House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1410
· 6 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1410”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1823
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1823”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2029
· 2 mentions in chapter
Matched: “HB2029”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1851
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1851”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1888
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1888”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2168
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2168”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2169
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2169”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB8
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…1410 as amended. Mr. Nichols, you want to go ahead and run House Bill 8 – which one is it, Ms. Nichols? Okay. Not 1494? You want to…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB750
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB750”
|
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
Very loud conversations to take them to the hall. We're going to get started. Mr. Summers,
are you ready to run House Bill 1410? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Summers, you are
Speaker 3
0:19
recognized for House Bill 1410. Tim Summers, State Representative of House Bill 1410. We
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
0:23
presented you all previously, and it was a committee's recommendation that we amend it to allow the state police to promulgate the rules regarding the process.
We've done that. An amendment should be in front of you, and I'd ask for a due pass as amended. Thank you.
I'm sorry, Mr. Summers, we're getting the amendment out. We apologize. I'm a little slow here. I didn't realize it wasn't engrossed. Okay. My
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
0:51
apology. I was trying to be efficient with the U.C.L.'s time. We appreciate that.
Members, this is Mr. Summers' own amendment to his bill. Let's see if we can't get this added to his bill while he's passing out to you. I see a motion for Mr. Rice for amendment number one to House Bill 1410 without objection. We're going to take that motion. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Okay. Mr. Summers, now you are recognized to represent House Bill 1410 as amended.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:29
Okay. The amendment to the bill that we worked on last time merely allows the state police to do the rules regarding the process,
which is what you all had recommended at that time.
If I remember correctly, that is exactly what we recommended. Members, do you have any questions for Mr. Summers on House Bill 1410 with the amendment present? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1410? Seeing no one, Mr. Summers, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you. I have a motion from Vice Chair Wilkins to do pass as amended. All in favor, aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Summers. You've passed House Bill 1410 as amended. Mr. Nichols, you want to go ahead and run House Bill 8 – which one is it, Ms. Nichols? Okay. Not 1494? You want to hold that? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I was going – okay. So you want to run House Bill 1823. Members, this is House Bill 1823.
And without objection, we're going to take them out of order.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:59
to be here to run some bills, so we may get them
before our 1030 special presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1823 deals with legal fees for representation in workers' compensation cases. In 1993, the legislature passed a very onerous, what I would consider an onerous workers'
compensation changes, and one thing that it took away was the ability for attorneys to receive attorney fees when they are successful in collecting medical compensation by becoming a prevailing party. It's only due when the carrier or the employer has controverted the claim. So the workers' compensation committee, which is made up, this is of the Arkansas Bar Association,
the workers' compensation committee came up with this kind of compromise amendment to give the attorney who is successful in collecting the medical bills that they are entitled to a 20% fee, but it would be capped at $2,500. So it is a very, very, very modest proposal, and I think it is something that is needed. I think it is a fairness issue if the attorneys are doing the work that results in hospitals
and doctors being paid, then they should be compensated for that. And so this is the nature of this bill, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions. Thank you, Mr. Nichols,
for that presentation. Members, any questions of Mr. Nichols on House Bill 1823? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against House Bill 1823? I don't have anyone signed. Oh, no, sorry. I do have someone signed up. Hall and I can't read the Carol Worley okay but would you please sit down this
Karen Mckinney
Unverified
5:03
table and state your name my name is Karen McKinney I'm a commissioner with the Workers Compensation Commission I'm not here to speak for or against the bill I simply wanted to state some facts that I heard mr. Nichols representative Nichols present that were not completely accurate, and I just wanted to have the facts straight before the committee so that y'all could vote on it. Go right ahead. He was right. There was an overhaul in 1993, Act 796, which was passed.
Since Act 796 was passed, any changes to the workers' compensation laws have been by compromise between business and labor. There were no changes in 1993 with regard to attorney's fees. Back at that point in time, from the time that attorney's fees were allowed, it was always roughly 10% plus $400. There was a formula, but if it was over $2,000, it was 10% plus $400. In 2001, there was a compromise that labor presented to management,
which was to increase that fee from 10% plus $400 to 25%. Labor said, as part of the compromise, we want the 25 percent on the indemnity benefits. We will give up the fee on the medical. Labor voluntarily gave that up as part of the compromise. It was not asked by management, but they said, we're giving something to you. In exchange for this, Labor had inserted into a bill a provision where they were allowed to contract with a medical care provider for the medical care provider to pay them for
their attorney's fees for any collection. Now, I do not see that Mr. Nichols' bill takes out this provision for the contract. I will tell you, having been an administrative law judge and being a commissioner, that there have not been any contracts that the claimant's attorneys have presented to the commission for collection of fees, but that provision is still in the law. Thank you. Is it Ms. Worley?
I'm Karen McKinney with the Workers' Compensation Commission. I was not signed up, and I did not intend to testify, but I did hear some facts that were not completely accurate, and I wanted the committee to have the accurate facts. Okay. And I'm not testifying for or against. Commissioner McKinney, will you take questions? I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
7:37
will. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Ms. Worley. You say you're not far against, but it sounds like you're
Karen Mckinney
Unverified
7:43
against. I'm presenting the facts as I know them.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
7:46
Do you favor the, has the commission, the Workman's Comp Commission, taken a position on this bill? No, sir. How many commissioners are there? There are three commissioners. Have you all
had any dialogue at all about this bill? Yes, we have. And you had
an opportunity to take a position? Yes, we did. But you all chose not to. That is correct. So at this point, there's no objection to Mr.
Speaker 24
8:12
Nichols' bill? There is no objection, just terrifying facts. I understand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Walker. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, Ms. McKinney, thank you very much for your testimony. Commissioner McKinney. Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1823? Okay, Carol, I'm sorry. I was looking for you.
Speaker 42
8:35
Go right ahead, Ms. Worley. Yes, and I am here today on behalf of Asia and respondents for the most part, and I agree
Speaker 44
8:41
with Ms. McKinney. I was here in 1993 when they made the changes to the Workers' Comp Act
and in 2001 when the changes were made to the attorney's fee portion of that act. Representative Nichols has indicated that this is a compromise amendment, and in fact I'm not aware of any compromise between labor and management for the bill that has been introduced or that has been posed today. The language in the bill itself, and I looked back through the language from the old Act and the current proposed changes, and in and of itself it's vague and nonspecific as it's written.
What I think it's going to do, having done workers' compensation defense work for the past 23 years, I think this is going to increase litigation. It's going to allow for piecemeal litigation for medical bills and medical issues. There already is a process in place for collection of medical bills, and that is, as Commissioner McKinney indicated, that the various claimant's attorneys can contract with the medical care providers to recoup bills just like they do in any type of contract situation.
I don't know of any other forum in the litigation process that allows or that provides for one party, that being the respondents, to pay the full amount of attorney's fees on collection of medical bills. In this instance, the statute itself said, uses terminology, the commission may award. Well, may, as you know, is strictly construed, does not indicate that it has to be awarded. That's purely discretionary. That's going to be discretionary for the administrative law judges and for the commission, which is
going to increase litigation. There's no indication in the language as to when a medical benefit is deemed to be controverted, whether it's controverted on an award of the commission or whether it's controverted on non-payment of the same within a specific period of time. There's no mention in the bill as to when or what will happen in the event health care providers have actually paid for the medical bills or the medical treatment that has been rendered. The $2,500 max doesn't indicate whether that's a maximum per claim or whether that's a maximum per request,
whether it's going to be something that a claimant's attorney can come back for again and again and again, seeking the $2,500 maximum. As we indicated, there is a system in place for the claimants to pursue a cause of action on their own. They don't have to have an attorney. They can certainly pursue it pro se. We also have the legal advisor system, where they can get free legal information and not representation but advice on how to pursue those claims.
Filtering your way through the administrative process of the Workers' Compensation Commission is not a difficult process. Pro se claimants do it all the time, and I think that pretty much is it. Thank you, Ms. Worley.
Speaker 46
11:45
Would you take questions? MS. Certainly. I recognize Vice Chair Wilkins for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
Speaker 49
11:52
for your presentation. A couple of questions. First of all, who did you say you represent?
Speaker 44
11:57
MS. Well, I'm here. I represent respondents. I'm the defense side of the Workers' Comp Forum, and I'm here on behalf of ASIA,
Speaker 52
12:07
which is the Arkansas Self-Insured Association. Okay. All right. And if you would, explain in a little bit more detail what you meant by the problem of per claim versus per
Speaker 54
12:20
request. Well, the language of the statute
Speaker 44
12:23
or the bill that is being proposed said not to exceed $2,500.
And there's no indication in there whether that's $2,500 per claim, which means the entire pendency of the claim, or per incident, which means each time an attorney goes forward and requests those benefits. In the old act, there was a limitation of two years. Attorney's fees were awarded on continuing medical treatment for a period of two years. And so you knew how much you were going to have to pay and what the amount and the length of period of time that would be paid.
The old act also, as Commissioner McKinney indicated, showed that it was a half-half split. The claimants paid half. No, in the old act, it was actually 10% plus $400. Now it's a half-half split for indemnity, and this requires payment of the entire amount by the employer or carrier. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Mr. Walker,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:28
are you recognized for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are you here formally on behalf of Asia?
Yes. All right. Are you a defense counsel?
I am. In these cases, Wakeman's Com cases, do you handle some of these matters? Some of? The matters, some of the issues that are controverted, some
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:54
I would handle only controverted cases. And you are familiar with 42 U.S.C. 1988 in the civil rights context? Familiar collaterally, yes.
