House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1811
· 7 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1811”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB214
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB214”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1606
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1606”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2029
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2029”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2119
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2119”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB707
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB707”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB736
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB736”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB855
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB855”
|
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
Chair
Unverified
0:00
The agenda and our attempt to get all of our work done during the next several days, we're asking that the committee would reconvene following our chamber, following our full house this afternoon, immediately following that. We'll say
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
0:24
10 minutes upon adjournment. And we want to make sure that that notice is provided to everyone at this time.
Chair
Unverified
0:34
If there is no objection from the committee, we will proceed with that so that we will plan
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
0:44
to meet again 10 minutes upon adjournment in order to continue our work as a committee. At this time, we're going to proceed
Chair
Unverified
1:00
with our agenda. First up today, we have Senate Bill 214 by Senator Linda Chesterfield,
and she has been waiting patiently at the end of the table. Senator Chesterfield, you're sitting there as if you believed that
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:14
you actually would be first today. That was the rumor. All right. Well, in this case, rumor also happens to be the truth. Thank
Speaker 4
1:27
you, Mr. Chair. You're recognized. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I present for your consideration Senate Bill 214, an act to establish the crime of cyberbullying. We have worked with the Attorney General's Office.
The Trial Lawyers Association are on board with this legislation. And the reason that we're having it is because so many young people are dying. We have those who are committing suicide as a result of being cyberbullied. We have individuals whose lives are made miserable because of cyberbullying. And it is time that we as a state say that that is not acceptable in the state of Arkansas. I think what's particularly troubling is the fact that people can go into cyberspace,
create you a new identity that you never thought of before in your life, put your face on anything that they want and depict you as any kind of individual they want to depict you as, and send it out across the world. I think if you look at what is happening with the tsunami in Japan, you see how quickly information goes out across the world. The same thing is true of cyberbullying attempts by children and others. We have one case where an adult pretended to be someone else and sent horrible messages to a child,
and that child ended up killing herself. I would appreciate a good vote, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator
Chesterfield, and sorry that I was tardy. Welcome to the House of Judiciary. Always happy to have my senator with us. Members, any questions for Senator Chesterfield? Mr. Ratley. I have a motion at the proper time. Thank you, Mr. Ratley. Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 214, is that right?
Yes. Seeing no one in the audience, Senator, would you like to close for your bill? Mr. Ratliff, do you have a motion? I do pass. That's a proper motion. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing Senate Bill 214 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. You've passed your Senate bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you. Thank you. Senator Pritchard, we've got one other bill, and then we've got you next.
House Bill 1811, Representative Rogers, we promised her we'd run that. We've got an amendment that we're going to pass out, members.
Members, Representative Rodgers would like to amend this bill with this amendment number one. Let's see if we can get this amendment placed on the bill. All in favor of Representative Rodgers, a motion to amend House Bill 1811, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Rogers, you are recognized to present House Bill 1811 as amended.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
5:36
Thank you, members of the committee, and thank you, Mr. Chair. This is something that I came in to the legislature this session with the objective of trying to achieve. I've been working on it since that, actually even prior to session, and whenever I came in, I started trying to ask for some help and to get some information about how to proceed with this. And the AG's office came forward and actually indicated that it was on their radar as well,
that they have had numerous consumer complaints through their Consumer Protection Division. And so with me here today is Sarah Tacker, and she's with the Attorney General's office, so she will be helping to present the bill as well. But let me go a little bit further just to introduce the bill. This bill is an amendment to current law that would modify or amend to require additional information and to encourage loss mitigation and loan modifications before initiating a statutory foreclosure.
What this bill actually is intended to do, as all of you know, as everyone in this audience knows, a person's home is one of their most prized possessions. And a lot of things have happened over the last couple years that have caused circumstances where people were unable or in a position where they did not or had not made payments. And I'm an advocate for anyone or for everyone making their payments and paying their bills. I do mine. I expect others to do theirs as well. But when something happens and there is a missed payment or if there's an initiation of foreclosure,
If the person wants to actually try to make good on this through the loss mitigation, through that process, the loan modification process, I think they should be given the opportunity to do so if they're doing it with due diligence and with the objective of making the loan current. With that, I'm going to ask Ms. Tacker to go ahead and present from the AG side of this.
We will be happy to answer questions at any point, and we will proceed. Thank you. Ms. Tacker, please
give us your name, and you're recognized to proceed. Yes. Mr.
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
8:03
Chairman, members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be with you. My name is Sarah Tacker. I am with the Consumer Protection Division of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office. I'd briefly like to discuss with you two benefits that this bill provides and then ways that it addresses consumer issues that we've seen over the past couple of years.
Currently, with Arkansas's nonjudicial foreclosure statutes, if you are in default on your mortgage, you are going to receive a piece of mail which tells you that you are in default and that the mortgage servicer is intending to sell your property. It is likely that this is the only piece of information you will receive before that for sale sign goes up in your front yard. We are trying to address some concerns that consumers have raised to us, and we are so appreciative to Representative Rogers for her goal in this.
HB 1811 modifies those nonjudicial foreclosure statutes to provide two significant benefits. First, it requires copies of all relevant documents to be sent from the mortgage servicer to the homeowner before they initiate the foreclosure. It also requires that the homeowner be notified of the person who holds their mortgage, the person who is foreclosing on that mortgage, and it provides them with information about loss mitigation and loan modification.
This gives the homeowner an opportunity to review the process that the mortgage servicer has undergone leading up to the default and the foreclosure. It also gives them an opportunity to contact an attorney, an opportunity to raise a defense, and if the foreclosure is inappropriate, to proceed stopping that foreclosure. By notifying a homeowner of loss mitigation and loan modification programs, it allows them time to pursue those to save their home,
to possibly have their balance reduced or their payments modified, either through a government agency that's offering those programs or mortgage servicers also offer loss mitigation programs that they can go through. Through our consumer complaint division, we've gotten a lot of consumer complaints about this. Homeowners have a problem because they don't know who holds their mortgage. They don't know who to address if they want to bring their payments current, but they're in default.
This notification will provide them with that information. They will have address and telephone numbers of who they need to contact. We are seeing complaints where homeowners say they cannot get copies of documents they've requested. By providing these documents before the foreclosure is initiated, it will allow them to have those copies in hand, which they can take to an attorney to address any appropriate problems with the process. The other thing that this does is it requires the mortgage servicer to notify the consumer
whether or not their loss mitigation or loan modification application is going to what the status is and whether or not it's going to be denied or granted. We are seeing complaints where mortgagers don't know what the status of their loss mitigation complaint is, and this will provide that information prior to sale. Thank you, Ms. Rogers. Does that complete your presentation?
MR. Yes, sir. MR. Members, any questions for Representative Rogers? Mr. Rice,
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
11:51
followed by Mr. Vines. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For either one, and I'm sorry if I missed it, does this cover
in-state and out-of-state financial institutions that this information is requested from? MS. Yes. MR. Okay. Yes. Also, where the mortgages have been transferred from one
financial institution to another is for whatever purpose they've received that,
whether it's, I guess, a bank being foreclosed on and taken over by another one, they're still under the law. They're required, even if the previous bank is
the one that didn't have all the information, they're still required to have everything themselves. And oftentimes banks
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
12:36
bundle these notes and sell them, and so this is supposed to, and this legislation will help enable that process to be
able to follow that note a little more closely and transparently about where it is located at a certain point and who actually has possession of it.
Speaker 41
12:53
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
12:59
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Mr. Vines, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just want to make just a point of clarification. This act would only apply to the non-judicial foreclosure. This would have nothing to do
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
13:11
with the regular judicial foreclosure. Absolutely. This only amends the non-judicial foreclosure current act. Okay. Thank you. Mr.
Deffenbaugh, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
13:26
You might have said it, but I was wondering about the timeframe. Did you say anything about the amount of time a person would have to, you know, get a schedule set up or make up for payments? You may
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
13:41
have addressed it. Yes, sir. Part of that is addressed in the
amendment, and that was part of our objective to getting this passed was to allow more time. And on the front end, it allows at least 10 days notice before foreclosure is initiated.
And it goes into detail about what is provided to that person as far as a copy of the note and the mortgage and the assignment. And then it goes into more detail, too, about where the going to the address of the property or what's listed on the people's loan application. And then at the end, as well, it also provides additional time for the notice of foreclosure or
the notice of sale, but it increases that time from 5 to 10 days where a person is notified
at least 10 days in advance of the notice of sale, and again, those documents or that letter is sent by certified mail to the residence that's being foreclosed on, whatever mailing address of the person or property. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:50
Chair. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Steele, we recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for Ms. Tacker. You said that if the foreclosure is inappropriate, the debtor can proceed in stopping the foreclosure.
Can you tell me what the bill does, what kind of defenses it gives a debtor
Speaker 57
15:07
in that situation, how they would go about doing that?
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
15:10
It doesn't provide any new defenses. What it does is it arms them with the documents they need to evaluate the process. It provides a copy of the note, information about the physical location of the note, copies of all assignments. If those procedures haven't been done correctly by the mortgage servicer or the person they have assigned it to, it will provide that information to the homeowner so that they can raise that as a defense to the foreclosure.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
15:33
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Shepard, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A point, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this point. Over on page 3, there's some language that has been stricken. It states at the top of page 3, there's a default by the mortgagor, grantor, or other obligor with respect to any provision in the mortgage or deed of trust. And the language that was stricken referred to a person owing an obligation, the performance of which obligation is secured by the mortgage or deed of trust.
Is this going to restrict a lender's ability to seek foreclosure in the event of default? I guess what I'm thinking is generally when I think of a default, I'm thinking of a default on the note as opposed to the mortgage itself that secures the note. And I'm just not entirely familiar with or I'm trying to think with regard to a mortgage. Does it normally have provisions in there that require payment of the note for which there would be a default?
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
16:41
The language that's stricken at the top of page 3 is because obligor has been added
as a definition to the beginning of the act, and you're not really taking that language out. You're simply substituting the word. And so just for clarification,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
16:56
if a person defaults with regard to the note, it would certainly be, I guess, y'all's belief that that would likewise be a default on the mortgage or the security document as well? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Members, any additional questions?
Seeing none, I don't have anyone signed up. Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1811 as amended? Seeing no one, Mrs. Rogers,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
17:27
would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, this has been something, as I indicated, that I've worked on for almost three months now and worked with a lot of different parties to bring it to this point today, and I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Rogers. We have a motion by Vice Chair Wilkins to do pass. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing House Bill 1811 as admitted,
indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Ms. Rogers. You have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Senator Pritchett, before you sit down, I apologize. I know I've got a couple of senators here who want to run their bills, And I promised a couple of House members that we'd run them as well. Let me tell you our order so you'll know. And I apologize, Senator Pritchard and Senator Rayford. I see you there as well. Mr. Love and Mr. Perry both have bills that we promised they would run on today. They've both been here before.
And then after that, we have Senator Pritchard and then Senator Rayford. If that's okay, I promised them previously they've been here, and I apologize, Senators. But unfortunately, they can get the vote on my bills on this side, so let's get them out of here. And I promise you, we'll get to you guys if that's okay. And if you need to be somewhere, we can page you or call you if you don't have time to sit here. If you're okay. Is that okay, Senator Draper? All right. Thank you. Representative Love, you're recognized for House Bill 1606.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
18:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Okay. House Bill 1606 is basically an act to allow attorney fees and certain actions and for other purposes. I'm here now with Wade Marshall, who represents the firefighters, and what I will do is I'm going to turn it over to him, and then I'll reserve
the right to close later. Thank you, Mr. Love. Mr.
Speaker 71
19:17
Marshall, please give us your name, and you'll recognize. Wade Marshall, Arkansas Professional Firefighters. This bill allows a judge, doesn't
Speaker 72
19:23
require a judge, to award attorney fees in a civil service appeal.
If an employee takes an appeal after a discipline or a demotion or termination, if the judge finds that he was wronged in his termination, he can overturn it. Usually these awards are only getting his position back and lost wages. We're asking that a judge be allowed to, if he sees it necessary or warranted, to allow the attorney fees to that employee. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Love, are you finished right now? Right now.
Okay. Let's see if we've got any questions from the committee first. Seeing no questions from the committee, I don't have anyone signed up to speak against the bill. Is this the only sheet I have? Oh, I do I? I'm sorry. Mr. Hayes, I don't see you signed up. I apologize. You're recognized to speak against the bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Against the bill? Please state your name for the record.
Speaker 76
20:30
I'm Mark Hayes with the Municipal League.
Speaker 77
20:33
A little bit of brief background about Civil Service Commissions, just to put things in context. There are 500 cities and towns in this state. There are fewer than 25 cities and towns with Civil Service Commissions. Civil service commissions are an organizational structure. They are not tantamount to civil rights or a civil rights protection that's covered by Arkansas law and federal law. They deal with promotions, hirings, and disciplinary review.
The proposed statute or the proposed bill would change the statute a couple of ways, And I would note there's a drafting error, I think, on lines 26 and 29, uses the word brought, which I think is supposed to be born, would change the transcript cost to be shifted to the city. In addition to that, attorney's fees are provided, as Representative Love has pointed out,
in a discretionary format, but it's only for one side of the equation. There are always two sides in an appeal. And remember, this isn't an appeal typical of a civil rights statute. It's an appeal of an internal disciplinary matter. So it shifts the sands pretty completely. All the cities that I'm aware of with civil service commissions are opposed to it for fear of the additional costs. I think it will drive the appeal rates up. And I think you'll see those fees granted but only on one side of the equation.
