business on an airport that even customers come in and for maybe a short time they want to walk out on the runway where we don't allow children and leave their children inside my business.
Does that mean that I would have to, I couldn't, they couldn't leave them there without everybody
inside there having a background check? No, because you don't have a representative Benedict childcare facility for short term. Here is an example. These places of,
at these gyms, they actually have a facility set up. This is just for private businesses that actually provide the services
Speaker 113
20:37
of childcare. Okay. That's exactly what I wanted to get clear. Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair
Powers, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm just trying – does this
apply to churches? Churches, from my understanding, that is a good question.
I don't know, and it just crossed my mind. I
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
21:01
mean, I've never – my other question is, I know there's a case, and I think it's in northwest Arkansas, where, and I could be mistaken, there was someone painting or doing construction work at an elementary school or preschool or whatever, and he was fired, and he challenged, and it's all wrapped up in the courts. And I don't think this necessarily compares to that, but while I was thinking about the different businesses, because, you know, I used to own a health club years ago.
It doesn't look like it, but I did. And, you know, the people that did my babysitting, I mean, there was
never a problem, obviously. But the genesis of this, was there a problem, a specific problem that you know about? And then I would ask a question about the churches. I mean, I don't want
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
21:47
to cast aspersions, but, you know, I know I was in church. We had our little niece in church a couple of weeks ago, and I always want her with me. But my wife said, you know, she has to go back to child care.
So it's just a question that kind of crossed my mind. I'd like to know the answer
to that. Well, I know specifically in this bill it says a private business,
and I wouldn't consider a church a private business. I would think it's good routine for them to do background checks, but that's not the intent of this bill. I know the churches we go to do background checks on their people who work with children.
Well, and I agree, I don't consider them a business either, and maybe it is voluntary and should be done.
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
22:39
But the other part of my question, is there a specific incident that brought this about, or does it pertain to health clubs, or is that just kind of the example? That was just an example. As
far as a specific incident, there isn't one that I have. The constituent didn't have her. I asked her if her child was, you know, abused in any way, and she said no. But I talked with the just, and I won't give you a name because I don't know, but I talked with the state police, and they said it happens more oftentimes than not.
They're big cases, and I think it was DHS also that I talked to, that when it does happen, it's huge. but it doesn't happen very often in places like Fayetteville Athletic Club. But it's just
these things are overlooked, and we don't know who we're hiring and who we're putting with our kids. And my other question, I
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
23:31
think you kind of answered it earlier. What is the cost of getting this done to the small business?
I've got the state police here, but I think for the central registry it's $10,
And for the state police, I think it's $25 or $26.
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
23:52
Have you had any input or backlash, I guess I should say, from the small business community? Or any input at all from those folks? No, I've not had
any input. No backlash, no... Excuse me. So it'd be safe
to say we don't know whether they have a position or not? That's correct.
All right. Thank you. I have a quick question. In the bill, what's the definition of short-term care, 30 minutes, an hour,
two hours? Your mom's a professional witness, so she may be able to answer this. But I think
to be licensed, it's five children or less. You don't have to be licensed. And then I think two hours is the maximum considered short-term. that's I've always done long term so I don't know the short term do you want
Speaker 113
24:53
your professional witness to come up I would love to have her come up
she didn't know she was a witness but if she would I'd love for
it to come in miss Malone When you're being
Speaker 131
25:10
called to the table. Would you please state
your name for the record and who you're
Speaker 134
25:21
with? My name's Debbie Malone, and I'm a director of Central Presbyterian Child Development
Center in Fort Smith. And let me just say, I think any time you work with children that you need to have a a background check, you would be amazed at the people that try to work with children. And it is a very simple process. The state police is $19.50. The criminal back is free. The criminal background check is free. And when you're looking at someone being in these clubs or, as you stated, if they have
a childcare center set up, then it only takes five, ten minutes for something to occur. And these individuals that have this particular background, they look to be with children. So I think really it's a very inexpensive and a very small way of protecting our little ones. And in these clubs, you know, because I have a grandchild that goes to one, and she started when she was six weeks old going. She had very young children in there.