Well, it's widespread, well used for years and years, and that's a fee-shifting requirement, as you know. Isn't that correct? That's correct. All right. And the idea is that when people are generally lower paid workers or lesser paid than normal, those persons need to have the opportunity to have counsel. So upon those people being able to get counsel, upon the possibility of winning, they are able to get counsel.
Isn't that correct? Well, at least the deal is that defense counsel always gets paid. and the people that this bill addresses don't always get paid, isn't that correct? They have to win first. Yes. All right. So you don't have to win or
lose. You get paid. I hope so. Now, I looked at the provision here on page 2. it seems to be pretty innocuous
in determining the amount of fees when a claim is not controverted the commission shall use its discretion in awarding an attorney's fee not to exceed 25% and in doing so shall take into consideration the nature, length and complexity of the services performed that means that the agency still can determine by
its discretion the amount of the fee, doesn't it?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:44
claims, yes. Well, and then the changes on the last page, F1. Yes,
sir. And that's discretionary also, isn't it? The commission may also award an attorney's fee. It's discretionary. Is that right? That's correct. All right. So if it's discretionary and the agency is the public agency, do you have faith that the agency will not be considerate in making its judgments of fees,
especially in view of the fact that more often than not these people cannot afford to pay the fees
Speaker 44
16:22
themselves? My experience is that probably in 23 years, I don't know that I have ever seen an attorney's fee awarded in a non-controverted case, which would, you know, that discretionary portion that you read out, I don't know that that ever comes into play. As far as the medical award that you're talking about and the discretionary, to me, the act, and I'm not saying some type of bill would not be appropriate,
some type of compensation arrangement, but as it is written, it appears to me to be vague and nonspecific. Whenever you have a very vague bill like that, it creates litigation, which is going to increase costs for everyone.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:02
Just one more question. Can you tell me the provision that you consider to be vague? Commission may
Speaker 44
17:10
award, not shall award, may award, an award being something that has to go all the way through the litigation process to get to there.
Speaker 42
17:19
Is it the may that's vague? May. Statutory construction may is very well vague.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:26
Well, that means it's up to the commission to make a determination. doesn't it?
Speaker 44
17:31
Up to the commission with litigation to determine that, yeah. No more questions. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 45
17:37
Walker. Mr. Hammer, you recognize? I would just
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:43
like for you if you would please, ma'am, to share, to tell us based on the way the law is
presently written and the changes that are being proposed to the law, is this in any way, shape, or form going to increase or encourage frivolous lawsuits when it comes to workman compensation cases, or will people be disadvantaged in one form or the other to, other than what was spoken about, whether they can afford or not? Can you speak to the issue of frivolous lawsuits and how this is going to affect it one way
Speaker 44
18:18
or the other, please? Well, my experience is that, and I'm not singling out specific claimants' attorneys,
but that there are oftentimes attorneys who will deem, in their minds, something controverted. For instance, if a claimant were to go get medical treatment and the bill is not paid for immediately or there are questions with the bill, they immediately deem that controverted. So now you've got a claim with a medical bill that's being questioned is suddenly controverted, and that's going to kick in their request for attorney fee costs associated with those medical bills when the claim in and of itself is not controverted.
So, yes, I do believe it's going to create frivolous litigation. There is
Speaker 42
19:00
a process now where the claimant's attorneys, and it's still in the act, and there's nothing in here indicating that that's being taken out of the act by this bill.
Speaker 44
19:08
There is a process where a claimant's attorney can go directly to the provider and say, okay, you've got $3,200 worth of outstanding medical bills. I'll collect that for you and get a third of it, just like I do in any other contract situation. So, you know, that is in place for that to happen.
Speaker 72
19:26
Okay, can I ask you, Mr. Chairman? Sure, you can. Go
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:32
ahead, Mr. Henry. Thank you. Based on the statement you just said, using that illustration, so if the claimant has $3,300 worth of medical expenses out there and the attorney says I'll collect that $3,300 and I'm going to take a third of it, the way the bill is presently written, would that leave that claimant responsible for that other third and would the way this bill is being suggested to be rewritten allow that lawyer to go and collect the difference
so that that claimant wouldn't be disadvantaged that way? Well,
Speaker 42
20:02
and see, that's one of the things that to me is vague in the bill because we
Speaker 44
20:07
have Rule 30 in workers' compensation. Rule 30 allows for a specific payment of medical bills. I mean, the provider may charge $100 for a service, and Rule 30 only allows $70 to be paid. There's also a provision in the Act that says that on any claim, the medical care provider cannot done the claimant. They can't send collection letters or turn them over to collection agencies
or anything like that so long as there's a pending workers' compensation claim. So, you know, that provision, that safe provision, is there, so they won't go after the claimant. In the event the claimant's attorney collects on behalf of the provider and is able to get their money back, then they're bound by Rule 30, so they would not be able to go after the claimant for any remaining amounts due. And the attorney's fee that would be payable would come from the provider and not from the claimant.
Speaker 58
21:03
Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hammer.
Members, any additional questions? Thank you, Ms. Worley. Thank you. Mr. Hall, are you signed up to speak
against this bill as well? Let's see. Is anyone in the audience who wants to
Speaker 79
21:23
speak for the bill? Seeing none, Mr. Hall, you recognize I speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Kenny Hall, Executive Vice President of the State Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Industries of Arkansas. We represent over 1,300 companies of all types and all sizes in all 75 counties in Arkansas.
I don't have anything technical to add to Ms. Worley's comments today, and I did want the committee to know that she was here at my request. She's a member of the State Chamber's Workers' Compensation Committee. Our chairman was out of town today, and she was local,
Speaker 82
21:51
and I caught most of her testimony and thought she did a terrific job. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to give the committee just a tad of history about workers' compensation. In 1993, the state chamber and a large coalition of business interests passed a Reform Act.
We found ourselves in a situation where I think three companies were writing workers' compensation in the state. Thanks to that reform, there's now over 300 companies writing workers' compensation. As response to that reform in 1993, we started in the 1995 session negotiating the issues of workers' compensation directly with the leadership of the AFL-CIO. In every session since 1995 except for 2007, we've been able to reach an agreement with the AFL-CIO and bring an agreed bill to the legislature for your approval.
The problem in 07 was related to some trust funds, and we had a disagreement over the best method of fixing those trust funds. This session now is the first one since the 93 reforms where we see a situation where labor and management have bills before you. This is the first attempt to move one of them. Obviously, we oppose it. There are probably five or six or seven other bills that labor has on the table. We have one large bill. Mr. Rice is one of the sponsors of for us that will be pending.
I believe it's in public health. So I just wanted to give you that little bit of history, state or opposition to the bill, and make sure you knew that
Ms. Worley was here speaking on our behalf. Thank you for your time.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:29
Thank you, Mr. Hall. We take questions. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question. Yes. I
have a little concern. Are you suggesting that the legalities and equities of all workmen's compensation laws are the exclusive providence of the AFL-CIO and the State Chamber of Commerce?
I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that unless you all approve something, then it should not come before a committee and then have legislation submitted to the larger body for approval? No, sir. I'm just
Speaker 82
24:03
stating what has been done, and that was done at the request of many of the legislators at the time. And obviously, if this legislature's desire to approach it a different way, the bills are in place, and we'll be happy to run ours, and they'll be happy to run theirs. All right, well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:18
tell me this. Tell me in this particular law, and I'll give you a copy.
what do you and the chamber specifically the language what do you and the chamber specifically find
faulty or against the interest of workers and the people of the state of Arkansas in that law would you repeat
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:53
I'd like to know what in the law, as it is proposed, you find specific fault with, as it is written.
It seems to be innocuous to me, so I'm trying to get some understanding here. It's a
cost issue. It's a cost. Where is it in the law that you can show me in the law where
Speaker 79
25:17
that cost issue is found? I'm not sure I can show you in this bill's language, and I'm not a technical expert on workers' compensation like the practitioners are, but as representatives of business, it's our job and our duty to examine every bill filed and examine it with the thought in mind of how will it impact the cost of doing business.
There are certainly those with opposite viewpoint, and they're welcome to that. It's our job to represent the cost
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:41
of business. My question was specific. You can't draw my attention to anything in the bill. It's just a general proposition that whatever labor proposes, it's a matter of adding some cost to business. No, that's
Speaker 79
25:53
an overgeneralization. This particular bill would increase the cost of litigation and increase the involvement in litigation in workers' comp claims, as I understand it.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:03
I seriously want to understand this because we're in a cost-cutting mood in this legislature.
Have you done a cost analysis of the impact of this bill, if enacted? We do not have the resources at the State Chamber to do
Speaker 79
26:15
that. There are other sources that have. I have not seen a report. All right. Well, the Asia group that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:21
the Council, Ms. Worley, represents, have they done a cost analysis? There's an outside organization that usually conducts those cost analysis.
Speaker 79
26:26
But we haven't seen it, and nobody's had that benefit of that, have they? Not that I'm aware
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:31
of. That's not to say it's not out there. All right.
Speaker 79
26:34
Thank you. Mr. Hammer, you recognize for a question?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:40
Yes, sir. Thank you. At the end of the day, regardless, who ends up paying for the workman's compensation expenses, whether it's in the form of legal fees, medical expenses, would you educate us on, at the end of the day, where the money comes from and who pays for it and how it's paid for, please? I'm sure
Speaker 79
26:56
it comes from the employers of the state of Arkansas.
Any additional questions, Mr. Hammer? Members, any additional questions for Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall, thank you for your testimony. Seeing
no one else in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill,
Mr. Nichols, would you like to close for your bill? Oh,
I'm sorry, we have someone who wants to speak for the bill. Ricky, please state your name and who you're with for
Speaker 92
27:40
the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Ricky Belk.