If it was a traditional prevailing party
Speaker 78
22:07
statute, whoever won would be entitled to their fees. That's certainly something that I think those cities would be interested in talking about. But as it stands right now, it's
a one-sided bill. Members, any questions for Mr. Hayes? Mr. Hayes, the chair
has one question. So in your testimony, do I understand you to say that right now, as we currently, as long as currently, you believe that if we change this way
that more suits will be brought because of this change?
Speaker 79
22:38
I think you'll see an increased number of appeals, not suits. Remember, these are just standard appeals. Yes, sir. And the reason
the appeals would be brought, you think,
is because of the possibility of getting attorney's fees? Yes, sir. So you think right now legitimate appeals may be not being brought because there's no possibility of attorney's fees? No, sir. So why are those appeals not being brought now, you think? I think legitimate appeals
Speaker 77
23:02
are being brought, and I think you can hear plenty of that. I know Little Rock has some people here, but I think several of you have civil service commissions in your jurisdiction,
and they are expensive. There are plenty of lawyers that are engaged on both
Speaker 78
23:16
sides of the fence, And it's under the traditional American rule, which has not been, to the best of my knowledge, prohibiting much in the way of litigation throughout the country. And this is
permissive. The judge does not have to award
Speaker 77
23:34
the fee under this litigation. That's correct. It's permissive just like the civil rights statutes are discretionary with the judge. And, of course, in reality, they'll get granted.
And for the record, the chair does no civil service appeals. and will not do any, just for
the record. Any questions from the members? Mr. Walker,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:57
you recognize? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for Mr. Hayes. Is your position a gut position, or is it based upon empirical evidence? It's based upon over
Speaker 77
24:09
20 years of experience in the municipal arena. But it's based on gut, then, because you don't have any empirical evidence?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:20
Walker? Well, empirical evidence to demonstrate that when people get their costs awarded or perhaps fees, that that has a tendency to encourage more litigation. I can't cite you
Speaker 77
24:37
to a statistic, no, sir. Thank you. Now, with respect to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:43
the awarding of fees, you do agree that it is subject to the court's exercise of reasonable discretion?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:57
sir. It's a discretionary standard. And discretion is something that's
Speaker 88
25:02
subject to judicial review? Meaning an appeal to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:05
either the Court of Appeals or the Arkansas Supreme Court? Yes, sir. so that there are checks and balances in place to keep a firefighter or other person affected by an adverse ruling. There are things in place which prevent the Civil Service Commission from being disadvantaged.
Speaker 79
25:27
Well, it would be the city, and I think in reality, if it
Speaker 77
25:32
were a true prevailing party statute, that would probably be true. But in this sense, it's not. It's only for one side of the equation. It's not a prevailing party. It's just if the employee wins. Traditionally, as you
Speaker 78
25:44
know, in the world that you and I have litigated in, it's the prevailing party has that opportunity, whichever side of the equation they may be on in the litigation. As I recall,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:56
the Municipal League opposed the prevailing party standard as well
when it was first initiated. Do you recall that? MR. We did not
Speaker 77
26:05
oppose the prevailing party when it was ñ I spoke against portions of the civil rights bill that was originally put forward because it included statutory references. Those were cleared up and, in fact, I testified in favor of it
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:19
at the end of that discussion. MR. You do understand ñ do you do agree that firemen have less resources than a city to pursue their belief that they have been mistreated.
Speaker 77
26:33
To be clear, Civil Service Commissions apply to uniformed services, so it's not just firefighters, it's police officers, so I'll presume your question relates to both uniformed services. Well, it does. No, sir, I would not agree with that. The Civil Service Commission system has a series of checks and balances in it. It is a, I mean, and I don't mean this in a negative way, it's a bureaucratic structure. It has a very lengthy set of rules and regulations that get put into place, and it has a variety of additional steps that management must take. So I don't think anybody is disadvantaged in that process.
And, in fact, the process is quite expensive for the taxpayer by virtue of what cities have to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:10
pay for to put the structure in place. And finally, if you'd mind, Mr. Chair, the – pardon me, I'm catching a cold, and I apologize for this question in this forum. but the city attorney for the
city represents the city at the proceeding. Isn't that correct? He represents the city, but there
Speaker 77
27:29
are two other. And the Civil Service Commission. No, sir. There are typically three lawyers engaged by the city that have Civil Service Commissions.
The city attorney represents the city. The commission engages their own lawyer, and then another lawyer is hired to represent the chief's decision-making process. So typically the city has to engage three lawyers,
Speaker 80
27:48
whereas in a non-civil service commission city, only the city attorney is engaged.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:53
So that means that the firefighter or the policeman in that situation has to be confronted by three lawyers, all of whom are being paid?
Speaker 78
28:03
No, sir. Only one lawyer is confronting the employee, and that's the lawyer that's representing the chief in those proceedings.
Thank you. Just to follow up on that, then who pays the other two lawyers, Mr. Hayes? The city does. The city does. Yes, sir. All right. I guess our discussion is encourage some other folks to sign up. We've got a few more people signed up. Any additional questions for Mr. Hayes? Seeing none, we have Roger Smith from the Arkansas FOP who signed up to speak for the bill. Roger, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Roger Smith
Unverified
28:41
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Roger Smith.
On this particular bill, I represent the Arkansas Fraternal Order of Police. This bill, because of its permissive nature, really allows a decision to reward attorney fees to the judge. And if the judge clearly feels that the individual has been wronged, I think this at least gives them the opportunity to have their case heard. The current law is kind of discouraging for somebody with limited resources to bring a
case for fear that if they lose, then they've experienced a great deal of expense. So as a matter of fairness, FOP supports this bill. They think it would make for
Speaker 102
29:22
a better situation in being able to take an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WONG- Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any questions for Mr.
Smith? Would you take questions from Mr. Smith? Mr. Walker has a question. Yes, sir. Representative Walker. Thank you,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
29:39
Mr. Chair. You said it awards fees to the judge. You didn't mean that.
Roger Smith
Unverified
29:44
I meant the judge has the ability to, if I said it incorrectly, please excuse me. Well, I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
29:49
understand you're nervous, but it's not, the judge doesn't receive any fees. No, sir. He makes only an award of fees. What I intended to
Roger Smith
Unverified
29:58
say was that it's permissive from the standpoint that the judge decides whether or not to reward. A award. Award fees.
Speaker 109
30:05
Yes, thank you. Mr. Wilkins has a question? Thank
Chair
Unverified
30:12
you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, you would term this as a kind of leveling of the playing field?
Speaker 116
30:21
Representative Wilkins, that would be a very good way of putting it.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
30:32
Yes, sir, I would agree. Thank you. Mr. Steele? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Do you know
of any reason why we would not allow for the opposite? why we wouldn't just give discretion to the judge
Roger Smith
Unverified
30:43
to award attorney's fees on either side? Representative Steele, I don't probably have a good answer for
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
30:47
that. I don't know why. No. Would you have any objection if the bill did award attorney's fees to either side?
Roger Smith
Unverified
30:52
I think the most objectionable thing in that case would be that that just would act again as a deterrent from any member, firefighter, police officer, from bringing a suit for fear that if they lost, it would become very expensive. And that's really what this bill is about, is to open the door so that if they feel they've been unjustly treated, that they have an avenue to bring their
Speaker 116
31:16
appeal. I think what you suggest would make that more difficult.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rogers, if that were the case, what Mr. Steele suggests, that both sides would pay,
would you agree that the firefighter as a taxpayer would actually be paying those attorney's fees as well? Yes, sir.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
31:38
Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Walker, you
recognize me. One other question. Are you aware that in the event that an appeal is frivolous, the court already has the power to sanction the party bringing the frivolous appeal or taking the frivolous action? Yes, sir. I'm aware. So that the city is not disadvantaged unfairly
because if something is found frivolous, then the city can obtain its fees. I'm not certain
Roger Smith
Unverified
32:08
how that mechanically works, but I'll have to assume, sir, that you are correct. Thank you,
Mr. Smith. Next, anyone in the audience want to speak against House Bill 1606? Against House Bill 1606, seeing no one. Ed Jarros, you're recognized to speak for House Bill 1606. Please state your name and let us know who you're with. Yes, sir.
Speaker 130
32:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Ed Jaros, and I'm the President of the Arkansas Professional Firefighters. This is a bill that we support and we actually encourage. I also have over 20 years in the municipal arena been a firefighter here in Little Rock for over that time and have dealt with actually assisting my members here in Little Rock with making a determination whether or not to appeal a disciplinary action or not. The thing that has to be realized right off the bat, and many of these disciplinary actions
are not ever appealed. Most of the time, the disciplinary action is just, is deserved, it doesn't even go to civil service. Mr. Hayes spoke about the system being expensive. I don't feel like it's that expensive to make sure that you're doing right. Representative Steele asked a question about why it wouldn't go the other way. Well, the determination of whether or not to initiate the disciplinary actions on the city is not on the employee. The employee can't initiate anything, it's the city's job to initiate the disciplinary
action. If they do it in a just way and they make sure that they've covered all their bases and make sure the employee is guilty of the infraction and award a just discipline, it typically never is appealed. We're looking at cases that we feel that the employee feels like they were wronged, and they're willing to go out there and spend their money and take a risk spending their money on an attorney to appeal the decision based upon the facts of the case. And in the cases where the employees were disciplined wrongly, it's only fair to make
sure that those employees were made whole again and not harmed in any way by the action that was brought forward by the employer. I think that's the biggest reason that we're supportive of this and we want to move this thing through is because if an employee is found to be completely innocent of the charges brought against them through action that was initiated by the employer, they should have a way to be made whole. They shouldn't be out money because they were disciplined for something that wasn't just. And typically in these cases, if the judge sees that the employee was partially at fault
in the issue, typically what happens in the rulings from my experience of dealing with it is that the disciplinary action is reduced in some way, and that's usually what happens in these cases. can't see a judge award an attorney's fees in a case where the disciplinary action was reduced but still found to be that the employee was at fault in
some way. Thank you, Mr. Jarosz. Any questions for Mr. Jarosz? Seeing none, thank you
for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1606? Seeing no
one, Mr. Love. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me
ask anyone who wants to speak for or against the bill, Please sign up. I'm going to be liberal and recognize these, but in the sake of time and the fact we're running out, if you're not signed up by the time we get to that bill, we're going to move right on
Speaker 132
35:25
past you. So please state your name and let us know who you're with, and we'll go forward this time.
Speaker 134
35:30
I'm Jim Bradshaw. I'm the risk manager for the city of Little Rock within the Human Resources Department. And I would just wish to echo the city's opposition as eloquently presented by Mr. Hayes of the
Municipal League. I feel that there are a number of situations, the things in the bill, that have the probability of increasing cost to the city in a way that is unfair to the citizens of the city of Low Rock. MR.
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Bradshaw, will you take questions? MR. Certainly, sir. MR.
Speaker 136
36:00
Mr. Wilkins has a question. MR. Yes. Would you outline some of those
Speaker 134
36:05
detriments, for example, please? The one key thing I'll point out on the first page down about lines 28, 29, 30 indicates
that in case of an appeal, regardless of the party who appeals, the municipality will bear the cost of the transcript. Currently it's the party who requests the transcript is responsible for those costs. So it would shift that particular cost immediately to the municipality. And from
Speaker 139
36:32
whence does the necessity for the transcript come? Excuse me, sir?
Speaker 141
36:40
Why is the transcript needed in the first place?
Speaker 134
36:43
Typically, if the case is appealed to the court system from civil service, a transcript of the civil service hearing is required or it certainly is provided. And it's our belief that it should be the responsibility of the party doing the appeal. MR.
Chair
Unverified
37:03
So the initial purpose or need for a transcript is because an action has been brought or a discipline that's been brought against that employee?
MR. Yes, sir. MR. Well, it sounds only fair to me that that's who should be shouldering the
Speaker 132
37:23
responsibility for it. MR. Okay. MR. Okay. You say the employee who is ñ MR. No. MR. No, the deep pockets. MR. Well,
Speaker 134
37:32
sir, we could argue who has the deeper pockets. MR. Sure we could. MR. Quite often the employee is represented by ñ MR. And if the Chair would allow, I'd be glad
Speaker 143
37:39
to argue with you all day about it. MR. Okay. MR.
Speaker 147
37:44
No, we're not going to allow that. Is that a question, Mr. Vice Chair? MR. I prefer not to argue,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:53
sir. MR. Thank you. MR. Would you educate me, please, and tell me, does a judge have the final authority
Speaker 134
38:01
as whether or not an appeal goes to the next level? Sir, I'm not an attorney and not versed in exactly the activities that would transpire in the court and the processes involved with an appeal once it goes to that level.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:15
Okay. Perhaps Representative Love could have someone answer that question before this is done, if you don't mind. I'd just like to know if before it goes to the appeal process, does a judge ultimately make the decision whether it moves that far down the
line or it stops at that point? Mr. Hamber, let me try to help you with your question. Let me make sure I understand. After the adverse Civil Service Commission ruling, then either side can choose to appeal that, and then the judge will make a decision on that appeal for or against whichever side.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:49
Does that answer your question? It does, but can I ask, does the judge have the right to stop the appeal process if he sees that, say, something of a frivolous nature is what's
Speaker 160
38:59
causing the appeal to be filed? Can the judge stop that,
or does it go through the whole process? Well, the judge has wide discretion to say he can stop it. He can rule against the party bringing the frivolous lawsuit, and he probably can't award fees to the side who's had a frivolous lawsuit brought against them already. So not necessarily stop it, but he can and even sanction the lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit in addition to awarding fees to the pervailing side.
Speaker 71
39:25
On either side of the issue? Either side. That's what I wanted
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
39:29
to know. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions for
Mr. Bradshaw? Mr. Bradshaw, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Love, seeing no additional questions, we're going to recognize you to close for your
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
39:46
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, as you've seen, you've heard both sides of the issue. This is not about increasing frivolous lawsuits. This is about making the plan feel balanced.