And then also the answer to the church, I work at a church, and the particular church that I work at, if they are an employee on staff, they are required to have background checks. Your Sunday school teachers, you know, who come in just for maybe the Sunday morning, I'm not aware that they have to have them, but if they are on staff, a lot of the churches now are requiring the background checks. Now, that is a church policy, not a state
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
26:55
mandate. Yes, sir. That is the church policy, is my understanding.
Okay. What's the definition of short-term care? Do you know or you – That I do not know for sure what that – if
Speaker 134
27:11
there is a particular definition. But I would say if you're in care, like I said, you know, 10, 15 minutes short-term care. I don't know that there's a real definition on, yeah. Do
you also like to think that you're on the Early Childhood Development Commission?
Speaker 134
27:33
Yes, I am a commissioner on the Early Childhood Commission. Okay. Yes. Representative Benedict,
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
27:41
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Harris, isn't it possible for somebody that has a very small business but wants to provide this service just as a nice service to his customers, that maybe they don't have somebody hired in a permanent position to do that, and whoever is available might be a sister, might be an employee that maybe does other work, you know, most of the week,
that they don't actually have a person hired for this position, and they get somebody who happens to be available that evening to watch five or six children, of somebody that may be there and they may not be there. I mean, I just can see that if
you don't even know that you're going to have children to watch that particular evening, you wouldn't have somebody hired to
do that job. Well, I think in your question, hypothetical, is they're not providing child care if that's not the service they give.
I mean, I'm not talking about a babysitter as far as, oh, well, I'm going to have children and we're having
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
28:43
a baby. But if you run. Well, even in a small club, I could see in a health club that, especially in our county, that it might be an evening you don't even know you're going to have anybody in your health club, but to have a person hired to do a job to watch them children there, they wouldn't have them. I guess our counties are just much smaller than yours, but they would get a lady from a church who was available that evening or something like that, but not have a permanent employee to do that.
Well, what this bill is saying, that if you provide short-term child care at any small club and you work with children, you must have a background check. I understand. Because that is where, you know, I don't believe it's going to – I think you're going to have more of a hardship if something happens to that child than, you know, to have your bases
covered as a business. This is really protecting the business also from lawsuits and not doing the right thing. MS. I understand.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
29:39
I just can see a potential problem with on some evenings having to turn the children away and say, I'm sorry, I don't have somebody here today that had a background check
that could do that. That's the problem I see with it. Thank you. I can
appreciate the intent of it, though, absolutely.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
30:01
MS. Thank you. MS. Representative Hickerson, you're recognized. MS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Harris, do you believe that any business that provides child care for any length of time
should have a background check done on its employees
to provide that child care? Yes, I do. Thank you. Yeah, Representative Harris, I'm going to
– I think we have a conflict here with the
Speaker 143
30:38
code. Okay. And I'm going to – I think this is Section 2078-202.
It defines child care facility, but it also,
however, the definition does not include special schools or classes operated solely for religious instruction, and I guess that would be churches. Facilities operated in connection with a church, shopping center, business, or establishment where children are cared for during short periods of time while parents or persons in charge of the child are attending church services, shopping, or engaging in other activities
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
31:18
during this period. So I think I'm not against what you're doing, but it seems to fly in the face of the current law. With what you just
read, of course I'm not an attorney or have any inkling to be one, you just said if they're affiliated with the church. Did I miss? Well, I think it
mentions businesses, too. Okay. And we'll throw
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
31:44
church out because I think it answered that question that I had, that churches were excluded.
Right. And they weren't mandated to do what you asked. But the exclusion includes, let me find it again, shopping center, businesses, or establishment where children are cared for during short periods of time while their parents or persons in charge of the child are attending, shopping, or engaging in other activities during that period,
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
32:18
which could be working out, which was your example.