I represent workers. I'm with the Arkansas AFL-CIO.
Speaker 93
27:46
Speaking for this bill, and I will be very brief, we did not believe that dollars should be put in front of injured workers, and that's exactly what this does. It's difficult sometimes for injured workers to get their cases to an attorney. This will help.
So we're in support of the
Speaker 94
28:17
bill. Thanks, Mr. Belk. Would you take questions? Members, any questions for Mr. Belk? Seeing none, Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
28:25
Nichols, you prepared to close for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. This is a simple bill. It will improve the life of an injured worker. And I think you have to balance that. You know, we balance equities here.
And is it fair that a worker is saddled with the medical bills out there that are not being paid? Now, one important thing here is that the attorney fees are not due unless they are controverted, unless the respondent here says, no, we don't owe that. No, you were not injured on the job. And they go through a process, and they have a hearing before an ALJ.
They have opportunities to go to the full commission. And I'd also like to comment on the full commission. It was mentioned that it's made up of three folks, and there is a neutral chair who was not here today testifying for the bill, and then it is made up of a labor representative who was not here and a management representative who was here, who was, in essence, speaking against the bill. But just about all decisions made by the commission are by two-to-one votes.
So depending upon if it is pro-claimant or pro-injured worker or pro-business. When I said this was kind of a compromise bill, I was not referring to the state chamber and the Arkansas AFL-CIO. What I was referring to was a committee, the Workers' Compensation Committee. The lawyers that belong to that, representing both respondents and claimants, came up with this bill. and the compromise was between that particular group.
Okay, that's what I meant by it being a compromise. When the respondent's attorney mentioned 10% plus $400, the employer or respondent paid all of that. The 93 Act basically ended up splitting the cost of the fees. Half came from the claimant, half came from the respondent. but the aspect of labor and management being able to agree to a bill,
I think as a representative, we would enjoy seeing that if we get the parties to agreement. But the 1993, prior to 93, the system was they would negotiate an agreed-upon bill. In 93, there was a radical change to the bill, and there was not an agreement. And in 07, it was how to deal with the disabled worker and now the second injury fund operates. But there have been modest agreements since 93 except for 07.
Now they're in the posture of if it's going to cause any increase at all, then there's not going to be an agreed bill. But this is a very modest proposal. It will help the injured worker, and I think the injured worker needs the legislature to be their advocate and help them out and get these medical bills paid. With that, Mr. Chairman, if it's appropriate, I move due pass.
Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Nichols has closed for this bill and moved due pass. That's a proper motion. Is there any question or discussion? All those in favor of passing House Bill 1823 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Sorry, Mr. Nichols, your bill fails. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Members, next we'll have the special presentation of Senate Bill 750. I will turn the chair over to Vice Chair Wilkins.
Speaker 103
33:08
Mr. Speaker, welcome to Judiciary. Representative Williams, Chairman Williams, you'll recognize. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 105
33:26
committee. I'm happy to be here before you today. My remarks will be brief. As many of you will recall, I hope you recall, at the beginning of the session, I identified three areas that I thought were of extreme importance
and matters that we would take up during the 88th General Assembly. This act or this bill is being brought before you today as one of those primary areas that I identified and certainly as important as anything that we will consider in my opinion. I just want to say very briefly I express my appreciation to the members especially of the House on the House end that worked for over the previous year
in putting the content of this bill together Representatives Tyler Webb, Williams and former Representative David Rainey the work product that you're seeing here today is in large part due to their efforts Also, I want to express a special appreciation to all of the entities who have been involved, the groups that have been involved in working on this legislation, especially those that are entities that are directly involved, law enforcement corrections,
the judicial branch, prosecutors, and defense attorneys that are integrally involved in matters that are before you here today. At the beginning of the session, when we began our work, I asked Representative Williams to take the lead. He's done an exemplary job in bringing the bill together to present to you today. And with the Chair's approval, I would like to turn the mic over to Representative Williams to present the bill. Thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Chairman, Speaker Moore, I want to thank you for your leadership on this very important issue, and I want to thank you for entrusting the direction of this committee to me as well as this very important piece of legislation. Also, to the members of this committee, I want to thank you for your indulgence. We work hard. I believe we are the hardest working committee on the House side. Say that for the speaker. Before I get started, I want to acknowledge several people who are members of the Working Group on Sentencing and Correction.
First, our Senators who were part of this committee, Senators Luker, Senators Whitaker, and Senator Files. Then from the Judicial Branch, we have with us today, I believe, Chief Justice Jim Hanna, who is here today. Justice Hanna, thank you. We also have Judge Gary Arnold. I believe he's here. Thank you, Judge. J.D. Gingrich, who's the executive director of the AOC. We thank him. From the law enforcement, our working group, we had North Rock Police Chief Danny Bradley. Thank you, sir. Sheriff Ken James. Prosecuting Attorney Henry Boyce, who I saw earlier. Thank you as well.
Those who are in the governor's cabinet and his agency leaders, Ray Hobbs, Director of Department of Corrections, David Eberhardt, Director of Department of Community Corrections, Sandy Moll, State Police, Director Phillips, Colonel Phillips, and their staff, we really appreciate you. Also, the governor's office, Amy Grimes and Gary Grimes, we thank you for your leadership and dedication here. To Rebecca DeNeal from Cranford Johnson, Robinson Woods, who is a part of this effort. We thank her as well. As well as representatives from Pew, Brian Elder Bloom is here with us today, and we
appreciate him. And there are a number of folks who are at the table, additional stakeholders whose names don't appear in the consensus report, who we also should thank for their fine work. A point of personal privilege, I want to thank my sheriff, Doc Holliday, and my prosecutor, Larry Jagley. And finally, I want to thank the fine leadership of co-chairman, Kathy Webb, and David Rainey, as well as my seatmate, Linda Tyler, who worked on this committee for over a year. The bill before you today, this 167-page bill, is a model bill.
It is a bill designed the way bills should be brought to you. This was a bipartisan, inter-branch effort, which included all stakeholders at the table. We utilized a deliberate process and a data-driven process that began nearly over a year ago, and we forged a consensus around several recommendations that we're presenting to you today in this bill, which we believe will improve public safety, hold offenders accountable, and contain the correction costs.
Well, let's start with the problem. What is the problem that we have today? Arkansas's prison population has more than doubled in the past 20 years. 20 years ago, we spent about $45 million a year on prison and correction costs. Today, we're spending about $350 million. That's a 450% increase. At the same time, our recidivism rates and our crime rates continue to be stubbornly high. Today, we have over 16,000 inmates in the Department of Corrections. In 2000 alone, we grew by 3.1 percent, which is the eighth fastest growth on a percentage
basis in the country. JFA and Associates, they do our prison projections in populations. They project that if we do nothing, in the next ten years we will grow by 6,500 inmates. If we do that, between now and ten years from now, we will spend an additional $1.1 billion on correction costs. I don't have to tell you that that is unsustainable. So why do we have this problem? The working group analyzed several drivers or reasons why our prison has grown.
And through extensive research, analyzing our policies and our sentencing guidelines and laws and statutes, we determined three main reasons why our prison population has escalated. First, we as a state underutilize probation. Our probation utilization rate is 23% lower than the national average. Second, we impose longer sentences, particularly for non-violent offenders. In short, we're sending more people to jail and holding them there longer than most people do.
On average, we sentence people 196% above our own voluntary sentencing guidelines. And thirdly, we're delaying transfer to parole by parole-eligible non-violent offenders. This backup costs us about 1,200 beds per year. And I mind you, on average, we spend $22,000 to house a person in the Department of Correction. So those are the problems. What's the solution? The working group believes that we can do better. We believe that we can have a better investment and a better return.
As many of you know, I am a lawyer, and I work in the securities litigation arena. I represent institutional investors who regularly invest their money in the stock market. looking for a profitable return, I would suggest that if we were managers of my client's money, they would have long fired us because our return is horribly, horribly bad. As policymakers, I think it is important for us to take a close look at any government program where we continue to spend more and more money yet get results that do not relate to the money that we spend.
Through our investments over the last 30 or 40 years, we've gone from spending $40 million to $350 million, yet our crime rate continues to be stubbornly high and our recidivism rate continues to be stubbornly high. Albert Einstein said if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. That's the definition of insanity, to keep doing what you're doing and think you're going to get something different. I submit to you that we can solve our prison population, but we cannot do it if we try
to solve the problem by using the same solutions that got us in this problem. So for those who say we have to be tough on crime, I suggest that you're correct. We must be tough on crime, but we must also be smart on crime. The 13 policy recommendations that are before you today in this 167-page bill are both tough on crime and they're smart on crime. These recommendations will protect public safety by strengthening community supervision. It will hold offenders accountable through the implementation of evidence-based practices
which have been proven to reduce recidivism. These recommendations will improve the efficiency of our corrections agencies through enhanced data collection and evaluation, and through performance incentive measurements. They will also allow us to use our resources to invest in community-based substance abuse and mental health programs. And finally, these recommendations will contain correctional costs and save our prison beds for those violent career criminals who deserve them, while at the same time punishing low-level
offenders in a more effective manner. However, with the reasonable and modest reforms that are outlined in this bill, we will improve public safety, and we will save approximately $875 million over the next 10 years. I want to be clear. If we pass this bill, we will spend more money on prisons, and we will have an increasing rate of growth in our prison system. However, we will divert $875 million in savings and we will bend the prison going rate.