As the law states right now, as the law is written, I believe that it sometimes creates a chilling effect, which some of our firefighters, some of our policemen, some of the people, the very people that we ask to put their lives on the line, And now once they get fired or dismissed, they won't bring their lawsuits, and I think that's wrong. I think today we have an opportunity to balance that field.
Today we have an opportunity to allow rhetoric to match what our laws are. Let's stand up for our firefighters. Let's stand up for our policemen today, and I ask you for a good vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Love. Mr. Wilkins, do you
have a motion? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move
to do pass. That's a proper motion. Any question or discussion? Mr. Nichols, you have a question or discussion?
You turned your mic on. Oh, no? All right. All in favor of passing House Bill 1606.
I'm sorry. Let's stop one minute here. I apologize. Chair, I'm back. Mr. Love, it was pointed out, and I think
correctly pointed out in lines 26 and 29, that there is an error in drafting and 29 the word brought should be born as opposed to brought if yet no
one on line 26 in line 29 you've add the work you've added the you but the word brought is underlined I think that word should be born the meaning that that's who should bear the cost of the appeal I think mr.
Hayes is correct in that and and if we pass this out would you consider making amendment on the other side to take care of that so we'll so code revision which also said I won't have to change this yes sir all right I sure will okay with that with that promise let's let's move forward then all in favor of passive House Bill 1606 indicate by saying aye aye opposed no eyes have it congratulations mr. love you passed 1606 and we would like for you to take care of that little prop thank you mr. chair thank you committee thank you mr. Perry
you're recognized now for House Bill 2029 members there's an amendment that mr. Perry has is being passed out right now in an effort to keep pace and move fast I'm gonna this is mr. Perry's own amendment I'm gonna make a motion for mr. Perry to amend House Bill 2029 all in favor indicate by saying aye opposed no
Speaker 166
42:28
all right so mr. Perry you recognize your run House Bill 2029 as amended Thank you,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
42:33
Mr. Chairman. I'm Mark Perry, representative of District 44. This is an amendment we're adding Representative Bell as a co-sponsor, and making some corrections with several of my fellow representatives, Representative Vines and Shepard and Bell.
Of course, we put some legal minds to this and worked with that. And we added page one where it willfully obtains. And then on page two, we're putting it where we're using it for a professional gain. And then also on page two, we're for political purposes. So we were here last week. Chief Danny Bradley was testifying.
Passed out of here and made the necessary corrections as recommended when it was on the House floor. Thank you, Mr. Perry. You're
right. We heard this bill, and it got a due pass. You've made some good amendments to the bill, and now that you've got Mr. Bell on, I'm sure it's just going to
fly out of here. Let's see if there are any questions. Any questions, members? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, I have a motion for Mr. Rice of due pass. That's a proper motion. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of passing House Bill 2029, as amended, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Speaker 169
43:52
Congratulations, Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm saving enough room for my fellow senators. I may need their help later on this week. Senator Pritchard, sorry to make you wait. You're recognized, and
we're going to go with Senate Bill 707 first, if that's okay with you. Members, this is Senate Bill 707. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
Speaker 171
44:18
Senate Bill 707 is the involuntary commitment, change to the involuntary commitment law. During the two years, we had the task force on substance abuse treatment, and during that time, this is one thing that came to our attention over and over again, that people that are
Speaker 170
44:39
having trouble have someone in their family, a loved one, that has some substance abuse issues, and they don't have a vehicle to make them go to treatment
if they don't want to go. So we looked at the involuntary commitment laws, and this was born out of that recommendation of the task force to try to help these people that have loved ones that are having serious problems with drug abuse become a danger to themselves. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd be – Jim Clark is here with me. He was on that task force and helped me – or he authored the bill, I suppose.
And so if he could explain the bill, I would appreciate it. MR. Absolutely, Senator Pritchard.
Speaker 174
45:26
Mr. Clark, please state your name and tell us who you're with. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Jim Clark, the president of the Arkansas Association of Substance Abuse Treatment Providers. At this point, the involuntary commitment bill doesn't allow for any type of assessment to identify appropriate services for these individuals. If a family member can go to the prosecutor, give the family's version of it, and the individual
could be involuntary committed for not to exceed 21 days. Our proposal with this bill is to, and we worked with the prosecutors, J.D., over to Office
Speaker 175
46:07
of Administrative Courts, upon detention, once the family member files the petition for the involuntary commitment upon detention, when the officials retain this individual, The providers of
Speaker 174
46:22
Arkansas will provide a screening and assessment to the courts within 24 hours
in order to provide the courts with some clinical information, possible diagnosis, and a recommendation of what facility would be appropriate for these individuals. We think it's a good step forward in order to work with the courts, in order to expedite the treatment services for these individuals, and
Speaker 175
46:51
we'd appreciate any help you could give us. MR. Thank you,
Mr. Clark. Senator Pritchard, are you prepared to take questions now?
MR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. Mr. Rice, I
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
47:06
believe, has a question. MR. Thank you. Senator Pritchard, appreciate all your work you do for drug courts. This screening and assessment is set up
Speaker 175
47:18
now around the state of Arkansas. An individual who enters treatment would receive a screening and assessment. At this point, they wouldn't receive a screening and assessment until they're delivered to the facility that the court provides them to.
This bill will enable the providers to engage with that individual more quickly. encourage them to participate in some treatment. As it is right now, they pick them up. They take them in front of the judge. The judge says, okay, you're ordered here. They deliver them to the receiving facility, and they're very upset. They see no reason why they should be there or why they got there. The bill is not to exceed
21 days, the current involuntary commitment. treatment, it's seven to sometimes 14 days before that individual's ever screened and settled down enough to receive any type of treatment. We're hoping to engage them in treatment more quickly as well. These providers in
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
48:20
screening and assessment is already in place at this time? Yes. Okay, thank you. Motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Mr. Nichols, you're recognized
for a question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pritchard, I noticed in this bill that you are talking about contractors providing this service. Could this, what about the Arkansas State Hospital and facilities like that, are they not equipped to provide some of this service? Mr. They are one of the people, they are
does a contractual relationship work between the alcohol and drug abuse prevention folks and, say, the state hospital?
Speaker 174
49:10
What is that contract? Representative, they're licensed to provide substance abuse services through the Office of Alcohol and
Speaker 185
49:25
Drug Abuse Prevention. Okay. But they're not in a contractual
Speaker 174
49:28
relationship with you to provide that? Yes, sir. They are with
the Office of Alcohol and Drug Resurvention. Okay. Well, I guess I'm not clear that we're not possibly creating a problem in dealing
with other state agencies or public agencies that they're not contracted specifically to disservice, but, you know, I may be wrong. But anyway, I have a question on that. I'm just not real sure the way the bill is drafted, if it takes care of my concerns on that. Would you agree, Senator Pritchard? Ms. Nichols,
Speaker 171
50:04
we, I'd have to agree it doesn't take care of your concerns, but I'm going to try to do that.
We worked with the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention on this bill, and they're here today if you would like to hear from them. I'd like to hear somebody
from, say, the state hospital that might be involved in this also, if they're here.
Mr. Nichols, it doesn't appear that anyone from the state hospital is here. Any additional questions, Mr.
Nichols? Seeing no questions, Mr. Shepard, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
50:43
I believe one of you previously referenced that as it stands right now, It could be several days, maybe even weeks before an evaluation is performed. And my question is, do we have the resources or do the contractors have the resources to provide these services within the 24-hour time period that's being suggested in this bill? Yes. And then secondly, what is the effect if a screening and assessment does not take place within that 24-hour time period?
Speaker 189
51:28
I guess they would just go through the normal process that, you know, to
Speaker 170
51:34
go before the judge. We were just hoping to get this screening done before they went before the judge so he could better make a decision as to whether it is appropriate to remand them to treatment or to determine whether, you know, just someone is angry at someone and has brought this attempt to
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
51:55
get them into treatment. But there's nothing in here that would, say, mandate an immediate release from the commitment
or an immediate dismissal of the commitment in the event it, for whatever reason, didn't take place within
24 hours. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Walker, I've got you
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
52:17
on the list next after Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Pritchard, I like the bill, except for page 2. If you'll look at lines 15 through 19, Senator, my concern is that is, well,
it's setting aside the rules of evidence in a court of law and is going to allow evidence to be presented to a judge without having to comply with the rules of evidence. Can you address that for me, Senator? And I'm sorry, I'm not an attorney. On page 2, lines 15 through 19, it says the prosecuting attorney shall provide a copy to the court and that the court shall consider the contents. My concern is that it's tossing out our rules of evidence and allowing the court to consider evidence
without going through the proper procedures in a court of law. Would you consider removing that? I like the fact that there's going to be a screening process in a short amount of time. I just
Speaker 194
53:19
don't like that the judge will be considering evidence without having to comply with the rules
Speaker 180
53:25
of evidence. Okay, and I don't know the particulars there. Of course, the idea was to help
Speaker 171
53:30
get this information to the judge. And if we could put, are you wanting to take that out totally or make it permissive?
Speaker 196
53:39
Either take it out or maybe consider changing it to the court may consider. I
Speaker 173
53:47
don't have a problem with that. I certainly don't want your attorney types to take care of that, so I will change that to May. Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 198
54:01
Senator, so you're agreeing to amend this bill? Yes,
Speaker 199
54:04
and I can – I know you don't do oral amendments down here, do you?
We don't. This is unfortunately not the Senate. You guys can do it on anything down there, I know. If you'd like, we'll continue to hear
this, and if you'd be willing to make that amendment on the Senate side, should this get out of here, I'm
sorry to have the Senate, well that's true. I'm sorry. That's how we usually do it, on this
side. Well, we're at the crossroads here. We can't take an oral amendment. We will be back at 3 o'clock, and we can ...
Speaker 173
54:42
MR. I'll have the amendment at that time. Mr. Chairman, could we go ahead and finish answering the
questions in case I have to
have a ‑‑ MR. With no objection to the committee, we'll do that. Usually we don't, but we're nearing the end.
With no objection, we'll continue to hear this. Any objection, committee? Seeing none, then Mr. Marshall, do you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:05
have any additional questions? Mr. Walker, you're next. Then Mr. Steele. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we all want to help people accused of alcohol and drug abuse, but does this provision,
Senator Pritchett, as amended, have a tendency to presume that a person named in a petition for voluntary commitment is, in fact, in need of treatment? Well, I think that's what we're attempting to do is
Speaker 170
55:36
to, before they go before the judge, to have that screening and assessment done so that we would find out whether they are in need of treatment.
Speaker 204
55:47
And that's to be done within 24 hours?
Yes, of their detention. Well, can you explain to me why you have
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:57
in here five days, which would be 120 hours? That's in line 23
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:19
can be even extended Including
To include weekends and holidays So it may be I
Speaker 173
56:25
think that's in the current law What we're doing is to after they've been
Speaker 170
56:30
detained to go ahead and get that screening before this case goes they have the five days the hearing shall be set so we were hoping to get the screening done so that when that five days is run that the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:47
well as I read it Senator Pritchett the court shall set a hearing within five days
but according to the amended provision lines 27 through 29 plan, the person shall undergo a screening within 24 hours of the detention. That seems to be some conflict. Wouldn't you agree? MR. Representative Walker, and with the ñ MR. First of all, do you agree? If
I'm wrong, tell me more. MR. Sorry, sir. MR. Do you agree that that's the conflict? MR. No, sir.
Speaker 174
57:22
Explain it to me, then. MR. Representative Walker, we have two issues here. The original bill, if a petition was filed, if an individual filed for a family member to be heard, the individual could be detained and held up to five days before the courts get them in there. That's one issue, and that's the court's documents, and we have no control over the masks there. Our concern was to provide speedy information on this individual to the court
so they could make a proper decision. What we've had in the past is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
58:01
individuals that... I understand, but I'm trying to see if there is a conflict. It says even though the court can keep you for five days, the person has to be screened within 24 hours. Yes, sir. So that means when the person comes in and is screened within 24 hours, if the screening is negative and shows that the person is not in need of this,
there's nothing in here to allow him or her to be immediately released, is there? No, sir. So that you may have a person being held for up to five days or more for whom the screening is negative, and then that person is in effect being punished and will be released by the court in five days thereafter. Is that right? Yes, sir. Do
you think that's fair? It's the court's decision, sir. Well, it's a decision. I think it's fair enough, sir.
You don't think it's fair? The second one is this. With respect, I mean, this is not a, you're a contractor? Yes, sir. That means you're privately paid? MR. Yes, sir. All right. Has there been, Senator Pritchett, a financial impact statement of this? These people who are contractors stand to benefit from involuntary commitments, it would seem. I mean, I'm not saying you all do that for a little bit, but has there been a financial
impact statement regarding this? MR. No,
Speaker 173
59:34
sir. And I guess, there again, the alcohol and drug abuse prevention people are already doing
Speaker 170
59:41
this through their contracts. So this would not be an additional expense because they're going to do those screenings. We're just trying to speed the process up to do it at a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
59:53
different time. My understanding of contracts is that the people get paid on a per-person basis. You correct me if I'm wrong.
Is that correct? So the number of people you see determines the amount of money that is paid with respect to the process. Would you not agree? Yes, sir. So that means that there is a financial impact depending upon the volume of people arrested or at least involuntarily committed. Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. Would not this have a tendency to
Speaker 204
1:00:23
increase the number of people submitted for voluntary commitment? No, sir. Those
Speaker 170
1:00:28
people that are going to be involuntarily committed anyway, they would be doing the
screening at that point. And we're just going to so there wouldn't be any more screenings required. It would just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:00:43
be doing that screening and evaluation sooner. Now, Mr. Nichols' question dealt with the role of the state hospital. Is it fair to say that the historic role of the state hospital has been to participate in such identifications? I don't know the answer to that.