And I mean, I'm not trying to be a downer to your bill, but I think you might ought to have a look at this before Representative Walker gets back in here. And I'm not an attorney either. I understand. But I read a lot of statutes just like everyone else,
Speaker 56
32:41
and I think that's what I'm seeing. And, of course, Ms. McGee is a lawyer,
and we're trying to kind of do this on the fly.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
33:18
You know, the purpose is, would we want to amend the definition of childcare facilities? Ms. McGee, if I could have you
sit at the end of the table, please. Representative Williams, you're recognized. Let me give some free legal advice. If
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
33:33
we pass his bill, his bill would simply just supersede what's currently in statute. So the question is, do you want his bill, or do you want what's currently in statute, or do you want to amend your bill to comply with what's currently in statute? in statute that's really our choices here go ahead mr. with the Department of Human
Speaker 58
33:55
Services in my area is not childcare there's another lawyer that handles that but I used to do this in the past as best as I can tell you define childcare and excluded these types of things excluded the churches excluded the private businesses so now the question is do y'all as a group want to say but for the private business that does the short-term care which as far as I can tell is not defined anywhere, do you want those people to have criminal background checks even though they're not in this definition? So I think
Chair
Unverified
34:21
that's the question before y'all. Representative Williams, you're recognized.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:26
Mr. Harris, one – not taking a position on your bill, but one concern I would have is
that we don't define what short-term childcare is, and so that would be subject to interpretation. You may want to define what that is so people who think they provide short-term care actually duplified short-term care know that they need to comply with this law. Without a definition, it may be unclear on who's providing short-term care because we don't define that. Does that mean 30 minutes? Does that mean an hour? What
does that exactly mean? And if it's not defined in the code anywhere, you probably want to define that somewhere.
Well, I guess what I was looking at as far as long-term care is defined, and anything that's not long-term is short-term. But if we need to – I mean, I don't know the procedure because we're running out of time. really feel like this is not a bad bill I don't think we're I think it's a good bill and so to not losing time I don't know if we could amend it on the Senate side and I don't or just amend it right here I don't know what the procedure is well first of
all I don't think it's a bad bill either I just think we it needs
to we need to make it jive with what we have to answer your question about you're going to start it down here and then run it on the Senate end I mean
Speaker 73
35:43
it's and didn't have it amended it had to come back yeah well yeah I mean that's that that would be a tough tough
yes just if in the Arkansas licensure handbook it def it does have a definition and I can if we're
going to meet again I can bring this back up that we it does have there is a definition because I
do know my licensing handbook so it is defined in the code and
we will be meeting again so okay representative Sanders so he could he could
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
36:21
go do that file a member zone will be Friday and then that give you plenty of time to work
but we may not even need to amend it if it is defined correct that in the regulation book
you still would need to amend it you still
need to amend it to define it. Representative Williams. I don't know
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
36:41
what your licensure book requires, but if the license requirement that you're speaking of, if the short-term care facility is not licensed under that statute, then those regulations wouldn't apply to them. So if you want that definition to apply to them, you should put it in code. Because if you're talking about the definition of short-term care in a long-term care statute, and I'm a short-term care provider and I'm not licensed that statute, then that wouldn't apply to me. And if
you're correct, that's why I'm not an attorney.
I appreciate there's attorneys like you. I never dog them, but it is code. It is a code. So our minimum licensing is code. It's law. And the short term is defined in that code. And I can bring that back. I don't want if I need to pull it and bring it back this afternoon and amend it, we can Well, let me make one other suggestion,
too, is that you have a look at this statute, and I'm going to give it
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
37:39
to you in just a moment and see if you see any pitfalls with the rest
of it. And you might just want to get with Ms.
McGee or someone, because I don't think it's a bad bill either, Representative Harris. I just think that when we get it out of here and if it's going to have to pass the scrutiny of, you know, the full House and then in Senate, whatever committee we're putting it down there, I guess their aging committee too, then that's where we want to stand
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
38:06
up. I don't have any qualms at all about what you're trying to do. I just think we need to be able to tighten it up some where it can sail through.
Okay. Thank you. So I will pull House Field 1975. All right. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Representative Harris.