Because this bill is a large bill, I want to be clear that there are some things that have been I would call misinformation. Let me tell you some things this bill does not do. This bill does not apply retroactively. No person presently incarcerated will have their sentence length shortened or their time served shortened under this bill. This bill does not decriminalize the possession, sale, or manufacturing of any controlled substance, including marijuana.
This bill does not limit the ability of a prosecutor or judge to use their discretion in determining which offenders should go to prison. And finally, this bill will not change the available sentencing range or time-served requirement for any violent offender. Well, how much would this program cost? We anticipate that this program will cost approximately $9.4 million. $3 million of the $9.4 million will come from an increase in our probation fees, which have not changed in decades.
All the states that surround us charge at least $35. We're going to move that probation fee from $25 to $35, and that will gain us about $3 million. Of the folks who own probation, about 7 percent of them we claim to be indigent, and they cannot pay. The remaining 93 percent can pay. In Arkansas, thanks to Director Eberhard's leadership, we have a rate of 86 percent of those folks who can pay, they do pay.
So we believe $3 million will be raised through probation fees. About a half million dollars in this bill is one-time money. It will never come back. The remaining almost $6 million will come from general revenue. But I want to stress that money is already outlined in the Governor's balance budget. In closing, I want you to know who supports this bill. I'm proud to say that all 28 elected prosecutors unanimously voted to support this bill. This bill is supported by the Police Chiefs Association, the Sheriff's Association,
the Public Defender Commission, as well as our State Chamber of Commerce. And on your table today, the NAACP is also endorsing this bill. I want to thank the 16 members of this committee who signed on as co-sponsors to this bill, as well as the members of the House who have chosen not to co-sponsor but have said they will support this bill. This bill is the right step, and this is the right time to address this important issue. In keeping with Mr. Moore, Speaker Moore's theme throughout this session,
if we do this, we will be looked upon as a General Assembly that did the right thing. Decades from now, people will look back and say we made a difference for a long term. With that, I thank you, and I ask you for a good vote. Mr. Vice Chairman, I'd like to recognize Prosecuting Attorney Robin Carroll, followed by Greenwood Police Chief Keith Jackson, and then followed by Washington County Sheriff Tim Elder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 111
46:30
your name for the record? Thank you. Robin Carroll, Prosecuting Attorney, 13th Judicial District, Calhoun, Columbia, Cleveland, Dallas, Washtenaw, and Union Counties. Committee members, I came to two conclusions about this effort over the past few months. First, the governor and the working group had well-intended purposes to save Arkansas taxpayers hundreds of million dollars in the construction of new prison beds, make probation and parole better by implementing evidence-based practices,
and by working to make offenders less likely to reoffend, improve public safety in our state. The second conclusion I came to was that this original draft of the bill needed quite a bit of help. Less than a month ago, our Prosecutors' Association was in unanimous opposition to the draft bill. Friday before last, we voted unanimously to endorse it. We appreciate the efforts of the Governor's staff, those working on behalf of the Pew Foundation,
members of the legislature, and many others who addressed our concerns and refined and improved this bill over the last few weeks. As you will, we will monitor the consequences of this bill, and like you, we hope that it helps create a safer Arkansas, helps rehabilitate those who can be saved, and helps save the taxpayers the enormous expense of almost $1 billion in new prison beds. Thank you.
Thank you. Yes, you're recognized. If you would, state your name for
Speaker 114
48:11
the record. Keith Jackson. Thank you, Speaker Moore, Representative Williams, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here to represent over 200 police chiefs, part of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police, to let you know that our organization has endorsed both the recommendations of the working group and the legislation that you are considering today, the Public Safety Improvement Act.
For police chiefs and line officers, it's all about public safety. Despite our massive growth in our prison population and correction costs, Arkansas recidivism rate and violent crime rates remain high. In fact, more than half of the people admitted to the Department of Correctional and Probation Parole at their time of arrest. The reasons Representative Williams mentioned,
Speaker 115
48:53
all these things are the reasons the chiefs of police are proud to be here today to
Speaker 114
48:58
testify in support of this legislation. At the end of the day, we believe Public Safety Improvement Act will make our communities safer,
contain correction spending, and invest in programs that turn offenders into taxpayers rather than tax burdens. Thank you. Thank you. Yes,
sir, if you would, state your name
Speaker 119
49:19
for the record. I'm Tim Helder, Sheriff of Washington County. I'm here today representing Arkansas 75 sheriffs and the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. Our association has endorsed Senate Bill 750, and I'm pleased to be here today in support of that bill myself. Sheriffs share the burden of incarcerating state inmates
with the Department of Corrections and the concern of those who are looking to contain our prison growth and the correction costs. Prison overcrowding is both a state and local problem. it was that backlog in our county jails and in the state prisons that caused Governor Beebe to appoint this group in 2009 we think they've done a fabulous job much has been said about the revolving door of our criminal justice system in particular the revolving door that captures so many drug and alcohol addicted offenders
indeed more than one third of Arkansas's prison admissions are for drug crimes and even more users and addicts passed through our jails Some of these offenders are arrested for possessing illegal drugs. Others are arrested for selling drugs to support their own habit. As a state, we need to do a better job of recognizing these offenders, distinguishing them from the more serious career criminals who are manufacturing or trafficking drugs and addressing their addiction.
Like all Arkansans, sheriffs want violent and repeat offenders to go to prison and to go for a long time. This legislation ensures that our scarce prison beds will be available for these serious offenders by treating nonviolent offenders differently and investing in programs and practices that have been proven to reduce crime and recidivism. In conclusion, this legislation will help sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials slow the revolving door. It will improve the Department of Community Corrections' ability to deal with offenders on probation and parole
and contain correction costs and prison growth, including the jail backlog, by concentrating our prison space on violent and career criminals. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, Representative Williams, do you want
Speaker 104
51:23
to say anything else before we take questions? No, sir. We have to take questions, and we have
a number of folks here who can answer questions. If you ask one that was at the table, I may not be able to
answer. All right. Members, do you have questions? Yes. Representative Hammer, you recognize.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Williams, would you reiterate, please, the cost savings that this is going to be to the state? I'm looking at public safety improvement question and answer. The statement says if unchecked, the prison population is projected to grow another 43 percent by 2020 at a cost to Arkansas taxpayers of $1.1 billion in new prison construction and operation expenses, would it be a fair interpretation to say, then, that between
now and 2020, if we implement this bill, we're going to save future budgets $1.1 billion? Is that a fair statement or not, and would you please elaborate?
Thank you for that question, Mr. Hammer. That's not quite an accurate statement. As I said, I want to be clear, if we pass this bill, we will still spend more money on prisons, and our prison population will grow. However, if we pass this bill, we will divert or we will prevent from spending, we believe, about $875 million, about $645 million of that in operation costs
and additional couple hundred million in new prison beds. What you may not see or have not seen in the governor's budget, though it's been requested by the Department of Correction, They're asking for $184 million, I believe, this year to build new beds. Of course, the governor did not make that a part of his recommendations, but that's the need that they have right now. So if we do this, we cannot say that we'll save $1.1 billion,
but I think it's fair to say that we'll save somewhere
around $875 million in both prison construction costs as well as operation costs. Okay. A follow-up question? Certainly. All right.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:35
Just make sure I got it right. So we're going to – this bill projects to save in future budgets $875 million that otherwise, if we don't do this, we'll have to find the money in the budget somewhere to do. Absolutely correct. That is a correct, fair statement. That is absolutely correct. Thank you,
sir. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Yes, Representative Steele, be recognized. Thank
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
54:00
you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Williams, you're aware of the concern, I guess, that I had and some of my local officials had that some of the focus on our municipalities may create a little bit of an increased cost in our county jails, namely deliveries of marijuana. I'm just curious to know if I know we discussed the possibility of enhancement for subsequent offenses. Do you know what impact that might have on the prison population
if we did have, say, a Class D enhancement for subsequent offenses of delivery of marijuana or prescription drugs? Thank you for that question,
Mr. Steele. I do not know the answer to the question of what that will cause
our physical impact or even the impact on our prison population. But let me try to explain how we as a working group approached the drug problem. As has been stated today, about a third of our prisoners, over a third of our prisoners, are there for some type of drug charge.
And this is one of the growth areas in our prison. We
attempted to separate the drug user from the commercial enterprise drug dealer. And we wanted to sentence those who are in the commercial operation of dealing drugs very severely. And we have a number of enhancements to do that. For those who are users of drugs, we wanted to find alternative ways to sentence them and also provide an opportunity for them to get the treatment necessary for them to get off of their,
to break their addiction habit and to become productive citizens. Your concern particularly with regard to the 14 grams of marijuana, which is not a felony if you deliver 14 grams, I submit to you that I don't think that's a problem. I'm happy to let you talk to one of the law enforcement officers. Let's think about that. Fourteen grams of marijuana is about a half an ounce. That's what I'm told. I'm not an expert in this area. I think that's less than a dime bag, whatever that is, that's what I'm told. That's the language I've been given.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:07
You laugh like I should know that. I will speak with such
authority. Good lawyers do. Not from experience, though. But there are a number of enhancements that are available in this bill
that would allow someone who's selling that amount of marijuana to actually have an enhancement. There are a couple. There's an enhancement for if you sell within one of the drug-free zones, which could be a community park, could be a school, could be a bus stop, could be a number of places.