I was supposed to. Would you not agree? Is there any particular reason why we are removing,
in effect, the state hospital from performing its historic function and passing this on to
Speaker 175
1:01:18
contractors? No, sir. They would continue to be an accepted provider of those services. Now, the state
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:01:23
hospital, though, is set up with funding from both the federal and the state government, isn't it? I'm not sure, sir. I
see. But at any rate, the state hospital has the resources, it has the personnel,
and it has the history of providing this service. Would you
agree? Yes, sir. And there's no reason for the contractor's provision to be in here, is there? Yes,
Speaker 174
1:01:47
sir. we're at this point we're providing these screening and assessments after the fact throughout the state yes sir and we report many times we report to the state hospital thank you thank you mr. Steele you recognize thank you mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:02:09
chairman I'm still a little bit confused about where the screen will take place If they are being held in a county jail in southwest Arkansas, for example, will a contractor come to southwest Arkansas to the screening
Speaker 174
1:02:22
within 24 hours? Yes, sir. The states broke up in the catchment areas, so there's contractor providers in each catchment area. Through our agreement or our licensing and contracting with the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, we would continue to provide those services in that catchment area,
the contractor assigned to that area. It wouldn't be as the providers of Arkansas have agreed that this would be a doable thing. Okay, and along the lines of the question Representative Shepard asked, if for
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:02:52
some reason they are in a very rural area and the contractor didn't have anyone available to do it within that 24-hour period and that time lapsed, would that not give the defense a chance to petition to have the whole
thing dismissed and would we be forced to release them at that point?
Speaker 174
1:03:11
Yes, sir. It would set the stage for that, but if a contractor wasn't able to meet the requirements of that contract, they would be in risk of losing that contract.
Speaker 118
1:03:21
Okay. And finally, this is only pertaining to commitments that deal
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:03:25
with drug abuse, correct? I mean, if we have a schizophrenic patient or someone, it would not affect them, correct? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Speaker 199
1:03:35
Chairman, I appreciate the committee's patience, and I'll pull this down and try to get with
Speaker 189
1:03:40
Mr. Nichols and Mr. Walker and address their concerns, and I'll bring it
back to you this afternoon, and the amendment, and I'll bring it
back to you this afternoon. Mr. Pritchett, before you make that decision, I've just been reminded that state agencies meeting this afternoon, we've got five members on state agencies in our committee, so we would be – you might be disadvantaged if you came back with that. But on Thursday, if that's not too late, we can get back and take care of that. Because I'm going to be at that state agency meeting, too. Yeah, we just thought about that.
We apologize. All right. Thank you. I'll – All right. So you'll pull this down. You'll work on it, and you'll come back on Thursday.
We'll take care. We've got a special order on Thursday, but you'll be
right after the special order. Okay. All right. Thank you. Well, staff will make a note of that to make sure I don't forget that we promised Senator Pritchard he'd be right after our special order
at 1010. Senator Pritchard, would you
Speaker 173
1:04:34
like to run 736, I believe? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Go right ahead. Okay. Anyway,
Speaker 170
1:04:40
736, and let me start off by saying that this bill does not in any way conflict with SB 750, which is the omnibus bill to deal with the changing
in the sentencing guidelines. In fact, that bill on page, it even references that bill so that there's no chance of a misunderstanding that we are messing with the penalties for simple possession of marijuana and DUI. That has already been done in 750. So with that, what we would do is, as you know, it's going to be a shock to everybody.
I'm a big proponent of the drug courts, and my attempts to get funding for the juvenile drug courts in particular have so far not borne fruit. So when I tried to get the money that was suggested that I would find another source that would be more appropriate than the prevention and cessation money that we had for juvenile drug courts before. What this simply does is for simple possession of marijuana, it would take, and for DUI,
it would add $150 to the court cost, and then that $150 would go to fund the drug court treatment programs. and I say it's important that you see the S on drug courts because I think you're going to hear another bill or you may have already heard it that addresses other types of drug courts that we all agree are important and that solve the problems or help solve the problem with prison overcrowding. We currently have juvenile and adult drug courts.
There is a DWI drug court that is operating and I think there's some legislation to increase those. The veterans' drug courts that deal with veterans with problems with substance abuse when they do post-traumatic stress disorder or other issues, and psychiatric drug courts where we have people that are dual-diagnosed where they have treated their psychiatric problems with legal and illegal drugs. So that's where the money would go to support those drug courts' treatment.
And we think it's very appropriate to take part of the money for people who have broken the law, possessing marijuana, are driving under the influence of drugs, and then using that money to treat those that are in the drug courts. The governor does not oppose the bill. and I talked with Senator Luker, it does not in any way, and it went through the Judiciary Committee, it does not in any way affect the omnibus bill that we passed, SB 750.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:44
I'd be happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you, Senator. Representative Wright, you're recognized for a
question. We've got a motion at due time. Representative
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:56
Walker, you're recognized. Senator Pritchard, what happens if, since you're adding the monetary amounts as penalties, what happens to these people if they Representative Walker,
could you? Yes. Can you hear me now? Absolutely. Thank you. What happens to these people when
they can't pay their fines? Do they get jailed?
Speaker 170
1:08:17
That's up to the judge, of course. And the fines, this is the court cost. The fines, and by the way, the fine for simple possession of marijuana was an ounce of marijuana, was second offense, was a felony. So I think this is, with the changes in the law in SB 750, I understand your concerns, but I think before they were faced with a felony, and I think now that they have a much less a penalty because of the passage of that law
for their possession of marijuana, I think they would find a way to come up with that court cost. And, of course, the judge can make the decision even on the misdemeanor charge whether he wants to
Speaker 173
1:09:03
find the individuals or whether he wants to let them work that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:09:08
off or whatever the judge wants to do. Let me understand it. You're taking felony drug offenses of possession and making them misdemeanors? No, sir. No, sir. Senate Bill 750 did that. All right. Now, this basically adds to court costs.
Yes, that's correct. A substantial amount. Yes, sir, it does. And a person who fails, who has the inability to pay, would be subject to being punished until he or she pays it, perhaps by a work plan where he or she is a trustee or something in a jail. That would be up to the judge. Well,
then, in those circumstances, what goes to the treasurer of the state to
help pay for the drug court?
Nothing. Well, the part of this bill is for the purpose of helping to fund the drug court, isn't it? That's correct. Thank you. All
Speaker 235
1:10:04
right. Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Yes. Do we have a
representative from the administrative office of the courts here? Yes. Mr. Gingrich is
If you would, state your name for the record, sir.
J.D. Gingrich with the Administrator, Office of the Court. Mr. Gingrich, thank you for coming forward. Last year, there were several meetings held dealing with the criminal justice system and the court system and a lot of the funding that comes from various fines and court costs and all of that and how they're divvied up. What would
this $150 be on top of typically?
Speaker 245
1:11:05
This is an amendment to the uniform court cost, which is applied in circuit and district court. Currently, the uniform cost on these offenses is $150. So that covers almost all criminal offenses. At the bottom of that, there are a couple of exceptions that are already $300, and this puts that in the list of those exceptions to the $150 and makes it higher than that.
So it adds this amount on to – it doesn't add it. It supplants the $150 to, you have it now, $300 rather than $150 for this offense of marijuana possession.
And so half of it then would go to drug courts as he has?
Speaker 244
1:12:00
150 of it would continue to go to the Administration of Justice Fund, just as it would have previously.
The additional 150 that he's adding would then go for
drug court funding. Okay. Has your office taken a position on this bill? No, sir, we have not. Okay. Well, it seemed, in my recollection, those meetings we were having, there was concern about earmarking fines for various things, and this seems to continue
Speaker 245
1:12:33
that. Would you agree? We had conversations about the preference in terms of routing the funds so that it is
in line with the issue that you're raising that they all go into one fund at the state level and then are distributed to state agencies. And I think there's maybe some possibility of doing that in the future. So you're correct that in general the preference is, or at least the preference from the Judicial Council is that the funds be handled uniformly. That's primarily an issue for clerks more than anybody else, so that you don't have
clerks having to disperse funds 150 different ways at the local level. It comes to the state and then it's dispersed from the state level. There's
only so much that I guess
can be collected through court calls. Sometimes you're going to reach a level where it's just not affordable for some of these folks to pay into the system. And drug courts are necessary and are recognized necessary, but is this potentially taking
away an option that we have to fund other worthy programs in our criminal justice
Speaker 244
1:13:54
system? I don't know that I have the information to
be able to answer the question, Mr. Nichols. MR. That's just a concern I have that when we're adding and adding and adding, then we
Speaker 239
1:14:07
may not be able to add any more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. Senator Pritchard, do
Speaker 136
1:14:13
you feel that the doubling of this amount from $150 to $300 is a reasonable
Speaker 170
1:14:18
movement in cost? MR. Yes, sir. in light of the fact that we have substantially reduced the other penalties for the people that have, like I said, we're taking it, the other law took it from a felony, so I think it is appropriate that that money go to be added on there to go to the treatment for our drug courts. And what would that generate, you believe? I don't know because they were going to work on that. But we don't know because since the possession, since the fines, the penalties have changed,
we could look back and see what they were when the simple possession was a misdemeanor and then a felony on a second offense. So we don't know what it is. Hopefully it's going to be enough to fund the treatment for the juvenile drug courts because as of right now, the money was coming from the prevention and cessation money, and as you're well aware, I was unsuccessful in getting that money restored in any way, shape, manner, or form.
So I'm hopeful that it's going to at least pick up the slack there with the treatment for the juvenile drug courts. Did you
Speaker 239
1:15:32
by chance seek a fiscal impact statement to get an estimate of what that might be? No,
Speaker 170
1:15:40
sir, and we had some discussion about it. AOC said they could have given us what it was based on the past, but with the changes in the penalties, there's no way of knowing how much
Speaker 256
1:15:52
that would be. All right. Representative Hammer, you recognize?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:15:56
Thank you. Senator Pritchard, a couple quick questions. These charges, these fees, are actually coming from the ones who have violated the law. Is that a correct interpretation? Yes, sir. So if they don't do anything wrong, then they don't have to worry about incurring these penalties. Is that a correct assessment? That's correct. And the money, and I need to be educated on this, it doesn't specify, at least I don't read in here, that it's being split out to the juvenile court or to the adult court, drug courts, either way. Am I missing that? And can you tell me how the money is going to be split out proportionately,
or am I missing it in
Speaker 173
1:16:35
court or going to adult drug court? No, you're not. And if you look online,
Speaker 171
1:16:42
I guess in two places, on page 2, line 16, 17, and on page 3, page 10 and 11, it says exclusively for drug courts. And the
Speaker 170
1:16:54
reason I left that open-ended was because, like I said, we're having other courts, drug courts, coming online.
and it may be a situation where, particularly in the adult drug courts, I think there's going to be sufficient funding through the governor's proposal to increase drug courts. It's been totally $7 million to $8 million going to the Department of Community Corrections for treatment for drug courts. So I just wanted that flexibility there to make sure that it can be used where it's needed so that if the adult drug courts have sufficient funding, then it would go first to fund the juvenile drug courts
and then to fund these other treatment programs if it's needed. And last question. Is
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:17:39
some of this money going to trickle down to some of the boot camps
that need funding in order to exist to help get kids off drugs and be able to get them on
Speaker 204
1:17:51
the straight and narrow? Well, if it's some treatment, yes, the
Speaker 260
1:17:55
treatment. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:18:08
I'd asked earlier about a fiscal impact statement, and it was revealed that there is not one, but you now say that this is money that you sought to obtain from the drug and alcohol money. Is that correct? Another bill, yes, sir. Yes. So basically you were trying to accomplish the same thing. You needed money to accomplish what you wanted to do. And you first started from the drug and alcohol money that comes to the state as a result of the summer.
Speaker 170
1:18:39
Well, yes, we were receiving that for the last two years. That money did fund the drug tort treatment. And then I was told that they would no longer do that. And the governor's office suggested that I find another source for
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:18:53
that revenue. So how much was that revenue that
Speaker 170
1:18:57
you all were receiving the last two years? It was a million and a half for adult drug
Speaker 204
1:19:02
courts and $500,000 the first year for juvenile and a million the second year for juvenile. All right, so
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:19:09
the fiscal impact of what you expect is what you saw from the drug and alcohol money, isn't it?
Speaker 204
1:19:15
No, sir. Because the adult drug court, the million and a half for the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:19:24
adult drug court, we trust is going to be funded from the governor's plan. But at least the impact, you know that there is going to be a financial impact and that it's substantial, and that's what you're trying to do here. But my only concern now is to know where that impact is. At least, first of all, for someone to tell me that there is an impact and then to tell me what it is.
I mean, rather than simply say there's no impact and we can do it, Because if we're going to be really serious about the omnibus crime bill that was passed, we have to know what these costs are along the way
Speaker 173
1:20:03
at every level. Well, yes, and I hope I address that. We don't know what the income is
Speaker 170
1:20:10
going to be because with the penalties changed, we don't know how many people are going to be charged under the new statute.
Speaker 260
1:20:19
Okay, and Senator Pritchard, not to beat a dead horse,
Chair
Unverified
1:20:25
Representative Walker is much better at beating dead horses than I am. But I do want to go back again to the figures that you stated about the $1.5 million for adult, the first year a half million and then a million for juvenile.