Representative Harris. Representative Williams, are you ready to present Senator Madison's bill? You are
recognized to present Senate Bill 858. MR. Members,
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
38:47
this is Senate Bill 858 on behalf of Senator Madison.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
38:51
I'm going to present this for her. This bill basically does two things. It provides that notice must be given to the putative father who's acknowledged paternity or has registered on the putative father registry when an adoption proceeding is taking place. That's the first thing it does. The second thing the bill does is it puts parents who adopt children on par with parents who are having a biological child. So if an employer, public or private, gives maternity or paternity leave for a worker who's having a baby,
then that employer would also have to give maternity leave or paternity leave to a parent who is adopting a child. Now, if the child that's being adopted is a child that has been in foster care, being adopted by the foster parent, then that wouldn't apply. If the child's over 18 years of age, then that wouldn't apply. And if the child is being adopted by a spouse of a custodial parent, then that wouldn't apply. So basically, this section tries to put biological and adoptive parents on the same footing.
I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. Members, you've heard an explanation of the
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
40:10
bell. Representative Summers, you're recognized for a question. I just asked Representative Williams to define that word, putative,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
40:17
I think you called it. Putative father. What does that mean? I'll look to Ms. McGee if there's a true definition, but I believe that's just alleged to be the father. I believe that's what that means. Alleged to be the father. Obviously, a child, you know a child is a mother's child, obviously.
There may be some question to whether it's the dad, you know,
mama's baby daddy's maybe. That's really what it means. Representative Sanders, you're
recognized for a question. Yeah,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
40:49
I'm looking at the bill, Representative Williams. Do I read this correctly
so that if a couple adopted a child that was six years old, they would be given leave? Only if the employer
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
41:05
would give that same leave to someone who had a child.
This doesn't require the employer to give leave. It just says if the employer is going to give leave to a parent who has a child,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
41:20
then they also would give parent. Of that age? Because let me add, seriously, on this one is, obviously, if there's a newborn that comes into a family and there's leave, I mean, it's certainly understandable. As a father of five children, I understand that. But if a family adopts maybe a 5-year-old, a 6-year-old, a 10-year-old, would that leave policy then be extended to that family as well?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
41:47
Well, the purpose for the, on
lines 25 through 27, that was really to try to exclude the situation that you're talking about. Most adoptions really, unfortunately, are of newborns. it's very hard for an older child to be adopted. So that's why we try to exclude children, well, obviously over 18 years of age, and those that have been in foster care. Usually a child who's older that's been adopted has been in foster care for long periods of time.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
42:19
And so that was our intent of trying to exclude that. Okay, so it would exclude a family
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
42:29
who adopted a child who was in foster care. Is that correct? If being adopted by the foster family, yes. So if I had a child in foster care in my care for six months,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
42:43
a year, and then I choose to adopt that child, then this would exclude me from this statute. Okay. Let me give you a scenario. We adopt my nephew who's six years old. My wife and I both work for an entity that allows for leave for newborns.
I mean, I think that's sort of the intent. would we then be eligible for leave from our job?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:06
Only if your employer would allow that. If you look at line 7, an employer that permits paternity or maternity leave for a biological parent after the birth of a child. So at 6 years old, you are after the birth of a child, but I don't think any employer is going to give you leave for a 6-year-old child.
You would have to take that maternity leave upon
Speaker 184
43:26
birth. That was the heart of my question. So it would have to be comparable leave.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
43:31
Absolutely. Okay. That's what I needed. No, absolutely. The adoptive parent's not getting any more rights than a biological parent under this bill. It's actually, right now, they don't have the rights that a biological parent does, and we're
trying to make them at least somewhat equal. Thank you very
much. I have a quick question. On the second page, line 16, section 3, it says ill child. Can you give me the definition of it? isn't I don't know how
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:02
we define the old child here or a child with disability we
don't define the disability but what I will say about that is only if an employer would give
this didn't require an employer to do anything if an employer would give some type of leave to if it was a biological child then the adoptive child and parent would be subject same leave so whatever if a employer would give leave to someone because their child was ill then we're saying, that was their biological child was saying, also give that same leave to someone if it's your adoptive child. That's all we're saying here. And that would clearly be up
to the employer on what their leave policy
states. Representative Benedict, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
44:46
My concern would be that some of these employers, definitely you have to admire them for their willingness to give leave in these situations. But would you not agree, Representative, that the original intent of giving leave to a birth mother might
have something to do with the physical effects of having a child and the physical effects of having to help take care of that mother shortly after birth, which is why you would give the father some leave also, a situation that adoptive parents do not undergo? No,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:23
I wouldn't agree. I think that the Family Medical Leave Act and laws like that relate much more than just to physical issues. It also may relate to having a newborn in your house and just to dealing with a newborn. Being a father who's not physically had a child, I can assure you that there is an adjustment for the father
as well as the mother that are much beyond just physical needs. And so I would suggest that it's much more than just a physical issue. That's why these laws have been
passed. MS. Okay. Thank you. That's the opinion I wanted. MS. Representative Harris, you're recognized. MS. To go back
to the putative – to go back to the putative father, which in definition
is saying it's okay to have their child adopted is that correct is that not did i misread that because i missed know what what we're trying to do is to make sure we
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:31
comply with the constitution to give that father notice of the adoption so that if that father is the alleged father then they would also get notice of the adoption so were we not doing that before it wasn't in statute before okay all right thank you madam chair might may have backup i've gotten some assistance on Representative Sanders' question.