There's also an enhancement if you maintain a drug premise, and that definition is broadly defined. So if you sell that 14 grams of marijuana out of your house, that could possibly be labeled as a – could give you an opportunity for an enhancement. If you sell it to minors, there are enhancements. So there are a number of enhancements in this bill. And then even more importantly, I think that those who are selling drugs, they're doing so to make money. So if you actually just ask that drug dealer, the police are doing an undercover buy, to just buy a couple more joints,
I bet they'd sell those joints to you, and I bet you'd have an opportunity
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
57:21
to get that person for a felony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it turns out that the problem that some of my sheriffs have comes to fruition, and if it turns out that that would not be a significant impact on the Department of Corrections, my proposed enhancement for subsequent offenses, Do you think it's something that we might be willing to do as an enhancement perhaps in the next session,
if we're fortunate enough to both be back here? Mr. Steele, I think it's not only a possibility. I think it's anticipated that we will, through this bill, have a number of ways to evaluate. One thing that we found out when we started this process is that Arkansas, we don't do a great job in keeping data. With this bill, we have a number of opportunities to capture data, and this working group or a similar group will continue to operate and we will continue to monitor the progress of this bill and we anticipate that there may be tweaks and we will be open to all tweaks
and keep in mind while we've talked a lot about cost our primary goal, our number one goal was always to improve public safety that was paramount and if we can do something to improve public safety I am
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
58:31
sure that we will do that Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman
Certainly Representative Gillum You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, I want to first start by saying
thank you. The way that you've conducted this, you've given us plenty of chances to ask questions.
You've conducted the meetings, I think, in a fantastic way and for such an important piece of legislation. So I do want to say thank you to that before I start. Just for clarification's sake, we've discussed some of the budget impacts and things that are going to be happening here. But with the parole department taking such a key role in the success of these programs, could you mind maybe elaborating a little bit on the budget impact? I know there's a lot of concern over whether or not the parole department,
Department of Community Corrections, will be able to handle this increased responsibility and pressure. I know there's been some cuts maybe, I think, in Pulaski County. I think they're down several individuals in their department. And I just wondered if you might could discuss for a minute whether or not they're going to be able to handle this extra workload that we're about to put on them if this was to pass. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Gilliband. I invite Director
Eberhardt, if he'd like to respond to this, if I don't do a good job, please do so.
But under this legislation, one important component is obviously probation. We are strengthening community supervision tremendously with this bill. I would say that Director Eberhardt and his organization, they're getting an extreme makeover. And they're going to have a lot more responsibilities, and we're going to count on them to keep us safe. And I believe they'll do a good job. Part of that is because a large amount of the funding from this bill will be directed toward his agency. His agency, the probation officers are overworked right now.
They have huge caseloads. Through this bill, we will restore, I believe, 49 additional positions. They're down about 81 positions. We're going to restore 49 positions through this bill. That's additional probation officers on the streets who will help us with our probationers. And one important thing that we've done through evidence-based research, we know that we should spend our time and focus our attention on high to moderate risk offenders. And those who are low risk don't need as much supervision.
We're going to direct our money and our resources toward those high to moderate risk offenders. We know this because we're going to have both a risk and a needs assessment. Right now we're doing a risk assessment when folks come into our corrections department. What's their likelihood to reoffend? We're going to implement a needs assessment to determine what programs will that offender need in order to be rehabilitated. and through performance incentive funding, which is outlined in this deal, and a number
of other programs, we're going to have the resources available throughout the state of Arkansas to provide these resources to the folks who need them to try to return them to being productive citizens. So the Department of Community Corrections will receive the bulk of the funding, and they will, through grants and other programs, distribute that money to various communities
Speaker 128
1:01:40
to strengthen community supervision. Thank you, and thank you for
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:01:45
clarifying that. I've actually misspoke when I said parole. I meant probation. So thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No further questions. Thank you, Representative Gillum. Representative Powers, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:01:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Williams, if you consider this question to
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:02:02
be self-serving, you can let me know. It's fully intended to be. And it just occurred to me over the weekend, really, when I was looking at this legislation and looking at some of mine that I ran through this committee, Don't you believe that with this bill that we're going to be asking that we have a better
and more efficient district court system going forward because of this re-sentencing? Yes, Mr.
Speaker 143
1:02:36
Powers. Is it self-serving or do you agree? Both. Both, okay,
Chair
Unverified
1:02:42
thank you. All right. Representative Eubanks, you recognize.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:02:48
Representative Williams, how long do you think it's going to take before we start seeing the initial
results of this bill? Well, let me say that this won't happen, obviously, overnight.
We have outlined several programs in this bill. For example, the HOPE projects that we talked about, which will fund an initial five pilot programs. of those five programs will be in areas which have the largest burden on the corrections system. And then one area will particularly be a rural area. Then we also have performance incentive funding where we will do an additional five grants to locations. So we hope that
this will have an immediate impact, but we know it will not. We can't launch this program statewide for funding reasons and for training reasons. We're going to have significant training requirements. Our probation officers will be trained, retrained. Our Department of Parole – our parole board will be retrained. So we will see some lag time. But again, there's nothing in this bill that applies retroactively. But going forward, after the passage of this bill and after it's effective, the change, the update in theft statutes, the change to
the criminal controlled substance statutes, those will take an impact immediately and folks will begin to be able to utilize the services that are available under this bill. So while we won't see $875 million savings in the first year, we anticipate that over a 10-year period of time. All right. Representative Williams, do you
mind if we invite Mr. Everhart to the table to answer a question? Absolutely. If you would, state your name for the record.
David Eberhardt
Unverified
1:04:54
Yes, sir. My name is David Eberhardt. I'm the director of
the Department of Community Correction. Thank you. Mr. Eberhardt, I want to follow up on a question that I asked you last week in our hearing related to the number of officers that you have, and Representative Williams has indicated that there will be a restoration of some of those positions. What kind of timeframe are you looking at in restoring
Speaker 156
1:05:22
those positions? MR. You know, let me ask my deputy director over field services, Dan Allen, do you
Speaker 157
1:05:29
If we get all 49 positions, we should be able to start hiring June 1st
Speaker 160
1:05:37
and have them ready by July 1st. July 1st. By July 1st? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hammer.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:44
Thank you, sir. Director Eberhard, I'd like to follow up on that question, just give a little basic information, please. Can you tell me right now on the number of probation officers that are out there, how many are on their
Speaker 162
1:05:57
caseloads as an average throughout the state? around 110 per officer, and that's higher in some areas and lower in some areas.
Speaker 163
1:06:04
Do you feel that under the statement was made that, and
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:10
I may not state this exactly, but the statement was made a while ago that they're overworked, and I got the impression they're overextended, so we've got 110 per officer right now. How many officers total would you say that we have? Do you know that right off? Dana, 362. 362. And Mr. Walker, Representative Walker, sorry, this bill is going to open up 1,600 beds.
Is that correct? 1,600 slots. Is that what this is? What's the number of people we're going to put on the streets,
parole to the streets with the enactment of this bill? Well, Mr. Hammer, first let me make sure you understand I'm
not Mr. Walker. Representative Williams. I appreciate that compliment. Now, let's
be clear that you understand that with the passage of this legislation, again, it has no retroactive application.
So there's no one that will be released from jail or prison with the passage of this legislation. It's all folks in the future who may have an opportunity to be released earlier than they would under present law. Was there anything in the research that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:29
was done that would give an estimate as to how many in the time frame that it's going to take to implement these 49 officers and all the changes that are coming, how many are going to be paroled in that same length of time or put on probation in that same length of time?
I'm looking for help. If anyone can help with that. I don't think so. What you have seen is the projections by JFA Associates, and that's the group that for the last decade or so has done our prison growth population. They suggest that if we do nothing, we'll grow to the tune of about 21,800 prisoners. And if we do this, we will grow to the tune about 18,500. So the difference there is what we will avert from going to prison. With regard
to the number of folks on probation or parole, I'm sorry, I don't have that number for you. I will say that we have right now 50 plus thousand people on, 54,000 people. I mean, we have 16,000 people in our correction system, but we have 54,000 who are on probation, about 30-plus thousand on active and the remainder on inactive probation. So while we will see an increase in that number, I want you to know that we have what's called an earned discharge or earned good time program.
Right now you can earn good time where you're in prison, but you don't earn good time when you're on probation. Through this bill, in an effort to marshal our resources toward those who need the most assistance, we're asking that you allow for folks who are on probation to earn good time. If they abide by their probation and they honor their responsibilities under their probation, that they will be able to reduce their time that they have to serve on probation. Therefore, we will not have so many people on what we call this inactive status, not reporting.
We can reserve those resources for those who are moderate to high-risk probationers, and we believe that research, that that suggests the best way to reduce revocation and prevent recidivism. And please
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:37
take my questions in the positive context. And the reason I say that is because we're going to put 49 officers, additional 49 officers out there. We have 110. We have 362 at a ratio of 110. And I hope, and I'm laying the groundwork for the future,
that we will look at taking care of our probation officers because that is a heck of a workload they have right now, and it's a heck of a workload. We're about
to add to them, and that's why I was asking the questions about the numbers. You're absolutely right. In addition to strengthening our probation, our numbers, through this program, through our performance incentive funding and through the pilot programs, our communities, law enforcement and communities in general, will have an opportunity to do programs that I think will strengthen
and help work directly with our probation and parole officers, like drug treatment programs, like mental health abuse. And I know one point that you've been really interested in is the faith-based component. There's nothing to prevent faith-based communities from working with law enforcement to provide some of the services that are outlined under this proposed bill. And for the record, thank
Speaker 72
1:10:48
you, Representative Williams. I appreciate it, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. Are there any other questions by committee
members? We want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to have their questions answered.