I'm just trying to get my mind around whether or not this additional $150, what impact it's actually going to have. Is it, you know, and you know what my opinion was about the use of the cessation money, so I appreciate the fact that you've sought another avenue to address that. But what amount, I'm trying to get a feel for, and I know that you said it's difficult to pin that down exactly,
And we're familiar with fiscal impact statements that are never really just right on the mark, but they give us some indication. You can't give us any indication
Speaker 170
1:21:38
like. Perhaps somebody from the administration, also the courts, could we discuss that, but I never did get that actual number. And, Mr. Chairman, Representative Wilkins, I could certainly have something on your desk when this bill is run if it gets out of here.
Chair
Unverified
1:22:04
All right. Thank you. Mr. Gingrich.
Speaker 263
1:22:08
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Pritchard did talk to
Speaker 245
1:22:12
us about trying to generate a number, and the problem is the Senate Bill 750, the Corrections Act, substantially changes this particular offense. And so while we could give him the amount that might have been generated when this was a felony offense, I can tell you it would have been very little money. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but far less than the amounts that were being funded for these courts
through the tobacco settlement funding in past years. I mean, it wouldn't have even come close. But we don't have a – it's a guess as to whether or not the reduction of this offense to misdemeanor levels will increase the number of those offenses being charged by prosecutors and thus increase the numbers of cases upon which this fee could be attached. I just don't have the data at
Speaker 265
1:23:08
this point to be able to make a good
Chair
Unverified
1:23:11
guess about that. So in the preliminary figures that you were looking at, were you thinking 10 percent, 20 percent?
Speaker 141
1:23:20
10 percent, 20 percent. You indicated that you had a figure
Speaker 245
1:23:28
in mind initially. On the numbers of cases, the number of current cases, I'm trying to recall. I'm thinking it was $40,000 or $50,000 would have been the maximum amount that would have been collected. Okay. So far short of it's not supplanting. It certainly would not have come close to supplanting the lost money from the loss of tobacco settlement funds by using this source.
And the hope, I think, is that there will be additional numbers of cases to which it could
Speaker 239
1:24:00
be applied in the future. Okay. That helps me. Thank you. We've got Representative Gillum and then
Speaker 128
1:24:07
Representative Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Poochard, this
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:24:09
might be a question better for you. In discussing this funding and the breakdown, it looks to be that you have some level of confidence that at least the adult drug courts are going to be in the budget and taken care of it. Did I get that correct?
Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. So it's the other courts that you're concerned about the lack of funding at right now. Are there any other options on the table that anybody has presented other than your bill that would address those funding shortfalls?
Speaker 170
1:24:44
I'm aware of. Okay. But I do have, I was trying to get the money from the, you know, it's no secret, I had an amendment to continue to get some of that money for prevention and cessation.
But I'm ready to cry uncle on that one. I mean, I just, you know, I'm done. I'm toast on that. So this makes this even more important. Although it will not supplant that money that has been lost, it certainly will help. And so I hope I didn't answer your question. Is it your,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:25:19
I guess, belief or assertion that without this bill that we run the risk of having no funding for those other courts?
Speaker 170
1:25:28
No funding for the juvenile drug courts? That is correct. The 100% of the funding for the juvenile drug courts came, well, treatment money came from the tobacco prevention and cessation money,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:25:38
and that is now zero. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you very much,
Speaker 143
1:25:42
Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:48
Thank you. Representative Hammer. Would you please, in simple terms, just explain to me how this has a negative impact on our state budget? This is money that's not coming out of the state budget. It is money that is going to be generated by the fines that occur when somebody does something wrong.
How could this, or does this, in your words, have a negative impact on our state financial budget? No, sir, it
Speaker 272
1:26:12
does not. I have a motion at proper time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. Are there
Speaker 136
1:26:19
any other questions by committee? Is there anyone signed up
Chair
Unverified
1:26:26
to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, we previously had indication for a motion from Representative Wright. Do pass.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:26:35
All right. We have a motion before us. Do pass. Any further discussion by the committee? If you would favor the motion before you, would you signify with aye? Aye. Those opposed? Senator Pritchard, your bill goes out to pass. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Senator Raypert, thanks for waiting so patiently. You are recognized for Senate Bill 855, and we have a handout associated with that bill, I think. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Speaker 274
1:27:06
If you'd like, Mr. Chairman, I can go ahead and proceed as you're getting that handout. Absolutely. Welcome to House of Shares, Senator, and you can go right ahead and proceed. Thank you very much. I have to make a point of privilege here and tell you this is probably the coldest room and the coldest vent I've ever sat under in my life. So I'm ready to go. Members, I have for you, Bill, SB 855. This is simply an act to allow auxiliary law enforcement officers to be appointed as reserve law enforcement officers and help with the administration of blood alcohol tests and operate a device to detect excessive speeding.
I'll hit the points very quickly for you. This bill is supported by various Arkansas sheriffs, chiefs of police, Arkansas Police Benevolent Association, and I believe that's the handout that you're getting. And also we have the prosecutor's office here with me if he would like to take a seat, and he can speak to this as well. This bill will accomplish several things, including at the option of a sheriff or police chief, a reserve officer may be trained and certified, just like any other officer, to administer blood alcohol tests and operate radar guns.
And the essence of this is that smaller law enforcement agencies in our state sometimes does not have the funding to hire all of the full-time officers that they would like to. And this is simply an option. This is not a mandate. This is at the option of that law enforcement executive, that sheriff or that police chief, that if they have a reserve officer that they trust and deem appropriate, that they send him to certification or her to certification, they can do so. And that way allow them to assist them in these two particular areas.
The bill does not require any department to certify reserve officers at all. It's only a permissive thing that allows them to do that at this time. The bill has been co-sponsored, actually, by every senator in the Arkansas Senate, passed out unanimously the other day. And I do have Bob McMahon here with the prosecutor coordinator's office if you would like to ask any questions of us. Thank you, Senator.
I appreciate that testimony. Members, any questions for the senator? Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 111
1:29:17
Senator, at one time, having a good, strong list
Chair
Unverified
1:29:21
of co-sponsors from the Senate was very meaningful to me for 10 years. I'll withdraw my remarks, Representative Wilkins, and we can
Speaker 58
1:29:30
move on. However, now I'm a member of the House,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:29:35
and so I don't really care what the senators think. Oh, my good friend Senator Malone.
Chair
Unverified
1:29:41
I'm glad Senator Malone heard you say that when you come present a bill down there.
Well, I do care what Senator Malone thinks. All right. The question that I have, and I certainly think this is a good bill. I'm searching it quickly to see. I heard you in your initial comments talk about training and certification. Yes, sir. Would that training and certification require everything that any other law enforcement officer would have to have? That's exactly correct.
Speaker 274
1:30:21
That's a very good question, and that's the essence of what the bill allows, is it is allowing the language under current statute to allow that reserve officer to receive that training. And so in these two particular areas, we don't want anybody out there that's not certified. And what this is really a response to is some of these law enforcement agencies which simply do not have the funding that some of the larger agencies do. And this allows them to have that certification. And what's important about it is that reserve officer is typically a volunteer officer that's
under direct supervision of another law enforcement official there when he's on duty. And this does require the exact certification, sir. All right. Thank you. You're
welcome. Appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 855? I don't have anyone signed up. Seeing no one to speak for or against, Senator Raper, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed for the bill. A motion by Vice Chair Wilkins of Dupast.
All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. Sorry you had to wait so long. Thank
on the way out, Chairman. All right. Thank you. Members, let's do just a little bit of housekeeping here real quick. House Bill 1386 by Representative Wilkins. Without objection, we're going to move that bill to an interim study of one of our subcommittees.
House Bill 1494. Mr. Nichols is gone, okay. House Bill 1580. Anyone here talk to Mr. Summers about House Bill 1580? If that's the third time we've passed over that, that's going to the deferred list. House Bill 1823, we'll check with Mr. Nichols. Mrs. Post was here. Is she gone? House Bill 1865 and 1866, she has those bills.
We're just trying to see what's going to be run. We're not going to necessarily run them. I think she actually wants to run those bills, so we will leave them there. Mr. Wright, House Bill 1868, is that a bill that you intend to run when we have time? No. Should we send it to deferred? All right, we're going to take that off our list. House Bill 1982 by Representative Meeks, anyone know anything about that bill? That's the third time that we've run that bill, so we're going to move that to our deferred list. I'm sorry.
Speaker 281
1:32:58
That was not the wrong last question. No. It was voted on. It just failed. It failed. It failed, so
you can go to deferred. Okay, we're going to move it to deferred. Who wants to bring it back? All right. House Bill 1990 by Ms. Hopper. She mentioned she wanted to run a bill, but not that one. We'll check with her. 2025, anybody know anything about 2025? I think that's at least the third time that's been on our – we're going to move that to deferred. Mr. Vines, 2036, leave that. Yeah, can
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:33:26
I run that possibly Thursday? I'm waiting on a response.
Absolutely. House Bill 2040. Ms. Robot, she's going to run that Thursday. Okay. 2119 is going to be next. 2119 is going to be next. 2119 is going to be next. Mr. Hammer, 2120. Do you intend to run that one as well?
I'm ready. One of the chairs. Okay. 2124, I've not heard – well, didn't we – didn't that one pass out of here? Mr.
Steele, 2124. 2198 is the other one. Okay. We'll check on that.
We may be moving that one to deferred as well. deferred as well. Mr. Walker, 2146, do you
intend to run that bill? All right. Okay, Mr. Mayberry, 2168. Anyone know
anything about that? I hadn't heard that. Is that the third time we've heard
that bill? That's going to be moved to deferred. 2169, but Mr. Mayberry, we've heard that, I know, once, and it was voted down. We're going to move that to deferred.
2189, Mr. Deffenbaugh, I think you're going to run that one, right? No? Move that to deferred? Okay. Mr. Elliott, 2191. Anyone know if Mr. Elliott intends to run that? He was in the door, so we'll leave that on our list right now. Mr. Steele, 2125, is that one you're going to run? 2225? 2225, I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared whenever.
Speaker 286
1:34:50
All right. We'll take our Ms. Madison,
Senator. We'll check on all these Senate bills. I know there we don't know House bill 2096 oh that's my bill yeah I'll run
that one we were in 2029 okay we'll check on all these Senate bills so I'm sorry 2169 that is me
Speaker 288
1:35:13
we leave that on the list on that yes okay we'll lay down the active agenda
all right well we'll check on the rest
of the Senate bills we'll have our calendar cleaned up when you see it for Thursday's meeting, so we'll know exactly what we have to do. Thank you for that bit of housekeeping.
Let's see. Mr. Hammer? MR. 18. MR. Mr. Hammer, you're recognized for
Speaker 280
1:35:47
House Bill 2119. MR. Representative. Opposed. 1860. MR. She was standing in
Speaker 291
1:35:51
the door and she didn't get there. MR.
Speaker 280
1:35:54
Yeah. All right. All right. We've got an amendment, guys, coming forward
to House Bill 2119. And I believe there's a couple handouts, Mr. Chair.
A couple handouts as well. Members, without objection, this is Mr. Hammer's own amendment to his own bill. He's made a motion to amend House Bill 2119. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Once all the paper's passed out, Mr. Hammer, you're recognized to present House Bill 2119 as amended. Thank you.
I think we've got all the paper passed out. Thank
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:37:52
you. Mr. Chair, if I may ask, I know there are some folks in the room that may want to speak for or against, would you remind them to please sign up on the list so they can have that
courtesy at an appropriate time, please? Absolutely,
Mr. Hammer. Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 2119, please sign up. And for those who want to speak for or against the bill who have not seen the amendment, we'll have a few extra copies here. Come to see Patrick, and he'll get them for you. Go right
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:38:22
ahead, Mr. Hammer. Thank you, sir. In the way of just a few introductory comments before I take questions, As you look around the country, you see that this issue that is represented in the House Bill 2119 is still an ongoing problem.
And a lot of great efforts, including our own state, have made good strides in that direction, but it continues to be a problem. In fact, one of the handouts that you have is copies of a couple letters from business owners who as recently as last week still have a problem or had experienced a problem, and also back as far as 2010, which was after the original bill was introduced, and I will cite those in just a minute. Some of the solutions around the nation have included ideas of discussing
taking scrap metal from cash sales strictly down to either checks or other means of payments to eliminate the cash supply. Also, some of the other things that have been proposed are tighter regulatory agencies within the government. All that really does, though, is result in bigger government, which is not anything that I think anybody is interested in doing because ultimately taxpayers or the small man is going to pay for it. What this bill proposes or is structured to achieve is that the honest man who has an honest working relationship with both the scrapyards and people in the community
will be able to continue to do business and not be disadvantaged by those who are out thieving. This bill creates a stronger paper trail for police to track down the thieves, and scrapyards have a stronger tool to screen those who are selling product to them. The scrapyards supported the increase in the felony status that was run on the floor yesterday and passed unanimously against thieves, and I can only hope that everyone in the industry will get on board with this as well so that we can have a full picture of everything.
What I'd like to ask and draw your attention to, if I could, is the handout that I've given to you that kind of explains what this bill does and doesn't do and also gives some real-life examples of how that this bill, if voted on, will allow us to bring a little bit tighter control over what continues to be a problem. As far as what is different in this bill from the original bill, it adds to the restricted list three items, stainless steel, which is often found in the restaurant industry, copper pipes, tubing wires, and gutters.
I would remind you that it wasn't that long ago that one of the churches in downtown Little Rock had their copper gutter stolen off of it, copper pipes and tubing found either in homes or out on the industrial or information system highway, coax cable. These three items would be added to the restricted list. This also requires all documentation presented at the time of sale to the recycling company to be presented in clear and legible, typed or hand-printed manner instead of just signing a form. In fact, I have an example.