And as lawyers disagree, I'm going to give you another side of the opinion. With regard to your six-year-old child scenario, Mr. Sanders, I have folks behind me who disagree with me and believe that it would apply to someone adopting a six-year-old child. Representative Sanders, did
you have your hand up for another question? Okay. Representative Stubblefield, do you have a question?
Seeing no other questions, what's the will of the
committee? Representative Duffinball, you're recognized. Motion is proper time.
Speaker 195
47:38
Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. Is there anyone in
the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. Motion carries.
Speaker 132
48:00
We have Senator Thompson here to present Senate Bill 751. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 197
48:17
Thank you, Committee. Senate Bill 751 is to provide for adult abuse and domestic violence reporting. This bill came from an issue that was brought to me by a constituent who works at the hospital
in Perigold who saw a series of what amounted to abused pregnant women who came into the the ER in the hospital in Perigold, and there is no provision currently in the law that provides for reporting by a health care provider of an abused pregnant woman. This is a may, not a shall. If you look on the bill online, 30, the first page of the bill, a health care provider may
report to a law enforcement agency. So it gives the provider the ability to report any sort of adult abuse to a law
Speaker 198
49:16
enforcement agency if the injured adult agrees or the health care provider determines that the report
Speaker 197
49:24
is necessary to prevent serious harm to the injured adult. The last, if you look on the second page of the bill under F, the health care provider is immune from civil or criminal liability for making the report or for not making the
report, which is very important. So we're not creating a civil cause of action against a health care provider for this bill. In other words, if this bill is enacted and any abused adult, particularly what is designed to cover are abused pregnant women comes into the ER of a hospital and the healthcare provider determines that it's necessary to prevent harm to the adult by making the report, then
the healthcare provider can make that determination and can make the call to law enforcement and not have to worry about whether it's incurring civil or criminal liability, whether or not it makes the report. I originally
Speaker 199
50:33
filed another bill on this that was slightly different.
Speaker 197
50:37
The Hospital Association had some issues with that and was very helpful in working with
Speaker 198
50:43
me on drafting a bill that I believe they are neutral or comfortable with.
So the Hospital Association has vetted this issue, and they don't have a problem with bill I think it's
fair to say members we've heard an explanation of the bill are there any
Speaker 80
51:06
questions vice chair powers you're recognized Senator just help me a little bit here
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
51:12
I'm assuming that this would make it a little easier to prosecute by having this language and because I guess you could report that to
the police now, and also the civil liability, which is, you know, I like that part of it. I just want to make sure we're getting our bang for the buck here. This somehow has given us an opportunity that
Speaker 197
51:38
we don't have at this point? That's correct. As you probably know, there are statutes now that require a health care provider in treating an injured child if they uncover what they believe to be abuse of an injured child that
requires the provider to report the suspected abuse to law enforcement. But there's not anything that really applies to adults. Now I think it's fair to say that providers frankly don't want to be required to any time there's an injured adult, they don't want to be required to report that, and I understand that because an injured adult presumably is competent and can make the decision as to whether that should be reported or not.
The concern with injured pregnant women was the issue of an abusive relationship where the patient may not feel the freedom, for whatever reason, to report suspected violence against her. So that's why we had some May language that allows the health care provider to do that in the event that they believe it's necessary to present serious harm to the injured adult.