Representative Williams, we certainly thank you for the hearing that we had last week, which provided a lot of good information. If there are no other questions from the committee, we'll see now if there are those in the audience who are signed up to speak for or against. We have Herb Wright, Jr.
Speaker 52
1:11:20
Mr. Chairman, I was here to ask your questions. All right, all right. So we have no one else signed up.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for
or against the bill? All right. Seeing none, Representative Williams. Thank you, Mr. Vice
Chairman, and thank you, members of House Judiciary. I want to, again,
thank you for your indulgence. Thank you for your work on this committee and for working through this very large and complex bill. We appreciate your effort. And I would, in closing,
ask for a good vote on this very important piece of legislation. All
right. Representative Rogers, you recognize for our motion?
Do pass. All right. We have a motion before us. Do pass. Any further discussion by the committee? If you
Speaker 159
1:12:13
would favor the motion, would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? Representative Williams, your bill goes out. Do pass. Congratulations. Thank you, committee. We still got work to do.
Unknown speaker
1:12:55
Do we have it here now? .
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
Speaker 168
1:15:56
We'll have a few more bills before we take a break for lunch and then come back.
Okay, Mr. Perry, you're recognized for, is it House Bill 2029, is
Speaker 181
1:17:19
that correct? Mr. Perry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I've got House Bill 2029, and I've got Chief Danny Bradley with me, which will help shed the light on it.
Speaker 183
1:17:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Danny Bradley. I'm Chief of Police at North Little Rock. I'm the Legislative Chair for the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association. I'm also the Vice Chair for the ACIC Board of Supervisors. I'm here today on House Bill 2029. And what this does is bring some consistency between the existing law. In one place in the law, it made the inappropriate dissemination of IC information of felony.
And in another statute for dealing, I believe, with the child enforcement, it made the same conduct a misdemeanor. So the purpose of the bill to bring these two laws is to make them consistent. Also, I think originally when Code 1212-212 was passed, which this bill seeks to amend, was back when ACIC was first introduced in the state. Of course, it was our first introduction to computerized information,
and it made any unauthorized dissemination of this information a felony. And I think in today's world, it's probably not reasonable in most instances. As you see, the bill continues to keep in a felony classification any misuse of the information for the commission of another crime for monetary gain or to assist a person in a legal proceeding. We think that this brings a more reasonable punishment for the conduct.
Thank you, Chief. Mr. Perry, are you done with your presentation? Yes, sir. A question from the Chair. The situation where the law enforcement officer is checking out his daughter's new boyfriend and runs an ACIC background check. What would an officer be guilty of under this bill now if he did that? Under this
Speaker 186
1:19:37
bill, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor. And that's, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 183
1:19:41
that is exactly one of the issues that brought this to my attention,
that under the previous law, although that conduct shouldn't happen and certainly deserves to be punished, as a law enforcement administrator, you were faced with an officer who did just as, using your example, did just that, would be faced with a felony, and sometimes that was just seemed grossly unfair. Thank you, Chief. Members,
any additional questions? Mr. Gillum. Thank
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:20:12
you, Mr. Chair. In the sphere of Representative Powers' question earlier, this one may seem a tad bit self-serving,
and it's okay that it appears that way. For those of us elected officials, say we're in the middle of a campaign and someone decides they're going to access this database and try to dig up dirt on a prospective candidate or elected official. How would they be treated under this bill? Well, the
Speaker 183
1:20:42
person who's going to be punished is the person who has access to the system and misuses that information or inappropriately distributes that information.
Again, I'm not the attorney, but, you know, I would think in that situation that would be a felony crime. But, again, at a minimum it
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:21:06
would be a misdemeanor. Okay. But it could still be listed as a felony due to
Speaker 183
1:21:13
that misuse. Yes. And it's my understanding that this would, if it's passed, it would apply only to those cases that occur after the passage.
And, again, I'm not an attorney, but that's my
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:21:27
interpretation. Representative Branscombe was nervous about that. I just wanted to
thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:21:39
questions? Mr. Steele and Mr. Walker? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know how much I like felonies, but I'm on board with this one, I think. As far as Section 2 on line 31 on the first page, where if a person knowingly releases or discloses information,
would that just be any kind of disclosure of information verbally? It wouldn't require any kind of writing or anything like that, would it?
Speaker 131
1:22:14
That would be any disclosure. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walker? Mr. Chairman, that wasn't my question. Any additional questions, members? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against House Bill 2029? No one signed up.
Mr. Perry, would you like to close for your bill? Mr. Perry is closed for the bill. Members, what's the pleasure
of the committee? I'm sorry, Mr. Nichols, you recognize for a motion? Do pass. Mr. Nichols made a motion of do pass. You pass. Any question or discussion on that motion?
Seeing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Perry. You've passed House Bill 2029.
We've got several folks out that want to run bills. They'll be here shortly. Mr. Love is not here. Mr. Altus. Mr. Wilkins will run $1,759 on Thursday. Mr. Hank Wilkins will run $1,759 on Thursday. Gary Smith on Thursday. Mr. King's two bills, $1,798 and $1,799, have been moved to the deferred list. Ms. Rogers has stepped out. Mr. Nichols will run $1,823. Mr. King is going to hold 1833.
Is Dinah Tyler here? Mr. Vice Chair, I'm going to yield the floor to you, and
we're going to run 1851. If Ms. Tyler is there to help
me. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
I am going to yield to Mrs. Tyler to explain the bill. This is an agreed upon bill. I think everyone is on board. the prosecutors and the department
Speaker 194
1:24:42
as well, so I'm going to yield to her for her explanation. Ms. Tyler. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this is an agreed-upon bill. We worked this out with the prosecutors. A bit of history a few years ago, we asked for and received legislation and then statute that allows a bonus amount of good time to be awarded to inmates who successfully complete
three programs, GED, FOTEC, and substance abuse. As our programs have expanded and our population has changed a little bit, we asked for some more leeway to increase the cap from 270 days to 360 and expand the types of programs that can be covered. And, again, this is only for those inmates who successfully complete. It also returns to the Board of Corrections some discretion that it had prior to 93.
And I've got Dr. Mary Parker, who is Vice Chair of the Board of Corrections, with me, and she can further explain
Speaker 198
1:25:47
the need for that discretion. Dr. Parker, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm Dr. Mary Parker. I'm Vice Chair of the Board of Corrections. This bill does three things, and it does three really good things. It expands the number of programs that we can offer good time for. Remember, it's successful completion of those programs only. Right now, we're limited by law to three programs. And Representative Hammer, specifically to your request, some of the programs we offer in prison are faith-based.
This bill would allow us to offer good time for inmates who successfully complete those programs, along with parenting and anger management and work release and the 309 program, which many of your local communities benefit from. So it would allow us to offer inmates more incentives for doing good things. The second thing that it would do is allow us to determine the amount of good time we offered per program. Right now we are set at 90 days for those three specific programs.
This would allow the board the flexibility to determine whether a program, for instance, a short program was worth 15 days or 30 days as opposed to a standard 90-day program because obviously you know and we know that not every program is equal to every other program. So this would give us the flexibility to do that. And the third thing that it would do, it would allow us to – well, actually, I've already said that, so I don't need to say it again. Essentially, it expands the amount of good time from 270 days to 360 days.
But this good time can never cut an inmate sentence by more than half. So that expansion allows us to better manage those inmates that we've got. It allows us to give incentives for inmates to do good things that deal with their bad behaviors, much as I discussed with you in an earlier committee meeting on another bill. This gives us some immediate incentives to get those inmates into those programs and hopefully make them better citizens when they come out on parole.
All right. Thank you. Are there questions from the committee? Yes, Representative Gillum. Thank you,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:28:02
Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, do you think that by chance it's just a little too overconfident to try to run two
bills out of a Judiciary Committee in a single day?
It probably is. I was buying time. Now Mr. Mayberry is here. If you guys are feeling like you don't want to pass them, let's let him
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:28:22
go. I'll hold this. Mr. Chair, a motion at the appropriate time.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:26
Thank you, sir. Representative Hammer. Is it just a little bit of education, if you will? These three right here, programs that are listed, is it possible for an inmate and achievable without compromising the quality that they're going to get to be able to be enrolled in all three of these programs at one time and it take up to
Speaker 163
1:28:48
270 days to complete? Is there a correlation between three and 270, and can they enroll in all three at one time? Not really, no.
Speaker 194
1:28:57
For one thing, before you can take VOTEC, you have to have your GED. MR. Okay. MR. And normally when an inmate is in a program, he's in or she is in a program for half a day and then they have a work assignment the other half. There are times when it's full days, but usually it's half and half. There is the possibility that an inmate could complete all three of those programs during their stay. We recently took a look at that, though, and found that the vast majority of the inmates
were likely just to have completed two, the GED and substance abuse, and not that many had completed VOTEC.
Speaker 52
1:29:36
Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Any other questions? All right. Is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? Don't see anyone signed up Anyone in the audience Alright We have Representative Gillum Yes sir
Were you trying to make a motion
Speaker 159
1:29:59
Yes I move do pass Alright I was afraid After your previous comment I didn't know if you were going to say Do not pass Alright we have a motion Do pass any further discussion All those who would favor would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? Alright. 1851 goes out. Do pass.