I don't have a copy in front of you, but it's a copy that was presented to me during one of the two or three meetings, I don't think three, two meetings that we had with the scrapyard industry to try to get their input in this. And this would allow or this would require that any documentation that's brought across the scale would be in clear, legible, typed, or hand-printed manner. It requires the seller of restricted items to be one of the following, a licensed contractor, a licensed HVACR contractor, a licensed plumber, a licensed electrician, a business with a state-issue license.
And what that simply means is that if you are a business, you could be a convenience store, you could be a fence operation, not fencing, but a fence company, a fence company maybe that sells aluminum slatting to go down into some of these privacy chain link fences, maybe perhaps an appliance store that you don't have an HVAC license, but you take appliances in on trade and you need to discard those at certain times. Anyone with a business that has a state-issued license hanging on the wall.
An insurance agency, the reason for that is because a lot of the situations that are cited are when maybe a home has been destroyed by fire and there are restricted items such as the copper pipe or the copper wire that was in electrical and how to get rid of those. So an insurance agency. You are operating under a written contract with one of the above for the purpose of conducting business involving the sale of restricted materials. And this will be spelled out in the examples that I'll give you in a minute. Or you can produce original copy if the items were purchased through the auction process.
Down in Saline County, we have a place called Sable Mountain, I think it is, and they have auctions on a regular basis. Or you might buy materials off fast-track auction sites or some of the auctions that are advertised in the paper. And people shop those things on a regular basis in order to be able to buy the scrap metal, most of which are considered on the restricted list. And if you can provide ownership or proof of ownership through that process, then you'd be able to do business. This bill will also require that the police will provide a do-not-buy list to the scrapyards.
This would be at the discretion of the police based on the history. And it does nothing to change the leads-on-line portion of existing law, so it protects and continues to exercise that good tool. Will a private property owner be able to sell their own restricted material? Yes. If you look at page 3 of the bill, you will find that while it is limited to the restricted lift of copper, stainless steel, and aluminum items that are most commonly found under private property ownership, it does provide the means for them to be able to continue to do that.
They must have one presented for sale, though, at the recycling center, or a copy of their tax assessment sheet matching address of their photo ID. And the intent of that is that if you are the owner of the private property, you should have a tax assessment on the ownership of that private property and should be able to produce a driver's license or photo ID that has the matching address. And as a result of that, you can prove or they can prove at the scale that these two go together, and it also helps create a paper trail for the police to do their job later. What about people who are just out scavenging for scrap metal?
Well, they would have to be working in a working relationship with one of the required sellers on the restricted item, and they would or they could get a license if they do it often enough. What I commonly heard through a lot of discussions on this, of which there has been a lot of discussions on this matter, is that people are just out there doing it on a regular basis, and if they're doing it on a regular basis, then there shouldn't be a problem with them applying for a state license to be a business in the state. What about someone who lives in rental property? They'd have to have a strong working relationship with the owner of the property or one of the other ones listed.
What about air conditioning parts? That's already covered and has been signed into law under House Bill 1555, which remains intact in the law on the amendment that was given to you. What about someone who is not under one of the authorized sellers of the restricted items and is contracting either on a regular one-time basis to remove items on a restricted list? and I'll give you an example of that. That's covered on page 3 of the amendment. It's covered under the written contract clause,
and it could get a state or they could get a state-issued business license, which is what they ought to have anyway if they're going to be a legal business doing it on a regular basis. Let me go through a few scenarios for you just to give you an example of how all this would work. And I'm going to cite you an example. You did not have a copy of this because I forgot I had it, but I want to read this to you. Lieutenant Brewer can tell the story but this year a business owner in Little Rock was burglarized and his warehouse was stripped of the copper wire that's this year the presumed thief left his ladder and bolt cutters
no prints in the warehouse the copper was smelted and sold to a large scrapyard the thief provided all the information to the scrapyard which would include the correct name, address, etc. as currently required the owner caught the thief the next night coming back into the warehouse to get his ladder Records show the same person coming back to get his ladder and the same person that sold the copper. But the police department could not arrest him for theft, as the owner could not say that the copper sold to the scrapyard was taken from his warehouse. Here, everything worked exactly as it's supposed to under the current law,
but police cannot arrest the thief for the theft, only misdemeanor trespassing. They could not prove that the thief took the copper as it was melted beyond recognition. In the event that this occurred again and a man breaks into a warehouse, and steals all the copper wire out of it and then comes back the next night to retrieve his lateral bolt cutters, how would that have been addressed under this? He would not have been able to sell it unless he had a copy of his tax receipt to show that it came from his private property. If he had been able to sell it using a copy of the tax assessment, it would produce a paper trail that the police could have followed
and gone to his residence to verify that that which he sold was actually his property. A second scenario, someone steals something on a restricted list and they're able to get it from someone off of the authorized seller list to sell the restricted material under them. Well, when caught, the license is revoked, no longer able to be used. And what that does is it forces people to be in a good, honest working relationship with other people if they're going to try to do something under their license. No one goes on.
Names go on the do not buy list that the police would provide to the scrapyard, which would cut the, and here's the issue, it would cut off the thieves' ability to sell the product because there's no way, there's a barrier that's being built. This arrangement requires good working relationship with the license holder. Another scenario, a private property owner is doing his own work on his own property and accumulates some restricted metal. For example, a man is plumbing or rewiring his own house and wants to take it to the scrapyard. When he delivers the item to the scrapyard property, all he's got to do is bring his tax assessment paper with his photo ID
and show that this is where the items came from. In the event that he is lying, police will have a paper trail that they can go back, and while they maybe can't prevent it, they can at least catch him, put him on the do not buy list, and prevent him from being able to sell. Someone is out scavenging around for scrap and comes across the items on their restricted list. How is he supposed to sell it? Most are doing it on a regular enough basis that they should have a state-issued license or have a good working relationship with a license holder that materials can be sold under a license number.
A couple more. Someone is working for a company who acquires on a regular basis assorted metals on a restricted list. How can that employee work for that employer to sell the restricted materials? I'll give you a real example. When the Taco Bell shut down at Asher University, the contractor that had the contract to tear that building down was out of Russellville. He contracted with an individual to sell all the stainless steel out of it that was in the kitchen area. and what he did was he was able to give them a bill sale
and he would be able to give them his license number and say here's your clear ownership to it including my license number you can take it to the scrapyard and sell it and there would be no problems that's an example of how it would work in the case that you are working under a subcontract but you yourself are not one of the license holders a police officer pulls over a truckload of restricted material all the driver has to do is produce the license under which the materials are being transported or a tax assessment which is as simple as carrying in your glove box like it is any of the other licensures for your vehicle
or a contract showing ownership of the materials. And I want to just kind of bring it to a wrap before I answer any questions and draw your attention to the two letters. Last week on Wednesday the 16th, Don Supply was burglarized. As a result, it cost him, it's going to cost him about $30,000. Now this involved air conditioners. I will admit to that, and that's already been addressed under House Bill 1555, but there were other copper items, tubing, that was also stolen in the process.
This law would help reinforce and, once caught, be able to limit the ability of the thieves to be able to sell their products to the scrapyard. The one I really want to draw attention to, though, is the letter from the Benton Utility Department, and it states, and this is for the benefit of those in the audience who do not have this letter, but you can listen as I read along. In the past three years, Benton Utilities has experienced a rash of copper and aluminum theft. Approximately two and a half years ago, we were building a new equalization basin for the water treatment plant system in Benton.
The control building was stripped of copper on three different occasions, which is a cost in excess of $100,000, taxpayers' dollars, in replacing this copper. We have had numerous areas where this cutting of the neutral copper wires off the transformers, which is very dangerous. In 2009 and 2010, which was after the current laws exist, the copper grounding grid was stolen. Mr. Hammer? Sir. I'm sorry. Mrs. Rogers has a point of order. I'm
going to listen to her point of order. I apologize, Mr. Hammer,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:51:21
but you cannot read from a letter unless the person is here to testify from it.
Those are our House rules and committee and House floor. Mr. Hammer, Mrs. Rogers is correct. I think you've made your
point sufficiently, though. Would you like to wrap up, and then we'll go from there? Yes, and had I been aware of that, my apologies
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:51:40
to you and the committee. No problem. And I got far enough along to get the gist. Thank you very much. No problem. All I would ask you to do, and I'll be glad to answer any questions, is just take all this into consideration and be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Hammer.
I've got several questions. First, Mr. Nichols. Is there a question? No? No question? Oh. Not at this time. Not at this time. Okay. Mr. Deffenbaugh, I believe.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a few. All right. And I'm sure you've hit
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:52:15
some of these. You read fast. I'm a slow learner. Okay. Lunch is coming. Lunch is actually here in case anyone
wants lunch. Feel free to go to my office and pick up lunch.
We're just going to have to work right through lunch. Remember,
Speaker 169
1:52:30
guys, we're going in at 1 o'clock today. So if you want lunch, you're going to have to sit at your desk and eat, and
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:52:39
we're going to have to just move forward. Go ahead, Mr. Deffenbaugh. In that case, I'll speed this up. What happens when a law-abiding citizen cleans
up his neighborhood and has no idea where the scrap came from, doesn't know
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:52:49
any contractors or plumbers? All he's got to do is carry his tax assessment paper, show that he cleaned it up off of his property when he crosses the scale, provide that along with the other verifiable written proof that's spelled out in this,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:53:00
and he shouldn't have a problem. Okay. All right. Second, why would a licensed contractor buy a scrap metal if they run the risk of losing their business license if one of their employees knowingly or unknowingly bought stolen a scrap metal? If I had
that license, I wouldn't do it. So they wouldn't want to do
that, would they? No, sir. All right. So can individuals who collect and recycle scrap metal legally on behalf of their church, school, neighbors, family members,
would they lose their right to sell scrap metal directly to a scrap yard? You read off several things. Would you restate that question, please? Can individuals who collect and recycle scrap metal legally on behalf of their church, school, neighbors, family members, then the question, would they lose their right to sell scrap metal directly to a scrap yard? I think I heard the word regular in there, and
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:53:57
if they're going to do it on a regular business, all they'd have to do is just apply to the state for a state business license,
and they would be able to produce that at the scales, and
that would be proof sufficient enough to be able to continue to do that. I heard
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:54:17
the word regular in your statement. Okay. All right, two more, real quick. You know, an opinion. Would this cause
scrap recyclers in Arkansas, border towns like, you know, Fort Smith, Texarkana, would they be devastated because scrap flow will move across the border?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:54:35
Would that hurt us? Probably no more than pseudofedron or any other items that we've had to deal with, but I would answer that in this question. I'd like Arkansas to be a leader in being aggressive in this. We always look at other states and what other states have done, and typically, I'm sorry, that's an incorrect, unfair statement. I would just like Arkansas to be a trendsetter in the hopes that the states around us would also enforce title rules and that the honest businessman, whether the receiver or the seller, will be protected and get rid of the thieves,
which will actually create more income to the honest folks if we get rid of the
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:55:16
thieves. Okay. One more. uh so can a business
can a business or clerk that makes two mistakes in five years be charged as a felon not under this bill
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:55:27
unless i have missed it no there was no uh there's no felony clause on this now on the
other bill that i ran uh the other day i guess i believe you would be charged as felon but there's there this is an enforcement law not a not a penalty law other than losing
your license. MR. Okay. Thanks, Representative Hammer. Thanks. MR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Hammer, just a couple of questions
from the chair as well. As you know and the folks who have been here before know that I spent a lot of time working on scrap metal bill last session, and I won't say it's working perfectly. I'm not sure we had enough time to totally determine if it's working perfectly, but you and I have talked a lot about that. And I wanted just a couple of comments or actually questions or just statements on what
you said earlier. In your first point, you gave a lot of examples. One was where someone had stolen copper wire and melted it and smelted it and then sold it. I just want to point out that under the bill that we passed, Act 390, that should not be allowed because actually melted or smelted piping is illegal to be sold. And so that's current law. So in your situation, if the scrap dealer were following the law, they would not have been able to sell that copper wiring.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:56:47
Is that correct? That is correct. That is in the current law now that that should not have
happened in the first place. And you've changed the current code around the configuration a little
bit and kept a lot of the things in there. Under the current old law and under your bill, we would still get thumbprints or fingerprints of the folks who choose to recycle
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:57:09
metals. Is that correct? That is correct. That part of the law has not been, and in our discussions or in discussions, and there's been a lot of them, there was actually a, it still keeps that intact.
Okay. And would you agree that one problem that
we have is that we have some scrap dealers, and not all, some are very law-abiding and in compliance with this law, and I appreciate those that are honoring Act 390. which we agreed to in past last session, but you have some dealers who are accepting items that currently shouldn't be accepted. Is that not correct? Would you restate that, that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:57:50
are or are not accepting?
They are accepting things like smelted copper wire, and that shouldn't be accepted under current law. Is that correct? Yes. So our problem here really is how do we deal with those scrap dealers who are not abiding by current law, because no matter how many laws we put on them, the real problem is making sure that scrap dealers don't accept. If there is no opportunity to make money from this, then no one would do it.
So we've got a lot of laws in place to try to prevent scrap theft, but the real problem is we've got to try to figure out a way how we make sure those scrap dealers who are
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:58:33
not complying with our laws, how they do so. Wouldn't you agree with that? I would respond by saying that I believe that the scrap metal industry is a vital part of our state that helps keep our state clean. And for those that are going to be out scrapping, we need to do everything we can to make them as
legitimate as possible and separate the goats out from the sheep, so to say.