And I can tell you this bill is the result of compromise. The lady who works in the ER at the hospital in Perigold wanted me to include language that would have required an automatic temporary restraining order of order of protection to be entered in the event of an injured pregnant woman. And there are a lot of procedural problems with that, although I think some states do something like that. There are some procedural problems with requiring immediately that law enforcement get involved in a situation like that.
But this allows the provider some discretion if it feels that there is a danger to any adult, but particularly vulnerable adults in particularly vulnerable situations to report the suspected abuse. All right. Thank you. That answered my question. Representative Sanders,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
53:49
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Thompson, was the May language part of the compromise that you struck with the hospital association? Yes. Yeah, it was.
Was that it, or were there other compromises that we can see in this
Speaker 208
54:05
bill, or were they just things that you
Speaker 197
54:09
took out? We rewrote the bill, actually, to be perfectly clear. The original bill was different enough that we were concerned that this bill had a different purpose. The original bill was tailored to pregnant adult women, and it included shall language. And so the Hospital Association, and I don't know if they're here.
I don't want to speak for them, but I think this is fair. The hospital association said, why don't we consider any adult, but include some May language, give us discretion to do it, but protect us from liability in the event that we choose not to do it. And that seemed fair to me. I can tell you this issue in different degrees has been floating around out there for a while. Sometimes you may see some bills come through, and I don't know if they come through this committee or not, that deal with burn victims, if there's an issue of somebody shows up with a suspicious burn,
does that have to be reported or shall that be reported? Should it be required for a provider to report that? So you may see this issue come up in other contexts, but I think hopefully this will solve some of the issues and gives the discretion to the provider without imposing potential liability. And is it
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
55:30
fair to say, it goes without saying, that this does not run afoul
Speaker 197
55:35
any HIPAA law, any HIPAA regulations? No, that's a good question, because that was a, and I'm no HIPAA expert,
and I think Representative Sanders is talking about the federal statute that imposes privacy protections for patients of health care providers. And I'm no expert on the HIPAA statute. I know that there are exceptions in the HIPAA statute for dangerous emergency situations. And that apply to adults as
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
56:04
well as children. I could see children
Speaker 197
56:07
not being much of an issue. Yeah. I'm assuming that because the hospital association's attorney drafted this, that they were comfortable with HIPAA.
Senator. I appreciate it. Representative Hubbard, you're recognized. Representative Harris, you're
recognized. On the May and the shall, was the abuse, domestic
abuse, against the pregnant person at the hospital? It would be a woman. Yeah. Well, sorry, the woman. Thank you, Dave. Representative Sanders. It was domestic abuse, correct, in your situation in Perigold?
Speaker 197
56:50
Well, I think it's suspected domestic abuse. I mean, it was a pregnant woman who showed up who clearly had been beat up. Now, whether that was somebody in the home or somebody else, but I think it was clearly some kind of physical trauma
Speaker 198
57:05
that was probably imposed by another person. Now, whether that was domestic abuse, you know, may be a question.
Okay, Mike, they're mandated reporters to report child abuse, correct? I'm sure that they are, yeah.
So I guess my question, why did they have an issue with they didn't want to be liable?
I mean, is it their responsibility to save lives? And if they know or suspect that there's abuse, why would they have an issue with not wanting to report it?
Speaker 196
57:38
Well. The Hospital Association, I'm sorry. Well, I don't want to speak for them. I can only assume that if we had a, if you have a,
Speaker 197
57:48
it's kind of like the old law school example. They say if you're walking along and you see a guy drowning in a pond and you walk right by and watch him drown, you're okay.
You're under no affirmative obligation to do anything. But if you throw him a rope and you screw it up, you're liable for a dead guy, okay? If you make an attempt to save somebody and you fail, you're potentially negligent, but you have no affirmative duty to act. I think probably what they're concerned with is that this statute would create an affirmative duty to act. If we put some May language in there and they don't choose not to do it,
at some point an attorney might say, this pregnant lady died, you could have saved her by simply making a phone call to the police and you didn't do it. So that's why I
Speaker 198
58:42
think they probably wanted the civil liability immunity. Okay. So be safe when you save
somebody. Try to save someone. I think that's a fair
statement. Thank you. Representative Sanders, you're recognized.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
58:58
One more quick question, Senator, if I may. The main language, does it also give them some discretion?