Mr. Mayberry you're here for you have two bills. I'm not sure if you want to do both. Which one
do you want to do? 2169, sure. Members, this is House Bill 2169.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:31:11
Mr. Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 2169 is, should I say it's a simple little bill that doesn't do that? No, I'm just kidding. On page two is the chief change of what we're proposing. This is regarding bail bonds and what has been known as, I guess, credit bonding in the past. And we've just clarified some language here that a bail bond agent or the bail bond company
shall collect the full 10% before the issuance of a bond. And essentially what this addresses is situations where there has been a financing option and it has, I guess, in the past has caused some situations where some fairly dangerous people or some really dangerous people have been able to get out on the streets without the, I guess, going against what the court would have had intended
in terms of recourse and being able to be out sooner. This was brought to me by the thought for this by the prosecutor in Saline County, Ken Cassidy. I've got Mr. Cassidy here, along with Larry Jagley, prosecutor in Pulaski County, and Judge Gary Arnold to speak to this bill as well. And Mr. Cassidy, I think, probably could do a little better job of explaining this than I. Thank you.
Speaker 209
1:32:50
Committee members, I'm afraid it is a really simple bill. So the law as it stands says a bondsman shall collect 10% before a person is admitted to bond. Now, that 10% can be cash or valuable property, but once the court sets the bond of 10%, the court believes that's what's going to be collected. Now, what has arisen to be the term credit bonding is an invention by certain bondsmen that engage in the practice.
The practice is very simply that, say, if you're arrested for maybe a very serious crime, robbery, rape, anything except capital murder is entitled to a bond. Say a bond is set for a million dollars or $100,000, certain bondsmen that engage in this practice will collect a very microscopic part of the fee, possibly $1,000, and then a promise to pay out the other $99,000.
And really, over any time period, the defendant could have already been tried and sent to prison, and the person could still, theoretically under this line of thinking, be collecting the bond. So the bill, with regard to the practice of credit bonding, simply emphasizes what the law currently is, that a bondsman shall collect 10% before a defendant is bonded out of jail.
The bill also gives criminal repercussions for first a misdemeanor offense and then a second offense would be a felony for this type of offense. I would also point out in practice, though this seems like a good deal sometimes for defendants, in practice it is sometimes a very bad deal for defendants because defendants will take what little cash they have often that they could spend on a defense attorney and therefore not be a burden to the public defender system.
They will take this cash, the cash that they have, give it to a bondsman, and very often can't make the promise to pay that they have signed with the bondsman, and the bondsman will turn them in back to jail for violating their conditions. So it's often a predatory practice on the defendant as well. Mr. Mayberry, do you have others? Do they want to add to the testimony?
Judge Arnold. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Speaker 212
1:35:34
As a circuit judge, I would just like to emphasize what Mr. Cassidy has already said, and that is when I set a bond, primarily to be sure that the dependent will appear when he's supposed to appear or she's supposed to appear. As I understand the law, if I set the bond at $25,000, I expect the defendant to have to come up with at least $2,500, 10%. If he's permitted to come up with anything less than that, then the bond that I set at $25,000 was too low.
And I have no way of knowing if he's permitted to go below 10%, what an appropriate bond would be.
Speaker 209
1:36:20
Thank you. What the action of credit bonding does is subverts the will of the judiciary and the hearing that is had on bond. A defendant and defense attorney and a prosecutor have been to court and either oftentimes, many, many times, agreed on bond or had a hearing to determine bond. And what the act of what's called credit bonding does
is subvert the will of the judiciary and substitutes it for the will of whatever bondsman is there with that defendant at the time. Thank
you. MR. Mr. Mayberry, does that include your presentation? MR. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you. MR. Thank you,
Mr. Mayberry. Committee, just for the record, Prosecuting Attorney Ken Cassidy is in the Bayes Jack and he spoke, and that was Judge Gary Arnold who also spoke, and Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jigley is also with Mr. Mayberry
in case you want to direct your questions to one of them.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:37:13
First on the list for questions is Mr. Nichols. MR. Yes, and this is also a question for the Chair. I notice that this bill adds a Class D felony, and under our rules, does that require an impact statement from the
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:37:32
Department of Corrections? And I did have an impact statement done, and it was minimal or
Speaker 216
1:37:39
negligible. Okay, but we don't have that. Is that correct? We're checking.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:37:46
And then a question I may have for Judge Arnold, I guess when you set the bond, you set it at a particular amount and they are talking about that they kind of violated what you want to see done when they don't have all that cash, but will you also be the one
that will be presiding over their trial for violating that in your court or should that be a different judge hearing that? Because I could see that you could be a little bit upset that they're not following your orders and now you're dealing with them as a defendant in your court. Normally,
I would, you know, Representative Walkwood ask that type of question, but I thought I would chime in right now. Mr.
Nichols, and Judge, before you answer
that question, let me break in because our
rules do require that we have a fiscal impact and just to inform that we do not have one. What we've done previously, committee, is We've had to stop hearing testimony because we don't want to hear it again and then come back once we get the physical impact. I apologize for not catching that. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. But, Mr. Mayberry, because our rules require that we have one, unfortunately it's a House rule, we can't suspend it here in this committee. We have to have a physical impact. And, in fact, if we pass it out of here and someone challenges it on the floor,
it would have to come back to us. So we've talked to the Sentencing Commission. We can get a physical impact on this. You say it's negligible. That's fine. But since it's been requested, let's get one and let's bring this back and we'll take care of it and we'll get you back on the agenda
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:39:37
pretty quickly. That's okay. That's fine. Through the Bureau, I did receive notification that they're – I'm not sure. We talked to
the Sentencing Commission. We're just not sure what happened. And they said they'd not prepared one.
I'm not sure if the Bureau just looked at it. But we'll work that out. We'll get that cleared up and get it figured out and get an impact back here for this bill in committee. and it will it with the I think what we've done the past committed we've not continue to hear these questions because we'll we'll have to do
it again so I would suggest we just wait and hear it all at one time and we'll we'll get that impact study done and get it back to you okay you also
have hospital 2168 you want to run that one yes please we're checking the physical impact statement
Unknown speaker
1:40:34
on this one just to be sure Thank you.
Mr. Mayberry, it looks like this one does not require a physical impact. It's just clarifying the ability
Speaker 110
1:41:24
to issue a Class A misdemeanor. So you're recognized to run House Bill
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:41:29
2168. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This came to me from a member of the Little Rock Police Department who had suggested that it would be a good idea, that it would help some of the especially county deputies who are possibly out in further reaches of the county. if they were not required necessarily to transport for a Class A misdemeanor the offender back to the county seat for processing and such as that,
that it might be able to, in some instances, free them up a bit. We were looking at possibly drafting and some legislation making some changes, And the Bureau attorney pointed out that under Rule 5.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, that that really was already covered. And, Mr. Chair, I've got copies of that if it's appropriate of Rule 5.2 if members want or need to see that.
We've got a request to see it by Mr. Power, as Mrs. Steelman will get it for him, or
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:42:51
for any member who wants to see
it. So essentially, after we looked at that and it seemed to basically cover what the concern was for this particular individual, the Bureau drafted some language that essentially just
referred back to Rule 5.2. So we're not really changing anything other than just referencing people back to something that already exists that apparently there was some confusion on. Mr. Jagley just left. This was supported by Mr. Jagley as well as the Pulaski County Sheriff and Saline County Sheriff as well before we had the clarification on the Rule 5.2. Thank you,
Mr. Mayberry. Members, any questions for Mr. Mayberry?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:43:35
Mr. Powers, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Mayberry, and this may answer my question, but in regards to domestic violence, arrest, domestic battering, third degree, that is a Class A misdemeanor. I guess what I'm wondering is I'm not sure. Maybe you can tell me. I think it requires taking those folks down.
It may or may not, I'm asking the question, if in fact that's the case, would this affect that domestic violence law in any
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:44:18
way? To the best of my knowledge, this doesn't change anything about what the status quo is. It simply references back to this 5.2 where there may have been
some confusion. MR. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Any additional questions?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:44:42
MR. Well, I just I'm not sure if I understand whether it does or not.
And as far as the status quo, I mean, that's fine. I guess I'd like to have someone answer that for me definitively that and maybe you think you have, but I'm not sure that, I guess I'm too thick-headed to understand it. Because it says here when a person is arrested for any misdemeanor, and maybe you have answered it, maybe it refers back, and I'm not sure where the confusion was here.
If I'm looking at 5.2, what was creating confusion? To be
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:45:27
honest with you, I don't know what was creating confusion, but who knows what creates
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:45:32
Well, the other thing I'm asking, you know, I'm just wondering if, but apparently there
Speaker 217
1:45:39
was enough confusion that multiple law enforcement officers and prosecutors were unaware that this was the case. Well,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:45:51
maybe so. I know you said you got the idea from a deputy in Little Rock.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:45:57
From a member of the Little Rock Police Department who had then consulted with Pulaski County Sheriff Doc Holliday. I personally had called the prosecutors as well,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:46:11
along with Welling County Sheriff. The gist of what you're doing is just simply clarifying
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:46:18
this Rule 5.2. Yes, sir. I'm not even clarifying 5.2. You're referring to 5.2? Essentially, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayberry, Mr. Jagley, has walked in. That might help you. I'm not sure he knows that he can be of help, but maybe he can sit down and help us. I'm not sure if you're even aware of this. Mr. Jagley, you've
Speaker 233
1:46:39
got that bill in front of you? We'll give you a second to read
Speaker 108
1:46:42
through it. It's not too long. You may not. I'll just go ahead and ask the question.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:46:58
Mr. Jagley, Representative Mayberry is clarifying Rule 5.2 in the rules of criminal procedure. And my question was simply, does this go in
the face of anything regarding our domestic violence, our A misdemeanors in that? I'm not
Speaker 235
1:47:27
sure, and I can only speak to the 6th Judicial District.