Well, I totally agree with that, and that was the delicate balance that I tried to strike in Act 390. And while I appreciate your efforts and I'm completely concerned with what you're trying to address, So I want to fix this problem because I've had personal problems here. And that was some of the impetus behind Act 390. My concern is under this bill, there may be some legitimate scrap recycling that we're going to deter. And my theory is that on our roadways and the streets and in my rural communities that I represent, you're going to see products that would have to be scrapped by a licensed contractor or an HVAC operator,
and they're just not going to take the time to do it. And we've got folks who go around the job sites for a living, you know, poor people in my district who pick up these products with the blessing sometimes or sometimes not even with the knowledge of the owner of the property, and they scrap that for a living. It happens a lot in my district, and I'd like to see that be able to occur, but when they're stealing it, obviously we don't want them to do that. But my concern is this industry plays a vital role, and I'm concerned that we're hinging
on maybe tilting the balance toward preventing some legitimate scrapping. And that's what I'm really concerned about in your bill here. Do you think you've struck that proper balance and we won't see an abundance of metal products scattered throughout our communities? I would go back to Mr. Deffenbaugh
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:00:22
that represented Deffenbaugh's comment, and that is regular, and I think you cited that in your example just then, that these people are on a regular circuit working with regular people doing a regular job.
All they have to be is under contract with that contractor, and whenever they pick up a load, and that can be either restricted or non-restricted, all they have to do is just provide documentation that I picked up 15 pounds of copper pipe from job location at XYZ address and have that documentation to present at the scales when they come across. And I guess it boils down to, in my opinion, I guess it boils down to this. Do we want to require accountability such as that,
or do we want more letters where a business that's just trying to provide in the community has been hit for $30,000 and a city that could have had, you know, their power grid shut down, which are we, is it bad enough yet that we won't put a stop sign up at the crossroads is the question. But I think in answer to your question, through contractual arrangements,
that what you are saying could continue
to go on. I totally agree with you, and in my neighborhood, our lights were knocked out because somebody just took copper wire of the power grid.
I think they got justice punishment for that, though. They got a little execution there. That's not this law. No, it's not, but it happens. But there are also people who, you know, they actually go around and take out scrap out of your recycle bin or pick it up off of job sites where there's no contractor there. It's in a big trash bin. It's going to the trash. They go around to those trash bins and they take out things that are sellable and they do that for a living. They don't know the contractor and the contractor's got in the trash bin and it's going to trash.
And it's going to trash. They are making a living from doing that, though they don't know the contractor. Would you think that your bill would stop that from happening for those folks who choose to do that for a living? And
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:02:24
I think you just separated it right there when you said they do that for a living. If they do that for a living, all they've got to do, according to this law, is have a license from the state to do business. We're not asking to reveal their income tax return. This is a cash business. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in just separating the legitimate from the illegitimate.
And that comment right there, I think, substantiates all they've got to do. Because when they send in for a state license, they declare that they have a physical address out of which they are doing business. And that gives law enforcement a place to go to and a place to identify that this is where they're doing business so they can assess what items are there maybe before it gets to the scrapyard. MR. Well, Mr.
Hammer, in closing, I applaud your effort. You and I have talked about this a lot, and we worked on this last session, and I appreciate
your efforts here, but I really think we've got to figure out a way to try to make those scrap dealers who are not abiding by the law, they are accepting a product that shouldn't be accepted, we've got to figure out a way to rein them in without unnecessarily burdening legitimate recycling. Would you not agree? MR.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:03:36
I would agree in that. I think that's addressed in
this bill, but anyway, thank you. Mr. Chair will yield to Mr. Walker. Do you have questions, Mr. Walker?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:03:47
Yes, sir. I was proud to compliment Representative Hemmer yesterday and to call him a civil rights advocate. And today he's obviously anxious to protect a group of people who don't need to be protected, But I want to I want to I would like to keep the questions on the bill there, Mr. Well, yeah, I'm trying to understand a couple of things that you say.
Is there some law that requires all people who
engage in business to get a business
license before doing business? Not that I'm
aware. I see. And there may be, but I'm not aware. Your bill makes reference to people who may pick up scrap on the road as being business people, and you would
require them to either have a business license
or to have that property declared as personal property of theirs. Is that correct? Or
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:04:54
the other option is work under somebody who does have a license if they have a good working relationship with them. That was the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:05:05
other option. Now tell me, if a company that produces air conditioners or sells air conditioners happens to have a truck drop one of those air conditioners on the road and he just leaves it there and somebody else picks it up,
would you punish the person who's picked it up and taken it in to be sold under
this bill is your question how would that man legally take
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:05:38
it to the scrap yard and sell it another way to ask your question that's right thank you for helping me you're welcome I think all the gentleman would have to do would go to somebody that he has a working relationship with that has a license to say, here's what happened.
Of course, what I would do is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:05:59
if the person does that under your bill, then the person is capable of being held liable for a crime, isn't he? Not if he goes through the process
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:06:10
of what this bill is structured to do, but I would return it to the company
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:06:15
that lost it. Well, the company, that's the cost involved. And the company has to make a choice itself, doesn't it? The company has to choose whether or not it's cost-effective to pick up its own property or to have somebody else pick it up for them.
Now, the company may be guilty of littering by leaving that property on the street, right? It might hypothetical. It might. All right, but this bill doesn't punish the company for littering. It punishes the person who helps clean up the litter by taking it off the street and taking it to somebody who will either buy it or he's got to take it home
with him, in which case he'll be guilty of stolen property, having stolen property. That would be your interpretation.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:06:59
I think there are means in the bills whereby in that situation, of course, the company, I think, would have a greater liability if I'm filing that truck and that air conditioner fell off and I ran over it. It's not going to be littering. But I think that there are means and mechanisms in this bill for that to be
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:07:16
addressed through working relationships. Well, but working relationships differ from legal obligations, don't they? It probably depends on
whether this bill gets passed or not. Let me ask. Now, let me ask. In this hypothetical, let's assume that property has
been the company that dropped this property
has left it on the road for seven years. Is there a statute of limitations that somehow or another divest the company of ownership in that property? I'm not a lawyer. You probably are more rehearsed on
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:07:49
that, but I think we're going back to the same point, and that is if the man finds it the day it falls off the truck or he finds it seven years after it falls off the truck, how is he going to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:08:03
be able to take that and go to the scrapyard with it? Well, here's my question. If you happen to be somebody whom you don't define as a thief
and that person comes and puts a fence around my land or sits on my land even though I'm still paying tax on it for seven years, that person has taken my land and it's his land and I have seven years under the statute of limitations in which to retrieve my land. Why should scrap metal or this kind of property, which is more or less abandoned, be given a longer statutory period for recapture of ownership than land that's owned by legitimate people
who just may be out of state, who are paying taxes or whatever? Why should you have a statute of limitations that allows them to forever say that this is their
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:08:58
property? I would answer that by saying that there is a recourse for that piece of that, in your case or your illustration, that air conditioner that fell off the truck, whether it's one year or whether it's 20 years, because often items are unclaimed out in Grandpa's barn or whatever the case may be for 20 years.
And in the course of this bill, built through honest relationships, you could do it in 100 years from now if you came across that restricted item. All right, but I'm trying to understand
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:09:30
why I can lose my property to another person if I live in Little Rock and I don't go to hope to claim my property. If somebody else is sitting on my property, it's too late for me to reclaim my property. But if I have some scrap metal on that property, I can get my property off of it.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:09:48
Why is that? I don't know, but I think that would be a great bill
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:09:52
for you to write to address that, Mr. Walker. I don't think that it's fair, but let me go on with a couple of my other questions. Well, let's see. I'm told we have a lot of other
ones, so I'll sort of defer. We have several, Mr. Walker, so if you would be brief, that'd be great. And if everyone would choose to be brief,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:10:07
that'd be great. Well, in all due respect, I would like to just ask one or two of them. Go right ahead. I'm not
cutting you off. Just letting you know we've got a lot on the list.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:10:29
by this law? I'm trying to understand that. Does the public profit, or does the people who are careless sometimes themselves with the use and protection of their profit? I'm not talking about the innocent person who has copper in his home and somebody comes in and steals it. That's another thing.
But what about people who just go away from home and stay away for two or three weeks and just leave the doors open or whatever, and they come back and somebody's come in? Do you want to really protect those people who have taken no action to protect themselves?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:11:09
I would answer that by saying what about the man that gets sent off because he's employed with the company? He has to be gone for an extended length of time. should he be disadvantaged because he's been sent away on work and his home's left vacant and people come around and scout that out.
People who do not have good honest working relationships have no licensing process and that man comes back after being deployed or after working for a long period of time only to find that his house has been taken advantage of and he turns on his water and his pipes are gone or his electricity doesn't work. Or the contractor that's built a house that's sitting out there for three months waiting to sell and one day he comes in and finds out the night before the thieves have come in and stripped all the copper wire out of it, yes, I'm trying to protect that person.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:11:55
Well, I'm concerned about that, but I'm trying to understand. Do you not want to make sure that people take reasonable precautions to protect their own property and to prevent others from getting in? I think in the example of the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:12:10
two letters that I passed out to you, Those are cases involving thousands of dollars where reasonable, and that, honestly, I'm having a little hard time getting my hand around it because we're trying to take the law-abiding citizens and make them out to be the ones that are guilty,
when in reality it's the ones who are out here doing the thievery and doing the damage that they're doing, and we're wanting to try to build a protection around them. If they don't go out and steal and they don't do the very things that have forced us to have this discussion, we don't have a problem whether that house sits vacant a year or whether that transformer is sitting out there and nobody goes around and does regular maintenance where through a process of regular maintenance they realized and found out that somebody was setting it up to rip it out. I'm having trouble getting my hands around the connection of why we're trying to protect the thieves and disadvantage the honest person.
You ought to be able to leave your doors unlocked and respect
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:13:04
that property. Well, I want you to understand I'm not trying to protect thieves, But I am saying that we have to make sure that the laws relate to legitimate problems and also that people who buy this stuff have to be punished themselves for buying it. Would you not agree? If they buy it and they know it's illegal or they reasonably ought to know, then should not they be punished?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:13:31
Thank you, Mr. Walker, for asking that question because what this bill does is gives the scrapyard buyers a process whereby they don't necessarily have to take a person's word so much as much as they have written documentation or know it's coming from an authorized source that's able to sell these restricted products, and it will actually protect them as well or build protection in
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:13:54
for them. Well, now, isn't it true
that most times people who buy scrap metal are not in a position to get a bill of sale for that scrap metal
when you're dealing with the kinds of people who pick up stuff on the street or who perhaps have it on the yard or who happen to just find it? And those people are not engaged in the business themselves of just doing that. This may be an occasional deal. Then I guess
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:14:21
I would respond by saying that. Has this become a big enough problem given the magnitude of attention in the press and in the court system that it's gotten that we want to introduce what is intended in this bill and what is presented in this bill to achieve?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:14:38
Final question. Your impact statement says that the impact would be minimal and it would affect fewer than 10 offenders per year. So if it would be minimal, why would you want to have so much involved? here, so many penalties and impose so many obligations on people who would otherwise impede the ability of legitimate scrap dealers to do their work? Well, at the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:15:01
risk of getting on the wrong side of somebody, that's not my statement. That was produced by the state, number one.
And number two, this bill does not, I brought a financial statement because I figured it was going to be asked for, or a fiscal statement, but the bill is an enforcement bill. It is not a bill that should have fiscal impact to the magnitude that you could use that as a reason not to address this bill because this is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:15:32
an enforcement. It doesn't say in fiscal impact. It says impact, and it's minimal. Your bill is minimal affecting sentencing commission, but it says minimal affecting fewer than 10 offenders per year.
I mean, that's ten people being brought into the justice system, and it
does not suggest that this is a problem you suggest. I would
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:15:53
suggest, then, that if you don't do anything but watch the media, read the paper, and why is law enforcement, police enforcement, having to give so much time, and why did we pass a bill two years ago with leads online? And I would, at the risk of getting on the wrong side of somebody, I think perhaps that report could have implied or could have shown that it is a bigger problem than what it indicates.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Ms. Rogers, you're next, followed
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
2:16:27
by Vice Chair Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Did you indicate if there is a fee to apply for that business license or that state-issued license, is there a fee to do that? If
Speaker 302
2:16:39
you apply for a business license, and I will not be able to answer your
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:16:44
questions how much that is, but if you send in to, I believe it's Department of Finance to get a business license,
Speaker 302
2:16:50
yes, there is a fee that whoever is applying for it has to
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
2:16:55
incur. Okay. I've got a little scenario that you may have addressed, but I want to make sure that I'm clear because in your presentation it was pretty quick and fast. I work at Phillips Community College in Stuttgart, and Lenox Industries from time to time has donated scrap metal to us to use for our welding program on our campus. And then after that, after we use it in our welding classes, then we're able to sell it to a dealer here in Little Rock.
And then that money goes into our foundation for scholarships. So I want to know how this bill is going to affect that or what
the effect or what would happen there. All you'd
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:17:36
have to do is have a contract with the air conditioning company down there that says that you receive that and that you can dispose of it at your discretion, a written contract between you and them, and present that at the scrapyard when you come across the sales. It creates a paper trail so that in the event maybe one of those students threw a few things in there extra for their own,
there would be a paper trail for the
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
2:18:02
police to be able to follow. Okay, but would the college have to apply for this business license
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:18:07
that you have referred to? I imagine you as a state entity already have that covered, and a simple contract would take care
of that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
2:18:18
Ms. Rogers. Vice Chair Wilkins, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got it on it. I had a bunch of questions I wanted to ask, but Representative Walker, once again, asked many of those.
Representative Walker, in the future, you need to limit your questions so that those of us who have other questions can ask them. Mr. Hammer, just a couple of quick things. Part of what I'm concerned about goes back to something that Representative Deffenbaugh referred to. If a youth group from a church, for example, has a project that they're doing and they're out collecting scrap metal,
you're saying that they have to have either a relationship with a dealer or they have to have some kind of a written document or show. You use the word state license. I wrote that down here when you said it. Would you explain that
Speaker 302
2:19:24
to me again? If you are a business in
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:19:29
the state of Arkansas, you need a business permit.
And I will answer your question by asking you this. Do you have any business owners in this
Chair
Unverified
2:19:40
church that are taking up scrap metal? A youth group would not be business owners, but if there are members of the church who have properties that, for whatever reason they're about to tear down and they have no use for that scrap metal. And they say to the youth group, hey, you've got a project coming up. You all go ahead and take the scrap metal from there.
You're saying that they would have to have some kind of a written document to do that? I'm saying
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:20:10
that if you had a business owner in your church, which most churches have, somebody owns a business, but I understand there are churches that do not. So I'll address it both ways. If you have a business owner in that church, all that business owner would have to do is prepare what is going to be required of anybody, and that is a list of where the items come from and verifiable documentation, and that can be done in the handwritten,
and that those kids from that church could take that underneath that business owner's license and go to any scrapyard and be able to sell it. The other thing is that if that, say there is not a business owner in that church, then the church, although churches is a little bit of a unique situation because I don't know that churches have assessments with the state because of their status and everything, but a church could take and list and document that.
and I'm stepping out on a limb and maybe proving wrong, and this may be the gotcha moment, that the church could write down that list of items that have been received, which if I was a pastor of a church and I have pastored before, I want to know where every piece of metal came from. The last thing I want to do is as a church have a bunch of do-good kids out there gathering up things and maybe they didn't get permission just because kids are what they are and grab what they thought wasn't anything. I'd want to know where every scrap of metal came from
and have that well documented before I subject my church to that kind of public
Chair
Unverified
2:21:44
embarrassment. So if the youth in the church have a letter from eight or ten different owners saying, hey, go pick this up, that does not automatically create a relationship with a scrap metal dealer. There
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:22:01
again, this might be your gotcha moment, But if they came with those eight or ten pieces of ownership where the owner said,
I gave Johnny Smith permission to take this to his church sale yard, and when the church got ready to put all that in one big trailer and came across the scrapyard under their business as a church, because church is our business, but as
Speaker 272
2:22:29
their business as a church, they could present all those letters with that and be able to
Chair
Unverified
2:22:35
run across the scales. So if the scrap metal dealer says, well, according to House Bill 2119, we can't accept this from you even though you have letters from the individual owners of those properties because this is not a letter or a license from your church to do this, then what's their response?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:22:55
i don't i don't know that that is a legitimate argument because the church is a business the church has a physical location church has a non-profit number of under which they operate if their church recognized by the state and they could bring that as proof of their licensure across the scale and as a pastor i would want to make sure i had information for where all that came from so that my church would not be unjustifiably accused of anything and i would submit that as documentation to go across the scales with.
Chair
Unverified
2:23:27
Okay. And then the final thing, what about in cases where people live in border cities? How would you handle that? I think that question was asked earlier. I mean. And I
Speaker 272
2:23:38
might have been out of the room for a moment when that was asked. Yes, sir. You know, if they
Speaker 302
2:23:47
cross state line, it's that state next door that has to deal with And
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:23:52
I hope that what we're trying to achieve here, that that was set standard for other states.
It's no different than people going across the street to buy Sudafedrin that we just, you know, put down tighter restrictions on
in example form. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Mr.
Speaker 298
2:24:12
Wright, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Hammer, my
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
2:24:16
question would be what if a property owner or the property is owned by a corporation and the owners of that corporation, we'll say a farmer, is cleaning up their property, how are they going to show on their assessment form, if the assessment form shows it's owned by a corporation,
how are they going to be able to sell
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:24:36
their scrap metal? Well, my knowledge of working farms, such as what you're talking about, like over in the Delta, where large plots of land are owned by corporations, I think that's easily resolved by the manager of the farm saying, I'm fixing to clean this place up. I need you to send me some legal assessment paper, you know, where it's assessed somewhere. There's got to be somewhere. And so they would just need to fax it down to their ranch manager or to their property manager
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
2:25:03
and be able to bring that with them. What is the assessment going to show in that the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:25:11
property owned in the name of the corporation? Is that correct? It would be in the name of the corporation. That person that is the manager would be acting
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
2:25:18
as an agent for them. Well, what if, how are they going to know that? I mean, the form is going to show the corporation's name as opposed to the person's name, the owner of the stock, or the manager even. They're
Speaker 105
2:25:28
going to show up in an assessment form that is an XYZ corporation. All they need to do is send a letter.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:25:34
In fact, I think it's in here. We can take time for me to look and see that it's in there. All they'd have to do is send a letter saying that Johnny Smith is manager of XYZ property. Here's the assessment for it. And I understand that would be the same thing as a construction. In fact, down in Selene County, we've got a place that has I don't know how much old equipment sitting on it that if they ever decide to clean it up, it would take that kind of documentation. And that's what we're after is verifiable. And that would fall under the phrase verifiable that's in there.
And I do know that's in there, that word verifiable. you would send verifiable information with that load of old combines and old stuff off the farm to cross the scales with and creates a paper trail that if somebody came in in the night and stole all that stuff off that farm and they get a police report, then they can go to the scrapyards and say, have you got this and where's your information to verify it? Thank you, Representative Hammer.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
2:26:33
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Gillum, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hammer
when I first heard about this bill
I got kind of excited because I've had this happen to me and still somewhat bitter over it and it's been a couple of years I've been waiting this presentation and I know you've had several meetings on this and I'm like Chairman Williams I applaud the effort and the intent behind it and I'm trying to get here for this based on your presentation,
but there's some gaps and some things that have been brought up here that are causing me some concern over this. And just to go back to something that Representative Deffenbaal had said here earlier, he asked a question about the churches and the schools and things. I didn't hear the word regular when he asked that question. I know you thought you did and you answered it accordingly that way. How about, if you wouldn't mind, of maybe addressing irregular activity that way. I mean, I know you keep referring back to the regular and it has to be in the course
of the business and all this kind of stuff, but the one-time or two-time incident, how is that affected by
this? Because I haven't really seen any kind of cover there. Sure. And I want to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:27:52
remind the committee that what we're talking about is the restricted material. We're not talking about the red iron. We're not talking about the combine that doesn't have aluminum or any restricted. items in it, please let us remember that we're talking about restricted items. And I also want to remind you that the majority of the restricted items were in the law that
was written in 2010 and that we've only added the three additional ones from which the biggest amount of problems continue to operate as substantiated by the letters and the media. And I said all that to answer your question, Representative Gillum, that if it's one of Those situations, that is, on a rare basis, you need to find somebody that is authorized to sell restricted materials and have that relationship with them. Okay. May I ask a couple
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
2:28:40
of follow-up questions, Chairman? Absolutely, Mr. Gilliam. I guess that kind of is leading me along the lines here, and you've answered, I guess, that accordingly to several other questions here.
And I guess this is kind of what's causing me some concern here is the fact that you get a rogue plumber or contractor that decides they want to make a little side money on it, and they could be signing off on this stuff left and right. It seems to me that we're creating a whole new subset of problems here. I mean, I've thought of four or five different examples, and I know I probably shouldn't say this. This might kind of lead to a bad reelection moment here for me. but I've thought of several different angles already just from your presentation today
on ways that I can go ahead and still sell my I can continue doing this just by getting somebody to sign off on it and unfortunately I've come across a few of those individuals in my lifetime and I think they would still probably do it I have not seen yet how this actually closes the loophole I think it just redirects it unfortunately and I'm trying to get there for you but it just seems like we just kind of are pushing the problem a different direction, but we're not really addressing the problem. And that may not really be in the form of a question,
but do you understand maybe where I'm coming from on that? I do, and let
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:29:57
me help you get there. The way you get there is if you've got a road plumber that's gone out there and started doing all this, the teeth in this bill is that in order to cross that scale, you've got to have one of these licenses. You've got to have something that falls under the classification of who can sell, Again, remember, restricted material. It's not a question of if, but a question of when that plumber would be caught up. And by this bill, it will create a paper trail that will make it easier for law enforcement and prosecutors to be able to put that man away.
But remember this. That man went to school for a long time for his license. And we want to go out and pull licenses down from doctors who do things that are wrong and affect other people's lives. we'll pull that that that individual's license will be pulled and he will no longer be able to operate and the day that happens he's out of business and he can no longer cross the scales because he doesn't have a license to be able to cross the scales with now sure and i and i will admit up front like a i don't want to say a lot but like some of the other things that we do
if somebody wants to steal and continue to do this they're going to continue to do it but i I believe this bill raises the level of respectability in all areas, whether it's the people that are out there just trying to be honest, make-a-living individuals, or the scrapyards that are going to be buying it, either one. But in answer to your question,
that's how you address that, and that's the teeth in the
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
2:31:19
bill on that. Okay. Now, as a follow-up to that, maybe, and I understand, you know, the license situation is going to be an issue there,
But if you, like say a rental operation, which I know you covered in your handout that if somebody has rental property and things, go in that direction with it, I mean, you know, the copper from air conditioning or, I mean, well, that's already covered under a different bill, but they could continue to, I guess for an extended period of time, you know, be able to use that person's business license and continue to sell property. I guess from what I'm hearing, there's a lot of concern over the burden that's being placed on individuals and businesses
to have to go through these hoops in order to be able to sell. What kind of guarantee do we have that the law enforcement agencies are going to then step up? Because I've heard from several in my area, and they seem to be thinking Leads Online is doing good. The concern that they've expressed is that maybe there's some areas in the state in which the departments are not necessarily implementing Leads Online to the fullest. How does this change it? I mean, we're doing a lot of effort here, but if law enforcement doesn't take the next step and to continue to put it forward,
we just put a whole lot of burden on a bunch of people for no reason. I guess that's maybe some concern I'm hearing from the testimony
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:32:40
today as well. Well, and part of the problem is law enforcement is never funded enough to be able to have enough manpower to be in enough places at enough time to be able to do the investigation and everything. So I think that's a problem that existed before this discussion occurred, and it's going to be a problem even after this discussion. The question I think you want to ask is when law enforcement does get a tip and does get a lead, because this does not replace leads online,
but obviously, and no disrespect to the chairman, obviously that there's still an ongoing problem that leads online needs a little more teeth put on it to take that information, combine it with some other information, in order to give police the shortest route to be able to make a conviction. And I think that's part of what this bill is intended to achieve. And I will tell you, I think everybody sitting in this room is trying to be a law-abiding citizen. And as a law-abiding citizen, if I can do something that is going to protect me,
I'm going to go the extra measure in order to be able to do that because those that are not law-abiding citizens are out there creating a lot of damage and hurt and harm, and even death as cited a while ago by the individual that tried to pull out the electric grid and got electrocuted. You know, there's a sense of duty to protect the ignorant even from their own actions, and that's one thing I think that this bill, you know, will help achieve. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. May I ask a question, please? Yes, go right ahead. I know, and I want a good bill, Mr. Chairman and committee.
I want a good bill. I want a bill that's going to stand up and do what's best for everybody and not create any greater hardships but address a problem. If I'm out of order, forgive me. But I know there's people in this room who want to speak to and against it. I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do as the chair directs. I'm prepared to pull this bill down because I feel that some people were probably giving information before this meeting, and now they're hearing this, and it may be a lot to absorb. I'm prepared to pull this bill down to run it at a later time if the chair will allow the committee will allow, and how you want to handle the people who have been sitting
through here that have something they want to say pro or con against it, I'll defer to the chair. Thank
you, Mr. Hammer. If you're going to pull this down, we're going to stop hearing it
right now just because of our time frame. We will allow you to pull it down. For those who are here to speak for or against the bill, Mr. Hammer has pulled it down, so that's not necessary. If he chooses to bring this back, it will remain on our agenda. I assume you want to keep it on the agenda? I want to keep it on the agenda. It will remain on the agenda, so it's possible that it may come back on Thursday. It will be down on the agenda on Thursday, but you're allowed to pull it down.
Speaker 260
2:35:18
Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry. Sure. I recognize that we had two other persons
Chair
Unverified
2:35:25
who were also waiting to present bills, and I'm looking at the time. Are we going to attempt to give them an opportunity to present their bills that have been waiting for a couple of hours? and see if we can do those in a timely manner in light of the time. I was actually just looking at that.
Members, we go into session at 1 o'clock, and so we can't, of course, meet while the House is in session. So, Mr. Vice Chair, I have promised at least two of those folks who are waiting over there that they'll be near the top of the agenda on Thursday. I don't think that out of concern for our questioning in this committee that we'll be able to get anything done in 12 minutes. But I would defer to the committee
Speaker 323
2:36:16
unless you all think differently. Well, I guess the answer has been given.
Ms. Post, we'll take you up near the top of the agenda on Thursday. I'm sorry.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB214
HB1811
HB1606
HB2029
SB707
SB736
SB855
HB2119
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 41
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 72
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Speaker 78
Speaker 79
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 80
Roger Smith
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 109
Speaker 116
Speaker 130
Speaker 132
Speaker 134
Speaker 136
Speaker 139
Speaker 141
Speaker 143
Speaker 147
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 160
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 166
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 171
Speaker 170
Speaker 174
Speaker 175
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 180
Speaker 185
Speaker 189
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 194
Speaker 196
Speaker 173
Speaker 198
Speaker 199
Speaker 204
Speaker 118
Speaker 235
Speaker 245
Speaker 244
Speaker 239
Speaker 256
Speaker 258
Speaker 260
Speaker 263
Speaker 265
Speaker 128
Speaker 272
Speaker 274
Speaker 111
Speaker 58
Speaker 275
Speaker 281
Speaker 286
Speaker 288
Speaker 280
Speaker 291
Speaker 315
Speaker 302
Speaker 298
Speaker 105
Speaker 323