Does that allow them to have discretion? Whereas had it been the shallow language, they wouldn't have had the discretion. So they're able to sort of, you know, because obviously I could see a situation where we can think of all kinds of scenarios in which someone could walk into an ER and have all kinds of, you know, problems and issues and maybe jump to a conclusion, a logical conclusion, and do
Speaker 182
59:28
something. but this clearly gives them discretion. Yeah, I
Speaker 197
59:31
think that's right. And I think for the reason that you pointed out, I think Representative Sanders pointed out,
with a child, a child isn't legally competent. So a child wouldn't always have the ability or know best when to report a problem, especially with a parent or guardian. But an adult presumably has some higher level of competence and can make that decision. So you give the hospital or the health care provider discretion as to determine, okay, this is a 35-year-old guy who was in a bar fight.
I really don't think we need to call the police. I think if he needs to call the police, he can call them. Versus here's a 19-year-old pregnant woman who's clearly had the suit knocked out of her, and we may need to call the sheriff's office and at least notify them of the situation. And would it also
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:00:26
not empower the adult as well to say, you know, to clarify and if they could, you know, walk into an ER and there may be some overzealous doctor or nurse or health care professional who really wants to take a stab at this and give that patient the opportunity to say, hey, hang on, wait a minute, this is.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:00:45
Sure. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Motion at the proper time. Representative Williams, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Thompson, one quick question, and I have no problem with the bill, but on page two, lines one through three, a health care provider that makes a report, what's the rationale for making them let the person – and you
may have answered this question because I was talking. I apologize. But what's the rationale for having them inform the person
Speaker 217
1:01:16
that they're making the report on? What's
Speaker 197
1:01:18
the reason for doing that? Well, I think there are probably several different reasons.
First of all, I'm trying to think through HIPAA. I know under certain circumstances in HIPAA, and I don't know frankly if that's put in for HIPAA language or not, I know under certain circumstances in HIPAA, a healthcare provider can provide information without the consent of an adult but almost always has to give the adult, I mean, the patient notice that the information has been provided.
The example I'm thinking about is a subpoena. I mean, sometimes a health care provider, if it receives a subpoena for medical records, to comply with the subpoena, but it has to give the patient notice that it's providing the medical records. So I don't
Speaker 198
1:02:18
exactly know the answer to your question. I think probably that's done to comply with HIPAA. Also I can think of some policy reasons why if a healthcare provider is going to notify a law enforcement agency of protected health information, it's best that the patient know
that that's being done. So if a sheriff shows up knocking on the door, they're not taken by surprise.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:02:48
Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized. Thanks, Madam Chair. So this just came to my mind, and you may have said this, let's say it's health just refers to line one, two, and three, the health care provider decides to file a report, and And then what if the patient doesn't want it, or protests, how does that work?
Speaker 197
1:03:10
Sure. I mean, that's the issue. I mean, this allows the health care provider to do it anyway, and that's a policy decision. And if you think that under any circumstances a health care provider has to receive consent that when medical records are released, then you're not going to like my bill. The bill, I think, implicitly recognizes that there are some circumstances where with an abuse situation where a health care provider may need the option or the discretion to provide health information even if it determines that the person is at
Speaker 198
1:03:50
– there's a safety risk or that the person has been abused.
It needs the option to provide that information even if the patient
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:04:04
doesn't consent. Does it give the patient an opportunity to explain or maybe talk the health care provider out of doing that? You know what I'm saying? Like, maybe there's a legitimate reason, an accident, you know, hit their head on the door frame, whatever. Still gives the health care provider an opportunity to change his mind if the patient can do it
convinces him that it really was an accident, it wasn't
Speaker 197
1:04:36
abuse? Well, under the bill, the health care provider has to promptly notify the patient that the disclosure has been made. There's no requirement that that notification be given ahead of time. There's no requirement under the bill. Now, the bill does allow the health care provider to do it with the consent under line 34 on page 1 with the consent of the adult.
So presumably the health care provider is going to give, is going to ask, do you want us to call the sheriff's office? And they can do that now. I mean, do you need some help? Do you want us to call law enforcement? Because clearly there's a problem here. But there is no requirement that they go. And I think probably because of that, if you're requiring the provider to go ahead of time, There are going to be situations, perhaps the abuse is so severe that the adult can't respond or can't respond for whatever reason.
Maybe the – so I think that would – I can see your point, and it's a good question, but I think requiring discussions or negotiations on the front end would
Speaker 198
1:05:53
probably effectively get the policy underlying the bill. Appreciate it.
Speaker 225
1:05:58
Thanks. Representative Benedict, do you have a question?
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
1:06:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Thompson, do you think this bill would in any way inhibit or keep somebody from wanting to go seek medical care?
Speaker 197
1:06:13
That's a good question. And that's probably the – that issue comes up any time you have a reporter statute, whether Whether it's a mandatory reporter or whether it's a discretionary reporter. Does a mandatory reporter statute encourage a parent who may be abusing a child from taking the child in for medical treatment? It's a good question.
Do we want to do away with reporter statutes so at least if there's a parent who's abusing a child and goes too far, the parent can still take the child in and not be worried about having the cops called in. So I can certainly see your point. I think to some extent the state of Arkansas and most other states have made the decision that for public policy reasons we do need to have a mandatory reporter statute for children. And I think in this situation I'm asking you to consider having a discretionary reporter
statute for adults. Would it discourage people from seeking medical treatment? I don't know. I think you can make an argument that if you're really worried about that, what we really need to do is do away with mandatory reporter statute before something like this because then you've got a real wrongdoer who's responsible or presumably responsible for bringing the kid in. In this situation, you've got an adult who can make a decision, who can make a decision, I need to seek medical treatment
Speaker 198
1:07:51
and, you know, I can decide whether or not to go seek that treatment. I don't know if I answered your question. I mean, it's a policy decision that you'll have to make. I don't think so, but I can't, you know, I don't have a definitive
Speaker 206
1:08:08
answer to that. Representative Harris, you're recognized. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Just a quick question. What other states have this?
Speaker 198
1:08:22
I don't know the answer to that. Okay. I don't know the answer to whether other states have a discretionary reporter statute. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no
other questions from the committee, Representative Sanders, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:08:38
Chairman. Chair, motion do pass, please. We have a motion
do pass. is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill against the bill seeing none all in favor say aye any opposed no motion carries and
your bill passes thank you thank you next up we have representative
Harris to We present House Resolution 1006. Representative Harris, you're
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is House Resolution 1006, and it's
just to recognize and commemorate the 100th year
of the occupancy of the house of representatives chamber members
you heard an explanation of the resolution we have any questions thing and what's the only and represent hickerson you're recognized do pass you have a motion do pass is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the resolution against
the resolution seeing none all in favor say aye Any opposed? No.
Motion carries. Thank you. All right. I'm going to present House Concurrent Memorial Resolution 1-0-0-1,
Speaker 143
1:10:22
Vice Chair Powers. All right. Chairman Malone, you are recognized. to run House Resolution 10-11.
I believe that's it. 1-0-0-1, 10-0-1. That's correct. 10-11. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Members, this is a House concurrent memorial resolution for Representative Carter, and it is in respectable memory of Mr. James Marvin Park and his recognition of his contributions to
the state of Arkansas and his local community. And I would appreciate a
good vote. any questions from the committee all right no questions
we have a do pass motion from
representative williams all those in favor say aye
all opposed your resolution is passed Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1544
HR1037
SB319
SB326
SB626
HB1975
SB858
SB751
HR1006
HMCR1001
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Stephanie Malone Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Lieutenant Natalie
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 17
Speaker 38
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative David "Bubba" Powers Chair
Unverified
Senator Sue Madison
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 60
Speaker 61
Speaker 80
Representative Justin T. Harris Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 110
Speaker 113
Speaker 131
Speaker 134
Speaker 143
Speaker 56
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 157
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Speaker 184
Speaker 195
Speaker 132
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Speaker 199
Speaker 208
Speaker 209
Speaker 196
Speaker 182
Speaker 217
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 225
Speaker 206