You know, we've been dealing with jail overcrowding for a long time and issue citations actually for some felonies and everything, but the one thing that we do not issue a citation for, misdemeanor or felony, is a domestic violence case. We make sure that the individual is held until jail call on the weekends. We never let 48 hours pass before we bring someone in front of a judge and a prosecutor and a public defender and everything. But I mean, again, I'm hitting this call. I understand.
But I don't think that on its face, on first blush, this doesn't look like it's going to cause any problems. We use citations extensively in Pulaski County and Perry County to a lesser extent, and that allows the law enforcement officers get back out on the streets at 3 o'clock in the morning for certain offenses and get back to the business of protecting the
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:48:32
public. Well, in essence, your domestic violence or domestic battering, your people bring those
folks in no matter what. You don't foresee this being in any contradiction to that or giving an officer discretion to maybe cite
Speaker 235
1:48:49
that domestic battery? MR. No, I don't see a problem with that because we've got a fairly uniform mindset among all the various law enforcement agencies in the 6th Judicial District, and that is that certain offenses are not appropriate for citation.
got to give people a time to cool off, be it a domestic situation, be it Hatfield-McCoy feud in a neighborhood or whatever it is. So, again, I don't see this as interfering with discretion or causing problems in the exercise of that discretion. MR. All right. That's good enough for me. Thank you.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:49:27
MR. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs,
for that help. Don't go too far. Mrs. Rogers has a question, followed by Mr. Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Mayberry, in all due respect, I need a little more clarification as to what your purpose or intent is in this bill when all it appears to do is restate 5.2, Rule Point 5.2. Can you define that a little further and ask what you're hoping to achieve through this? Again,
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:50:04
Representative Rogers, there just seemed to be some confusion regarding this, and this is an attempt to help eliminate whatever confusion there may be.
Do you think that confusion might be allayed
in just making sure that the officers know that this is a course of con – I mean, that it's something that they can do without bringing legislation to this
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:50:30
committee or to this House? Well, that's a possibility. However, I
don't know where all that confusion may be. I don't know within each particular city or county who may have the same questions.
Statute is statute, and it applies across the state. Thank
Speaker 40
1:50:58
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:51:01
Mr. Nichols, would you have a question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jiglius, this is for my education. I don't handle any criminal cases, but the
Speaker 235
1:51:17
rules of criminal procedure, who develops those? The Supreme Court of Arkansas is primarily responsible for the development and oversight
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:51:27
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Okay. Now, I wonder if we can even legislatively reference
a rule promulgated and adopted by the Supreme Court. What would happen, say, next week when they change Rule 5.2? In one sense, I think we have delegated our legislative power, if we have any in this
area, to the judiciary. Do you see that as a potential problem? Well,
Speaker 245
1:52:03
now that you mention it, with all due respect to Mr. Payne, I'm out
Speaker 235
1:52:09
of here. With a disclaimer, I came in pretty cold on this. You make a good point. We learned that back some years ago with the rules of evidence. They used to be legislative, and now they are fully within the purview of the judiciary.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:52:28
Well, that's my problem, and especially, Mr. Mayberry, when you even admit your
bill doesn't do anything, but I think in doing what it's doing, it may be violating Amendment 80 to our Constitution the way it
is drafted, and, you know, I just have a problem in that regard. MR. Mr. Gilliam,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:52:54
you recognize for a question? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Mayberry, in light of this questioning and answering that's going on
here, do you think that it might be prudent to maybe pull this bill for the time being and maybe do a little bit more homework and see whether or not we're actually creating more confusion by passing this bill? I think
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:53:15
that would be an excellent suggestion, Representative Gillum. Thank you for making it. You're welcome, my friend. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mayberry. With that, I understand you're going to pull this bill. We will allow you to do that. And we'll get one out of here soon.
Welcome to the judiciary. Members, we're going to take a pause here and have lunch. Lunch is in the office. And then, you want to run it now? You want to go ahead and run it now, Ms. Slaker? You promised, you want to go ahead and run it real quick? It's up to you. All right, Ms. Slaker wants to run one bill real quick. I don't think it's, well, I won't make any comments on what it is. But is it 1888? All right. Hospital 1888. I want you to know that it's Ms. Slaker standing between you and lunch and not me.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:54:05
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and lunch is also
being served at AAC by Wal-Mart. I had House Bill 1888.
So now we know how you want to get your bill done. Go right ahead. This House Bill
1888, what it does in the affidavit for collection of small estate by distributees, a current law provides that they may cause a notice to be published if the estate contains real property. What I'm doing with this bill is to require that that notice be published in the newspaper when it contains real estate.
The other section then that provides that after the filing of that notice, then the distributee shall cause a deed to the real estate to be issued to himself or herself itself, and also requires that that deed be recorded. This is to provide a natural flow of the transfer of title to real estate through this affidavit for collection of small estate. I'll take any questions.
MR. Thank you, Ms. Slanker. Members, any questions? Mr. Walker and then Mr. Shepard.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:55:51
MR. Let me defer to Mr. Shepard. He's usually more on point on these kinds of matters. Mr. Shepard, you recognize. Thank you,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:56:02
Mr. Chairman. Representative Slinkard, the question I have, and I think you and I discussed this a little bit, is what would the
Speaker 253
1:56:09
effect be if a deed is not filed of record?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:56:16
Well, the effect would be that the
transfer of title would not be caught on the assessor's records. As any other, if any other person did not record their deed, it would be the same thing.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:56:32
Okay. And a follow-up, I guess my concern, and I think that I've mentioned before, is I understand Arkansas law. Upon death, property vests in the heirs of the estate, and I'm just a little concerned that by making this a mandatory requirement
that there could be some kind of unintended consequence or confusion. But I appreciate you answering my
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:56:59
question. Okay. This was brought to me by the county clerks. If
there is a will attached to the affidavit for collection of small estate that provides for that transfer of property, And sometimes assessors will come by the offices to pick up those copies of the affidavit
to get that on the assessor's records. The simple requirement for them to record a deed when it contains real estate would be for the flow of transfer of title to real estate to get on the assessor's tax books. Thank you, Ms.
Flinkert. Mr. Wright no longer has a question, Mr. Vines, and then Mr. Walker, you're
back for another question? Okay. Mr. Shepard didn't do a good job, I guess. Okay.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:57:57
Maybe I didn't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. See if I can do better. Representative Slinger, as it is now, this would do nothing if that small estate didn't contain real property. Is that correct? I mean, if we've got a car, a bank account, anything like that, this wouldn't affect those types. This only affects if real
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:58:21
property is contained. That is correct. Under current law, it talks about if it contains real property, they
may cause a notice to be published
and they may cause the deed to be issued. This bill simply requires them to do the notice as well as to issue the deed for transfer of title.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:58:46
All right. Thank you. I think, Mr. Vines, Mr. Walker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. What do you do in those situations where the distributee may be ignorant of the fact
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:59:02
that he or she is such? I'm hoping I can answer that question.
Many of these affidavits for collections of small estates are handled by attorneys for the distributees. If they are just handled by the distributee, I know of several clerks that have been very helpful as folks come into the office to file their affidavit. They're very helpful with the requirements that they have to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:59:35
do. May I follow up? I understand that some property is more valuable than others, and it may still be real estate,
but my concern is for those people who may be heirs without knowledge of that fact, do they have some requirement by this imposed upon them to statutorily to present a notice irrespective of the value of the property in the public, in the public media?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:00:15
Well, I believe the affidavit for collection of a small estate is for those properties that are less than $100,000.
That's been raised from $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 now. so let me understand so
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:00:37
a small estate is $100,000 or less so you have a number of people and there's no will
what do you do in that situation I'm trying to understand what happens in a situation where there's no will there may be a dispute as to who the proper distributees are are you imposing upon some particular identifiable person or persons a requirement to publish a notice within 30 days after or is it only if somebody comes up and says that I'm going to present an affidavit
and then they have 30 days?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:01:22
That's my understanding, yes, sir, is that if a person or
persons come into the office of the probate court clerk, wishes to file the affidavit that has the description of real estate on it,
then that's when the notice would be required. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions, members?
Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1888?
I don't have anyone signed up. Ms. Slinker, are you closed
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
2:01:57
for your bill? I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
I want to do pass. Mrs. Slinker is closed for a bill. Mr. Branscombe, I believe, had a motion do pass. Any question or discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor of passage of House Bill 1888 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. ayes have it
Mr. Slinkert you have passed your bill members we're going to pause for lunch we may not have to come back is anyone here to run a bill before this committee you have something you want to run may I say something
please I know I've had my bills on
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:02:42
the list for a long time I am still weighing my financial impact it's just a matter of courtesy to let you know on Thursday they should have them to me they said thank you we
have lunch in my office um or you can go walmart i guess i don't i don't
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1410
HB1823
SB750
HB2029
HB2029
HB1851
HB2169
HB2168
HB1888
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 15
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Karen Mckinney
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 42
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Representative Tiffany Rogers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 52
Speaker 54
Speaker 62
Speaker 45
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 58
Speaker 79
Speaker 82
Speaker 92
Speaker 93
Speaker 94
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Speaker 105
Speaker 109
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Speaker 115
Speaker 119
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 128
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 143
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
David Eberhardt
Unverified
Speaker 156
Speaker 157
Speaker 160
Speaker 162
Speaker 163
Speaker 159
Speaker 168
Speaker 181
Speaker 183
Speaker 186
Speaker 131
Speaker 194
Speaker 198
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 209
Speaker 212
Speaker 216
Speaker 110
Speaker 217
Speaker 233
Speaker 108
Speaker 235
Speaker 40
Speaker 245
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 253
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified