House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
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
Speaker 1
0:00
I remember with her, she asked the other day, and, ma'am? I mean, I don't really want to present five people. Well, you want to wait? Representative Ingram, you ready? Sure. We're fired. Go down the end of the... We'll get them in here. Let's start with you.
Speaker 2
0:30
President Ingram, you are welcome to present your
Speaker 3
0:50
proposed constitutional amendment. Mr. Chairman, members
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
0:52
of the committee, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to present my House
Joint Resolution 1010 before you today. It deals with the abolishment of the land commissioner's office and the office of lieutenant governor.
It would not take effect until December 31st of 2018. We wanted this to be a nonpartisan effort to bring more efficiency to state government. The fiscal
impact of doing away with these offices would be a savings of approximately $2 million a year. That's a substantial amount of money, and I think it's just prudent business to look at this.
As I've said before, we might continue to do business as we have in the past. Sometimes people prefer that. When I was mayor of West Memphis, it was much more efficient to pick up the garbage curbside and less money, but people preferred to keep it backyard and pay more money. So I think this is just an initiative to put before the people of the state of Arkansas to save money. The lieutenant governor, if you abolish the office of lieutenant governor,
or the powers of the lieutenant governor would transfer to the president pro tem of the Senate, and then in the event of something happening to the president pro tem, then the speaker of the House would become governor. As many of you or most of you are aware, the lieutenant governor has two duties. In the Constitution, he is designated as a part-time official. The lieutenant governor has two duties, one to sit and preside over the Senate, And the second duty is to serve as governor when the governor is out of the state of Arkansas.
Again, Senator Thompson and I wanted this to be nonpartisan. We wanted it to take effect after each of the current office holders would be term limited out. And as many or most of
you all know, certainly Representative Klemmer and Hopper and Rogers, remember, and Penartz, when I questioned the lieutenant governor's budget two years ago, it certainly wasn't a nonpartisan deal then.
And that's why I wanted to bring this in front of this committee. Would be happy to answer any questions.
are there questions from the committee representative rogers i saw
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
3:43
you first thank you madam chair thank you representative ingram and i want you to clarify for me something that i think i heard you say that uh the uh senate president pro tem would be the succession
to the governor if something happens? Yes, it
Speaker 14
4:01
would basically all of the duties, the duties that
Speaker 16
4:05
the lieutenant governor has would transfer to the pro tem of the Senate. And
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
4:11
then if the governor were out of state or incapacitated in some way, then he,
the Senate president pro tem would act? Okay. Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you.
Representative Finnaertz, you recognize her question? Thank you,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
4:33
Madam Chair. My question is a similar question,
but Representative Ingram, do you know now currently if the governor and the lieutenant governor are out of the state, who becomes governor for the day? I believe that it falls to the
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
4:51
pro tem now. the Speaker of the House?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
4:58
MR. No, ma'am. MS. Okay. Again, tell me, I was trying to write down some of the figures you gave me.
If we did away with these offices, what is the savings
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
5:15
potentially on a fiscal year basis? MR. On a fiscal year basis, the numbers are approached $2 million, $1,998,616, almost $2 million. Of course, the first year, because you're
going to end it during the middle,
because it will go out on December 31st, would be half of that,
would be roughly a million dollars in savings. You have, you know, and I have the utmost respect for Lieutenant Governor Dahr. He has told me that he is going to cut his budget this year by 8.8%. The lieutenant governor's salary and benefits are almost $54,000, and his staff that he has, I think there's four full-time employees plus three part-time employees,
is $373,379. And lieutenant governor had pledged to me early on that he was going to reduce that budget by about 8.8%, which is about $35,000 that he is
going to reduce the budget, which is a good start. Is
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
6:28
the lieutenant governor's office, is that considered to be
a full-time position or a part-time?
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
6:37
Under the Constitution, it's a part-time office. And I've said this before. You all have heard me say it before. I'm old enough to remember when the lieutenant governor used to go home with the legislature, And this thing has sort of creeped like things will, becoming a full-time position, and the lieutenant governor's budget has almost doubled in the last 10 years. And I'm not focusing on the lieutenant governor's budget.
I mean, we're going to have much more savings over on
the land commissioner's side on efficiencies that can be created through
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
7:17
the land commissioner's office. And my final
question really deals with the land commissioner's office. Who in this case would be assuming whatever duties the commissioner of state lands has? Would that be split between the Treasury or the auditor's office or how does that work?
Speaker 14
7:38
In this, we would give the authority to the legislature to place
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
7:43
that office. that office I mean I think that the natural thing that would jump out at me at
first would be it would go to DF&A because you could their function in the land
commissioner's office could readily be picked up by DF&A and you know we're running office space outside the Capitol to house about 45 employees of the
of the land commissioner's office and and I mean you can you can save just
through some efficiencies and people picking up some additional responsibilities, probably cut at least 13 staff positions that we have now. Okay.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
8:27
I think that unless something else pops up, I appreciate your responses, Mr. Ingram, and thank
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Baird, you recognize our question? Oh, pass. Okay. Representative Klemmer, I think, was next. Oh, Representative Hopper, you recognize.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
8:51
Thank you, Madam Chair. Pardon me. Representative Ingram, basically most of my questions were covered through Representative Pernartz. One follow-up, though. You estimated that you believe 13 staff positions could be cut from the Office of Commissioner of State Lands. Do you know the total number of positions there now? Yes, ma'am.
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
9:16
I think there's 45 positions there now, although there are a number that aren't filled at the present time.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Steele,
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
9:38
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Ingram, you testified that you were old enough to remember when the lieutenant governor went home with the legislature, and I'm not old enough to remember much. So if you could tell me, we haven't always had a lieutenant governor since statehood, have we?
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
9:54
Well, I was referring to the lieutenant governor, And, you know, sometimes I assume things that I shouldn't, that people will remember some of the history.
But up until 1966, the lieutenant governor was a very, very powerful position in the state of Arkansas. The lieutenant governor not only assigned, made all committee assignments, as does the, similar to the Speaker of the House, but he also assigned the committee chairman. So you can imagine
what a powerful position that was. With the election in 1968, when the lieutenant governor current did not run, the Senate chose
to strip the power away from in Senate rules, away from the lieutenant governor.
And quite frankly, I think once they stripped it away, they decided, why would we ever want to give it back? And so that's sort of the history of
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
10:46
that Representative Steele. But pre-1966, we had a lieutenant governor going back how far? It seems like that office was created at some point through a constitutional
Speaker 14
10:53
amendment. Am I wrong? I think it was, but I'm not familiar. I know it
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
10:58
was created as a part-time position. I do know that. It's the only one of the constitutional offices that's designated as a part-time position. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
11:12
Representative Rogers, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. How do we compare with other states as far as
Speaker 50
11:20
our constitutional officers and especially our
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
11:24
surrounding states, our comparable states in the South? It's such a mishmash. In some states, the lieutenant governor has tremendous authority and is very powerful. In other states, there is no lieutenant governor. The secretary of state handles the job of lieutenant governor. So there's just such a wide variety, and in some states the lieutenant governor has very little power.
So it's hard to draw an assumption about
Speaker 51
11:49
not only surrounding states but the rest of the country as well. Any other
questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience wishes to speak for or against? Come on up here.
Please state your name and who you're
Corey Cox
Unverified
12:21
with for the record, please. Yes, ma'am. My name is Corey Cox. I'm a staff attorney at the Land Commissioner's Office. And as we've gone through this once before, and I explained to the members, then this is more of just a policy position of our office that we are against this particular proposed amendment. What we do is we sell people's land. We take their land from them and we sell it.
Now, if you go to DF&A, they also have the ability to take similar steps, but they always involve the courts first. As far as I know. There might be some instances where they don't, but usually they have tax liens that they work through and the courts are involved, whereas we don't involve the courts unless somebody sues to recover. So we just feel that it's such a draconian measure, that it's such an extreme measure to take somebody's property that it necessitates that you have the responsibility of holding an elected office in order to do that function properly.
If you have this function buried over in DF&A, there's not quite the same response when a constituent calls or, you know, if one of you guys call, obviously they're going to answer, but we probably will answer a little bit quicker because we know that we're elected and that our livelihood depends on keeping y'all happy, keeping the constituents happy, keeping the counties happy. We send back about $10 million every year to counties.
We sell the property. We go out and market it. We take steps to make sure that everybody has the proper notice required, not only by the statutes but the Constitution another function we do is we also lease out mineral rights for the lands the state owns and we think that that's another function that's pretty important that being answerable to the voters keeps you honest so well we certainly appreciate representative
Ingram giving us two terms as a policy position it's just our our contention that we're sort of draconian, and we like having that requirement that we're answerable to the voters in there. We might, you know, we wouldn't say that we're not against all forms of consolidation or whatever, and we would certainly be open to looking at maybe merging with some other constitutional offices,
and if the proposal was right, we might be for it.
Speaker 55
15:10
But we just like the fact that this is an elected position. So,
yeah. Are there any questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience
who wishes to speak for or against this measure? Representative Ingram, you have presented your constitutional amendment proposal.
This committee does not make any decisions at this point, so we appreciate you being
Speaker 14
15:52
here. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to just reiterate
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
15:56
that the only purpose in this is to just look at efficiencies. This is not geared to be partisan in any way whatsoever, and sometimes we can get confused with partisan politics versus good government, and the opportunity to save $2 million a year in government operations, I think, merits a look,
and I really appreciate this committee and the hard work that they have to do and what's in front of them. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Representative Ingram. Okay. Representative Clemmer, are you prepared to present, which one is it?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
16:42
I do see a number of prosecutors in the room. Is the chairman wishing to present his?
Speaker 57
16:48
I would just yield if they wanted to. He's not here. He had another meeting.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
16:55
Okay. Thank you. Then, yes, prepared might be a relative term, but I will take the end of the table. You're recognized.
Y'all are really far away from me, and it is really, really a long table. Members, oh, Representative
Klemmer, you're recognized. I think members have a handout now. I think the handouts are going out, so
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
17:48
I'm going to wait for just a second until if everybody's got them, then I think we're ready. Go ahead. Thank you, members. I know that we've already
had a long day, and I hope that this microphone is
not too loud or not too soft, but kind of like Goldilocks, just right. Thank you for being here. Feels a little bit like David going up against Goliath when you're the part-time legislator, knowing that the people who follow you are the people who make far more money than all of us probably in this committee put together.
It is a little intimidating to consider the staff resources, but I am down here on loan, so I ask your patience with me. Due to our, what I believed was our house rule that did
not allow for PowerPoints, I did not ask for one to
be here today. If you would, in lieu of a PowerPoint, if you would locate the handout,
HJR 1005 on the front. And turn to the first pie chart. Let's start, and yes, Representative Vines, you should take notes because this is somewhat detailed. This shows, this first pie chart shows the Arkansas allocation of lottery funds. The total revenues, $485 million. prizes $300,700,000, scholarships $106,700,000, 22%,
and administration $77,600,000.
Now, administration includes not just salaries and benefits, but the entire cost of administering the lottery, which includes tickets, it includes the commissions that the retailers get. So there is more in the administration, and it also includes advertising. But all of that together
adds up to 16%. On the next pie chart, I decided to focus a little bit.
We have a lot of data on a lot of states here, But this next pie chart deals with Louisiana, our neighbor to the south. Louisiana takes in $352 million, almost $353 million, we're around here, in their lottery, which is roughly $132 million less revenue than we take in in Arkansas. However, their prizes are 55 percent.
And the chief argument against this resolution is that if we lower the prizes, because that is one alternative, if we're going to increase the amount of the scholarships available, if we're going to increase the amount of scholarships available, we're going to have to take it from something. from something. We're going to have to take it probably somewhat from prizes. So $192,800,000 is the amount that is used in the Louisiana prize fund, 55%. But you'll notice over to
the side, they have a requirement that 35% be spent on education. And they are able to give that 35%, that amounts to almost $130 million. That is $22,623,000 more for the kids of Louisiana than we are able to devote to the college students of Arkansas. That, we have a lot of other information I want to go through, but in a nutshell, I mean,
That, I think, is the best argument to make. And we can pause for just a moment to talk about requiring a percentage of money go towards scholarships. It is limiting. This would be an amendment, as you all know. That's why we're sitting here. But since the lottery was voted in by the voters, I think it's appropriate to put some restrictions on how that lottery money is spent.
The next sheet is a side-by-side comparison of Arkansas and Louisiana. And you can look at those side-by-side numbers. Their administrative cost in Louisiana is 10%. Our administrative cost is 16%. Their prizes are 7% lower than ours are, and
yet they still have $22 million more for scholarships.
So it is my contention in bringing HJR 1005 before you to require that at least 35% of lottery revenue be devoted to scholarship, and it is my position that that would indeed
increase the amount of money that goes towards scholarships in Arkansas. If you do the math, lottery gross revenue would have to decline by 40%, and that is the argument that's
made that we will decrease the amount of our revenue.
But it would have to decrease by 40% before scholarship allocations would fall below the totals we were at this past year. And there's another pie chart, as you flip on through there, that
shows the amount of scholarship funding based on gross revenue projections. And that is if this resolution passed, that would require 35% of lottery money.
to go towards scholarships. It shows that as revenue, you
know, how much we could make available to scholarships in Arkansas. And I guess, I think the next most significant thing to mention, and I don't like being critical of people, of commissions, of government. I mean, I
certainly have been, but I don't necessarily like being critical.
We have the third highest administrative cost in the nation at
16%, the third highest. And this is based on census data. We have some numbers that show us third lowest in the nation, but the most recent census
data shows us second lowest in the nation going towards scholarships. We were promised a world-class lottery. I think we're paying for a world-class lottery.
I just don't believe we have a
world-class lottery. Let me just draw your attention to some of the data I've put before you, and we're not going to
have to discuss every piece of this. This green sheet simply shows the number of scholarships that would be available for, with every percent increase that we make, that we devote to scholarships.
So we are currently at under 22%. With every percent increase, we increase roughly 1,000 students that can receive the money, if that makes sense. So if we went to 25% in the scholarship, that would bring about three more students in. So if we raise this by 13% guaranteed to scholarships, we would be increasing up to about
13,000 more students able to get scholarship money
at the current rate we're giving. This long legal size sheet just shows you the income figures for all the states that currently have lottery.
Louisiana is highlighted on that sheet, but there are a number of other interesting cases, and I would certainly want to invite you to look at those. we are
sitting on the blue sheet you will see again another sheet with the percentages allocated for the intended purpose our intended purpose in Arkansas is scholarships for college other states used there have designated scholarship it for other intended purposes, so that's why that looks a little ambiguous, but you will see there that we are next to the lowest in between Massachusetts and Minnesota in
percentage terms. Lottery payout and state revenues is the data from NCSL in the yellow sheet, the yellow
stapled sheet that you have before you, and so you can look at some of these numbers I don't Arkansas did not have the lottery this is the most recent NCSL data that is available I think that we have done a pretty good job with the lottery in reaching
high school seniors that are college bound not every student supposedly reportedly every student that qualified out of high school was able to get the lottery for college. I applaud that. But I would also remind this committee that when we started talking about this lottery, we were talking about being able to reach some of the low-hanging fruit. The student that has dropped out of college that is out there living in your districts
who needs maybe just a semester, maybe two semesters. Maybe they need more than that. Maybe it's, you know, the man in my district who has recently lost his job and found it very difficult to find another job paying what he was making. He told me the other day, he said, I was a semester away from college when I quit. And he, yes, we have online available, but he is wanting to be a teacher. He was planning to be a teacher, a coach.
He would be a marvelous coach. He would be a marvelous teacher. But unless we change the way we're structuring the lottery, lottery money is probably never going to be available for him. To maybe give him a cushion to allow him, not maybe even a cushion, but a partial payment of his tuition that might be enough to encourage him to go back to school. We do have a lot of people in our communities that could greatly benefit from increased proceeds, and I just really think that we should be seriously examining this data that
we have before us, and I would encourage yes vote. I'll take any questions anybody has. Representative Tyler, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
30:12
Madam Chair. Representative Klemmer, thank you for bringing this. I do want to point out that the yellow sheet is from 2006. So there's been a lot of changes in lottery since 2006.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
30:26
It is also the most recent we can get from our parent, one of our parent organizations as legislators. So I
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
30:34
haven't had a chance to look through all this, but there are other states who limit the amount that can be paid out, or who, not limited, who specify the amount that can be paid
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
30:46
out. Is that right? Yes, and most of them have had,
there are some that have not had great results, but I think there are a number that have. And I know that we don't have to make a final vote today,
so I really ask that you look this over, and I can probably find some other cases that I want to talk about after, you
know, when I come back to close.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
31:11
You know, one of the things, too, we might want to look at is how do we compare with lotteries who are in the early stages of their lottery? I mean, we've just been in our lottery 18 months now and haven't had the experience. I think a number of these states have. So I'd like to look at some comparisons on other states that we're drawing attention to,
like potentially Louisiana. You know, what did they do in their first year or two, and are we on track with that before we make a decision to immediately move to that?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
31:47
I do understand that, but I do also believe that what we know about lotteries, and it's what was presented to us, that one of the arguments, I guess, that was out there against the lottery is that lottery revenues do not stay constant and that the trajectory is up while it's new and then it starts to taper back down.
And I just would like us to have more of that percentage designated for scholarships so that even if we do see some ups and downs, the student will still be protected. And
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
32:19
I think we all are after the same thing, and that's making sure that we maximize
the amount of money that goes to scholarships. That's what we're trying to do, and I think in addition to looking at the income or the total revenue from these scholarships or these lotteries, we also ought to look at the trajectory
of prize money and trajectory of administration costs as it goes as well because I
think both of those, as you know, factor into how much is
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
32:50
actually available. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Tyler. And I know that we are
all after the same thing and we may just have a different way to go about it. I would like to point out that the national average for proceeds is for the intended purpose is 31.5 percent. So we are falling significantly below the national average.
I'll probably think of my next comment in just a second.
Are there any other questions? Excuse me.
Representative Nichols. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Klemmer, you made one comment about being intimidated, and I'd like to remind you what a dean said to his faculty one time, and I've always remembered that, and I thought it was very good advice, and
that was you allow yourself to be intimidated, so don't be
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
33:52
intimidated. It does feel a little small down
here at the end of this table. Okay. That's why during my hearings I had everybody up close. But, and everything that I've heard, and I think constitutional amendments are really for those things that we cannot handle legislatively.
Okay. And from everything you've said, I haven't heard anything that couldn't be handled if you could pass the legislation. And so am I wrong on that or can legislate? I know we're limited in what we can legislate in the lottery area, but I think the things that you had mentioned might fit that category of things that we can legislate. But I agree with you.
I think there are some shortcomings in the lottery, and I think the vocational training and apprenticeship-type training was something that was just left out that I feel, because everybody shouldn't go to college, you know, and if we could fund apprenticeship training programs, I think it would be better for a number of our high school graduates and for the state. So respond to my question about what is it that you propose that could not be handled legislatively.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
35:23
I'm not 100% sure, since we are new, that the legislators were going to be comfortable directing this. I mean, these decisions have been made by the people we have hired to do this. I'm not sure that, I mean, I think Representative Nichols,
as an attorney, maybe you could help me on this. I'm not sure that they would have to even have legislation. I'm not sure that this couldn't be handled by the Lottery Commission.
But the fact is, we haven't seen that approach to creating the lottery to require that the intended purpose, I mean, right now it seems like the intended purpose is, well, it's about 20 percent important because that's what we're giving to it. But I don't know the answer to your question. I don't know whether we would just pass a bill and then wonder that there might be a
challenge to it. And again, my intent in bringing the amendment was because this was originally proposed by the voters, or voted
on by them, rather. We referred it to them, and they voted on it.
Speaker 100
36:37
No, they referred it to us. This was initiated. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
36:41
sorry. Actually, that's what I thought first, and then I just slipped, because we spent so much time last
session working on this legislation. And I should say, at that point, my first session, there was quite a bit of attention
paid to this. I know that we're going to make continued improvements, but Representative Nichols, I totally agree with your desire to see apprenticeship programs funded. I'm not sure if that wouldn't require an amendment because of the way
it was written. Well, they all left out, and I
think you're right as far as using scholarship money that it would require.
an amendment, but that's not part of your amendment. No, but I would certainly be willing to add it. But the concern I have is that this is a, that the lottery is new, and from a public policy standpoint, I was opposed to the lottery. I voted against the lottery, but two-thirds of the folks of the state of Arkansas made a statement that the public policy of this state is we have a lottery, and we have a lottery commission, we have a lottery oversight committee that are supposed to protect us,
I guess, from the excesses that may arise, but I'm concerned that, you know, it sounds good, let's put more money into scholarships instead of, say, admin costs. But then again, and this is no necessary disrespect to your supporters, but the supporters from what I see here from the family council, like me, they oppose the lottery, but I think
now I have an obligation since two-thirds of the folks are in favor of the lottery that it's here and we need to run it as much like a business as we
Speaker 101
38:40
can. So that's a concern that I have about this particular amendment.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:45
If I could just respond, I also voted against the lottery. We were a split
household at our house. But my daughter benefits from that. And I have to tell you that I'm reaping a benefit from this lottery that a number of my constituents can't.
And maybe that's, you know, the equivalent of some liberal guilt or something representing Nichols. But conservative guilt, okay. This has been, I mean, I don't want to downplay. This lottery has been very significant to our household. With the rising cost of college, it has been very significant. And I want more families to be able to benefit from it is my motivation.
I voted against the lottery, but we have the lottery. I want this lottery to be the most successful lottery in the country in terms of helping kids go to college or
apprenticeship training, if you so desire, Representative Nichols. Representative Hutchison, you recognize? Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:09
This is a great presentation, Representative Klemmer. You did a
great job, and I'm very impressed with this suggestion. If we pass this amendment and the people vote for it, this will say, tell the commissioners they must use 35% of the funds for scholarships, but it does not demand that they cut administration rather than prizes, does it? they still have the power to make that decision?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
40:43
Yes, ma'am, they do. All right. Thank you. I would certainly be open if we needed to tweak it more. But the lottery, I would think that the Lottery Commission could direct some of
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:58
those adjustments if this were to pass. I guess I'm wondering who has the power to tell them to cut administration rather than the commission, our lottery commission? Do they
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
41:07
have that power? I mean, my understanding is they are the governing body now of all things lottery. I don't know to what extent.
I don't know where their authority stops. It might be that the Lottery Commission could have
directed this, but they didn't choose to happen this way. But they
didn't choose to. Thank you. Representative Penartz, you're
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
41:34
recognized for questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try
to be brief. I think some of the two most telling pieces of information here, I haven't had time to digest all of this, but I will before Friday when we vote, is the slide that you show in this little slide presentation about the administrative costs being the third highest in the nation and the net proceeds the second lowest.
And that bothers me, and I know it must concern other legislators. In addition, if Arkansas followed the national average, we would be at 30 percent. So when you combine those two pieces of information, I can certainly see how you might come to the conclusion that we need a constitutional amendment or a referred question to the people. Let me ask you with regard to this piece of information on the national average.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
42:34
Excuse me, Representative Penrots, which sheet are you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
42:39
looking at? It's the individual sheet that talks about if Arkansas followed the national average. I don't think it's
Speaker 71
42:45
part, Representative Klemmer, of your slide show. Oops. It's part of the other handout. Yeah. That
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
42:53
I seem to have made it to the end of the table without. Well, it basically shows a national average of 30 percent, .05, and prizes 62.77. And then I think the other telling point in here is the one that I was interested in,
is the administration national average is 7.18 percent. So those two pieces of information are linked. And I wondered, in your study, since you're the one that has been studying this and this good information you gave us here, do you have any idea or have you been able to ascertain from your discussions or communications with the Lottery Commission how is it that we have a ñ that ours is the third highest administrative cost in the nation?
I mean, is there any explanation that you've been able to receive from the Lottery Commission that really explains why our administrative costs are ranked where they do? I would
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
43:59
certainly want to defer that question to them if I could take a stab at it in their
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
44:06
defense. Well, actually, you're not defending them here. You're actually presenting us with some facts. And what I'm wondering is, certainly that question can be asked of them when they come up to the table to assume, and maybe wrongly, that they're opposing your amendment.
But what do you think the reason for? I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
44:27
would just say, I shouldn't have said in their defense, Representative Penartz, but I
do believe that we wanted to do this right. I believe that was the motivation of the Lottery Commission, of this body, when we created, when we designed this, you know, we were put in charge of implementing this.
And I think we assumed that if we spent a lot of money, maybe that was, you know, you get
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
45:01
what you pay for. Well, let me ask the question in a different way, Representative Klemmer. What percent of administrative cost would be too much in your mind? Is 17 percent, which is what we are now, too much? Or would it be okay if our
Speaker 71
45:17
administrative costs were 25 percent? I do believe those administrative costs, you know, another way to approach this,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
45:25
to approach the same goal might be to set price. Some states set maximum prizes. Some could set, you could set a maximum percentage on administrative. In my mind, if you had a really productive lottery year, you could award bonuses for, you know, for having lots of money to give out
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
45:47
to scholarships. Well, who knows if that's not
already occurring. You know, that may be already occurring.
Well, I just want to say thank you for the information. I think you bring up a couple of very interesting points, and I'm going to think about them before Friday, and I appreciate the work that you did on behalf of the presentation in bringing this information to us. Thank you, Representative Klemmer.
Speaker 71
46:15
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Penartz. Any other questions from the committee?
Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this amendment? Mr. Ernie Preselag, please come to the table and identify yourself. My name is Ernie Preselag.
Speaker 120
46:51
I'm the director of the lottery, Arkansas lottery. Madam Chair, I think there's some handouts that may be available with your permission to the members.
Yes, sir. I think they're being
Speaker 120
47:07
handed out right now. Madam Chair, briefly. You may proceed. Thank you, ma'am. Ladies
Speaker 122
47:16
and gentlemen, the lottery players play the lottery for the personal reason, either to win a prize or to win a nice prize. They have to have positive reinforcement, and that motivates someone to play the lottery. The majority of our costs are prizes.
So if you look at a pie chart of what we've actually accomplished since September 28, 2009, we pay out a little over 65% in prizes. The rest of the costs are as such, are as follows. The commissions, I think Representative Clemmer's including these costs in administration, but I'll just go over them with you briefly. The commissions we pay to retailers of 5.6%.
Lottery does not sell any tickets, so retailers do. So that's the 1,900-and-something small businesses in Arkansas to get a fee, a commission, to pay for their service of selling lottery tickets. Then we have what we call contractual costs. These are contracts awarded by the state of Arkansas to our major vendors, the gaming vendors, which are Intralot, which has the what we call online or Batman, if you will,
contract to service these 1,900 and so retailers and the scratch-off or instant ticket contract awarded to scientific games. Those amount to 5.2%. The kind of discretionary part of the budget which I control is we have our advertising and marketing costs which run about 1% of sales and the selling the general and administrative costs, which run about
2% of sales. So that
net's around 22%, as Representative Clemer says. So if
Speaker 122
49:19
we did away with all the costs, I can't do away with what we pay the retailers, because by law we have to pay a minimum of 5% unless there's a move here that would reduce that, which I think would probably mean we would have fewer retailers on our network, and I can't change the contractual costs. Those are seven-year contracts awarded by the state of Arkansas.
So let's just say, for example, we did away with all the advertising and the lottery rent itself. There would be no salaries, no fringe benefits, no office lease costs. The overhead you would have in a typical business, that's 2%. So really, just say we could do away with 3%. You still, to get from 22% to 35%, you still have to take the majority of that from prizes.
And that's a fact. So go back to my original statement, which is the players play the lottery either to win a prize often enough to keep them interested or to win a NICE prize, a NICE being maybe a $355 million jackpot or a $1 prize on a scratch-off ticket. That's defined by the player. If we reduce prizes, what will happen?
All of you are consumers in your own right. And as I mentioned to Representative Clement the other day at the subcommittee meeting, Let's say that you were going to buy a 12-ounce can of Coke for a dollar. If you reduce that 12-ounce can of Coke to six ounces and charge the same dollar, what do you think the effects would be on sales? See, this is a, in all due respect, this is a false premise, that you can maintain the same level of sales but reduce the prices.
so there's reasons for the prize expense being higher than some other lotteries because most of our players 80 plus percent 86% actually is a start up play the scratch off for instant tickets which carry a higher prize than the number games like Powerball or Mega Millions and I can get into the weeds and all this but basically it means that we have a higher prize expense That's the result of the players telling us at the pocketbook buying lottery tickets
We can't dictate what the players decide to buy They decide what to buy in the free market So there are several states that have a law requiring a certain percentage return to the state for the good causes they have Oklahoma is one. They mandate 35%, just like this bill would do. So let's look at what Oklahoma's lottery looks like.
Oklahoma has 3.7 million people. Arkansas has 2.9 million people. Oklahoma gross sales for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 is 200 million, but they netted 35% or $70 million. Arkansas, with 800,000 less people, grossed $485 million in the first year of operation and netted $107 million.
Now, when you appropriate money for scholarships to give the kids, you're not appropriating a percentage. You're appropriating a dollar amount. The lottery turned over to the state of Arkansas, $37 million more than Oklahoma did. And Oklahoma's lottery, as you will see in some hand-out material, is sinking fast. If I had the Oklahoma lottery director here testifying, he would tell you he's begging to change the Oklahoma state law
to what Arkansas has because they are starved for money. Of course, Louisiana does turn over more money than, as Representative Clemmer said, than Arkansas, but Louisiana has probably 4.6, 4.7 million people. We have about 2.9 million, so logic will tell you they would be turning over more money. California turns over more money than Louisiana on a per capita basis.
If you equate this lottery to the amount of net income per person, sort of like earnings per share in a corporation, you will see we benchmark very high, actually. And that's what you have to appropriate. The original estimates for the state of Arkansas before the lottery was started was it would net, it would gross about $160 million. It would net about $55 million. You can go back and get that information if that, maybe that's part of the handout from DFMA.
So keep that figure in mind. The anticipated net income to be rewarded from scholarships from the people of Arkansas' lottery would be $55 million. We turned over $107 million the first year, almost doubling those expectations. So this is a law that's been repealed by most states. Oklahoma has the law. I think Louisiana law has the law.
North Carolina had the law. They repealed it, and their sales, I think, went up by $400 million the first year they repealed it. Now, I think it's important also, and this is in part of your handout, that the state of Georgia, who has arguably the most successful lottery in North America and certainly the marquee scholarship program called the Hope Scholarship Institute in 1992, they can't keep up with the demand for lottery scholarships.
And they had a proposal, a 35% mandate, which they asked the state auditors, the Georgia Department of Audits, Accounts, Performance Audits, and Operations, this very month made that report to the legislature of Georgia. And I'm going to quote what the state auditors, the independent group in Georgia said. And this is part of your handout. And this is a quote from the state auditors of Georgia.
If the Georgia Lottery Corporation were required to start remitting 35% of its sales to the state, it would have to abandon its current marketing strategy and it would almost certainly result in significant reductions in sales and proceeds. Achieving a 35% return to the state would require that prize payouts for instant tickets be reduced, which would most likely result in potentially significant reduction in sales volume. The net effect would be that the state would receive 35% of a much smaller amount of lottery sales.
now representative Hyde has a bill that requires a fiscal impact this is a bill in the legislature this current session it requires a fiscal impact of any bill proposed during the lottery if you want the lottery staff's opinion of the impact of this bill it will reduce the scholarship funding from $107 million a year to at best $55 million I'm going to say that again.
The staff's fiscal impact study of this proposed legislation will reduce the lottery proceeds going to scholarships from $107 million to $55 million. That would be our, if you ask us for a fiscal impact. Ladies and gentlemen, it's up to you to decide
Speaker 124
57:49
what you want to do with this bill. All we can do is try to
Speaker 122
57:56
give you our professional advice as to what the consequences of it would be, and that would be our professional advice.
Questions from the committee? Representative Nichols, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chairman. If you recall, I asked Representative Clemmer if what she is asking us to do, if it could also be handled legislatively with a bill or an act. What's your analysis of that, Ken? What she is asking us to do, could we also do it legislatively? Yes,
sir. In fact, before the legislation was passed last year, I
Speaker 122
58:41
came to Petty Jean when I was employed somewhere else
and was advising the members, a lot of the members of the legislative, what was the first legislative oversight committee, and they had this particular piece of legislation in the bill. And I told them, in my professional opinion, if you want to maximize the percentage, that's one thing. If you want to maximize the dollars for kids' scholarships, that's a different thing. And so what they decided to do was they decided they would rather have $107 million going to scholarships than $55 million.
And you can do it legislatively, I think you can do it legislatively, you'd have to ask your
attorneys for that, but I think it's a statutory change. That was my concern,
if it can be done legislatively, then we're dealing with putting issues before the people, constitutional issues, and I'd like to, my personal opinion is that we should put things before the people as constitutional amendments that we cannot handle legislatively.
But it's your position that everything that's being asked for in this amendment could be handled
Speaker 122
59:58
legislatively. Yes, sir. I'm a CPA, not an attorney, but I think you can, but I would
Speaker 130
1:00:05
refer that to your attorneys. Okay. As I mentioned to Representative Klemmer, I do think there is a shortfall
in funding in that you do not fund some of the technical training and some of the apprenticeship programs, but that's not your fault.
Speaker 120
1:00:20
That's the way. No, sir. money to you,
and you decide how to spend it. Right. Thank you. Representative Hodgson, you're recognized? Oh. Okay. Are there any other –
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:00:42
oh, Representative Hobbs? Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I do have just a few questions. Yes, ma'am. First of all, the scholarships are now at 22 percent level.
Do you have a goal in mind as to what you would like
Speaker 122
1:00:57
to see that percentage increase to? Well, yes, ma'am. We would like to see 24 to 25 percent. Okay. But remember, that's tempered by the marketplace. The marketplace, the people buying the tickets, we can't tell Arkansans what tickets to buy because not all lottery dollars are created equal. a variety of ways to spend money on the lottery. Some have higher
prize payouts than others. And so what we would like to do is iterate to 24%. And
Speaker 124
1:01:30
we think that's a reasonable goal based on this market. Okay, thank you.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:01:36
How many employees does the Arkansas State Lottery Commission hire? I think it's around
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:01:45
didn't know if that was That's still correct or not. Yes, ma'am. Last week in your PowerPoint presentation, I saw where Oklahoma currently has, I believe,
35 employees. Yes, ma'am. Even though there are, what did you say about, how many more people live in Oklahoma than Arkansas? Well,
Speaker 124
1:02:03
they have a lot. Yes, ma'am. There's about 3.7 million. Okay. Can you
Speaker 122
1:02:10
help me understand? They have a $200 million lottery. We have a $485 million lottery. So we are a lot bigger sales organization than they are. Okay.
Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Louisiana has 145, Ms. Baldridge said.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:02:31
And can you tell me what the salary range is? Like what's the lowest paid employees per year? I think we have some
Speaker 122
1:02:42
on a per hour basis, maybe equivalent to 20-something thousand part-time. I can get you that up to $324,000. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:03:02
This is probably something you've addressed in a lot of other committees, but is
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:03:06
there an expectation that the new will wear off of this a little bit?
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:03:12
in your experience in other states, does it start out stronger and then you start to see those numbers
Speaker 122
1:03:18
come down, or do you expect these numbers to stay static? That's a very good question. As you mature out, you will plateau. You will not be able to keep chasing the rabbit around the track. But that being said, we're more
sensitive to certain things, like gas prices. 80% of our retailers are convenient stores with gas. So as gas prices go up, we have a greater impact on sales. And certainly if gas prices go to $5, it's going to hurt Walmart, it's going to hurt, you know, Kroger, it's going to
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:03:55
hurt the Arkansas lottery. And I'm assuming if this amendment were to be adopted, it would affect that? I mean,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:04:04
less ticket sales, less money, and then being mandated a certain percent, would it be fair to say that
Speaker 124
1:04:11
would affect it? This amendment, basically, what you end up doing, again, is you have to deduct to get 35%. You have to basically take it from prizes. You
Speaker 122
1:04:24
follow me? When you take it from prizes, people stop playing and stop playing in droves. It collapses sales, and you'll never get those people back.
North Carolina and Georgia, this is another thing, this audit report, and we'll make this available to you if it hadn't already been made, the Georgia audit report. They have about the same population. North Carolina started in 2006. Their gross, excuse me, their net scholarships is maybe $420, $450 million. Georgia's is, you know, two or three times that, three times that with the HOPE scholarship. that Georgia didn't have.
It's two same states, but two different results. Oklahoma is a prime example of what you'll get here. Yes, sir. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairman. Are there
other questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposal?
Seeing none, Representative Clemmer, do you want to close? You're recognized.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:05:45
Thank you, Madam Chair. The problem with having so much information is that it's hard to present it all. I would like to draw your attention to one other sheet, the Lottery Financial Data for 2008 sheet that has two columns. It's colored. And on one side is administration cost, and on the other side is the proceeds to designated cause scholarships. I want you to have that sheet out, and I want to show you some information that would be in dramatic conflict with the
information presented by Mr. Pasolet, and that is looking at West Virginia, a state significantly smaller than ours in population, 81%, 81% goes to scholarships. And you might say, well, is it 81% of nothing? No, if you look at that chart, you'll see West Virginia has 656,500,000 going to scholarships.
That's six times the proceeds. Do you know what their prize payout is?
Well, if you give 81% to lottery proceeds, it's 15% to prizes. It
didn't stop the state of West Virginia from buying lottery tickets. In fact, they bought, obviously, quite a few more lottery tickets than we did. Um, their, uh, cost of administration in West Virginia is 4%.
Um, in Delaware, if you'll look down, um, South Dakota even, um,
had, um, more money in scholarships than we did. They have 79%, almost 80%. And Delaware, Delaware requires, by law, that 30% go to the intended purpose, they give 73% to the intended purpose
with 15% prize money. This is data drawn from the Census Bureau. Arkansas, it was census lottery financial data for 2008, and Arkansas is from the 2010 census because it plugs in our numbers on there. But that is strikingly, I think, clear information on what's going on in the other states.
And I guess to conclude, I just ask for you to look over this information to consider if there isn't a way we can do it better. and should this I mean I would ask for a good vote on Friday or whatever day we end up voting but should it not pass then I would urge all those in favor to consider how other states are doing it and how they're doing it significantly better
Speaker 120
1:09:13
than we are. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, can
I have a point of privilege just to clarify something? She's already closed
Speaker 119
1:09:28
for the bill. Representative, well, no, she's already
closed. Okay. Okay. Yeah, okay. Representative Hutchison, were you going to run yours today?
Representative Hutcheson for H.J.R. 1003. Madam Chairman, when Representative Hutcheson
did this in our subcommittee meeting, my wife told me that they couldn't hear a word that she said on live streaming. So I think that
in that mic. Okay. Well, thank you, Jeff. Members, before she gets started here,
1006 will be heard on Wednesday after adjournment
of the House
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:10:54
Representative Hutchison, you're recognized. Thank you
very much, and I appreciate this opportunity. We have to go way back in the history of Arkansas and the Highway Department to sort of review
to even understand why we're having this. Back in 1935, Act 328 established what is called the ten maintenance districts. They revolve around engineers so that one engineer won't have a long way to drive.
So it established the ten maintenance districts and then it also said that the commissioners would be appointed from the congressional districts. So we had two different entities, The maintenance districts and the commissioners appointed from congressional districts. The maintenance districts had about equal miles and the commissioners, of course, since they were appointed from congressional districts, had equal population. Then we went through phases. We had lots of commissioners, almost two dozen.
It was used as, became very politically corrupt, the Highway Commission, and we eventually ended up with the commissioners were appointed directly from the ten districts. Now you can understand this would make it easier to run the Highway Commission if your commissioners were the same as your highway districts. And we got to 12, two at large, but many people in the state said there wasn't a good representation
around the state, and they did an audit and they found out that was true. So they passed Mack Blackwell. That's the overriding umbrella in the Arkansas Highway Transportation. Mack Blackwell, called Amendment 42, said we're going to have five commissioners. They're appointed by the governor for a 10-year term. They represent the congressional districts, that's what they're appointed from. No two can be from the same district and the commissioners select their director.
That's Back Blackwell in a nutshell. We went from five to ten, I mean from ten to five, because representing the ten districts didn't work. And going down to five meant that they would have more equal representation. Well, things worked out pretty well until, oh, by the way, I need to go back. This little map, they didn't have maps like this right after Mac Blackwell.
They didn't assign districts right after Mac Blackwell. They were like the game in fish. You were appointed from your congressional district, and that was it. Then we had a problem. We lost a congressional district. We went from five congressional districts to four. So there was a lawsuit. It's called White and Hankins. What do we do now? And this is another important guiding star for the highway department.
The judges decided that we're going to stick with five congressional districts. You can see some of the decisions, what they said. They said that selecting from congressional districts will change with the population and periodically update the population, and it would be a regional representative, and the framers wanted equal representation. This is what happened with White v. Hankins. They decided five commissioners, so two may come from the same congressional district.
And what is interesting is what they said when they got to that decision. Number one, there should be no frozen districts. Districts should not remain the same over time. They have to change with the population. And they also said it's going to be patterned after the game and fish. So let's look at the game and fish, how it is like the Arkansas Highway Department. The commissioners are chosen from congressional districts, both game and fish and highway. They both have ten maintenance districts.
There's the highway department and their ten maintenance districts. Both have fewer commissioners than they do maintenance districts. But this is the difference at the highway department. The highway department assigns districts. They each are assigned two maintenance districts. So basically we're going back to the ten districts that we were supposed to leave under Mack Blackwell.
Some of the commissioners are trying to say this is just for social activities, so we'll know where to go, who's supposed to attend some dinner or event. But they do divide up the money according to these ten districts. The latest stimulus package was divided up equally according to these ten districts. Okay, remember the area is not supposed to be frozen according to White v. Hankins. But if you look at the 1935 highway districts and the 2008, there's been a few counties
moved around, but they're basically the same. Are we receiving equal representation on the highway commission? If there was equal representation, District 6 would have six commissioners and District District 3 would have one if there was equal representation. I found out how much money this is discretionary funds. This isn't what the federal government is saying. This is discretionary funds that the Highway Department gets to decide. That amounted about $5 billion.
So here it is. You can look back and forth and see what district you're in. District that's Texarkana, they got over $3,000 per person. Down in District 4, that's Fort Smith, they got about $882 per person. I asked what happened to poor Fort Smith area, and I was told that when they built 540, they went over their limit. So they are paying back the limit
they went over. However, if it was divided up by congressional districts, it wouldn't be that much over the limit. There's a clear inverse relationship between the lack of representation and dollars received per person. In other words, the more people you have, the more cars you have, the more money you need for roads, then you will get less than others. Senator Beebe constantly says he wants the dollars to follow the cars, but as long as
the maintenance districts are an area of representation, then the dollars will never follow the cars. Trying to speed this up. If you look at the congressional districts on top of the maintenance districts. As a congressional district, I'm going to have to step back here. As a congressional district shrinks in population, the land will grow.
The congressional district and Mr. Ross's keeps growing because they're looking for that perfect population number they have to have. So Mr. Ross's district keeps getting bigger and bigger. But as more people move into a congressional district, it shrinks. So the third and the second are shrinking. And this means that the third district has one commissioner being an advocate for it.
The second district has two advocating for it and sending money its way. And I have statements of the commissioners saying how they're advocating and how they're sending money, and they're very proud of the money they sent to their districts. Mr. Berry's old district has four commissioners advocating for it, and Mr. Ross's has all five commissioners in his district. So he has five highway commissioners advocating for it.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:19:54
It says that highway commissioners will be appointed from congressional districts with 10-year term. We also had a problem
in the past with highway commissioners not actually living in the area they're supposed to be. They had a hunting Lodge or something, so it says commissioners' primary residents must be in the congressional
district. We're going to have at-large rotating commissioners appointed from the maintenance district. If we have four congressional districts, then we need a fifth one to block or to break the tie, so you'll use one of those maintenance districts. It's three years, and so
over a 10-year term, three maintenance districts will be represented, and then it can represent no other designated district. This is a congestion map, and you can see the areas where the congestion
is is the area where we say they aren't getting equal representation on
the Highway Commission. Why should we be concerned that the commissioners represent people rather than miles? Act 328 as they should, Mac Blackwell. There's a reason they're chosen from congressional districts. They want them to represent the same number of people and also White versus Hankins. Why
now? Well, we're going to have new congressional districts. We're going to have a new director. Mr. Flowers has done a good job, but he's bowing out this year. And we need a new priority to end congestion. Most people agree with Governor Beebe. The dollars should follow of the cars, so this should be a new priority. So I hope you'll consider this. I especially hope those who want their a tax on the highway to consider this. This is going to be one
of the obstacles to raising taxes because people feel that they haven't been represented equally. If we could have this on the
ballot, I think they'll be more inclined to vote for a tax, but at least it would clear up some of the negative feelings about raising taxes. So that's it. It's quick and sweet and over. Okay. Questions
from the Committee. Representative Klemmer, you recognize? I really have a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:22:24
point of order. We don't have a, we don't seem to have a quorum here, and Representative Hutchinson
has developed a presentation that the majority of the committee, two-thirds of the committee, is not here for. And I just, I mean, I would certainly defer to Representative Hutchinson's wishes in this, but if it's something you want to be heard by the committee, it seems that you've not had your hearing. Well, I... As someone who asked to wait until the people
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:23:00
got here to present hers, I have been in politics a long time.
This General Assembly represents 10 years ago what Arkansas was 10 years ago. The people voting on these tax increases represent Arkansas now. And the other problem is if we don't do something legislatively, there will be a lawsuit. So I'm trying to prove this will be our last chance to solve this problem legislatively. And if they don't want to listen, that's fine.
I will defer to their decision, but they will hear it in a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:23:39
court case then. Well, I appreciate you coming forward today. I just wondered if you would have Avenue
to request yours to be heard by the committee in a committee attended. Well,
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:23:52
I hope that all those who are left and who really are serious, I mean, we have some people dropping out of their offering their amendment. I hope I'll be able to give this to the joint state agency someday.
So I'm not going to drag people in to listen to this
if they don't want to, no. Thank you, Representative Hutchinson. Okay. Chair recognizes that we don't have a quorum anymore. If you are finished, Representative Hutchison. Thank
Speaker 165
1:24:28
you. Thank you, Representative Hutchison. Can I, may I ask a question, Madam Chair? Representative Lee. Which of these did you say, I didn't get it quickly enough, are going to be heard tomorrow?
It's on Wednesday, Representative Lee. Pardon me, Wednesday. After adjournment will be HJR 1001, HJR 1002, HJR 1004, HJR 1006, HJR 1007, HJR 1008, and HJR 1009.
And if Representative Cowling is here, BHJR 1013, the ones that we did not hear today, will be on the agenda for Wednesday. MS. And do we
Speaker 165
1:25:23
have another meeting planned after that? Because I thought we were going to be voting on them on Friday, and if we vote, are we – I guess I have two questions. And if we're going to vote, are we voting just which ones are going to be heard by the
entire Joint Committee? I'm still not clear on that. MS.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not
Speaker 165
1:25:48
clear either, Representative Lee. MS. Okay. MS. I'm sorry. MS. Well, no. We were in here together last time, weren't we, Representative Slinkard?
clear then either. Okay. MS. But. MS. Okay, I've just been informed that on Friday we will vote on those
that we've already heard, and then the others. No? Right, right. We're just going to be voting on the ones that we have heard on Friday, and then referring, right, and whether or not to refer the rest of them
Speaker 170
1:26:45
to the joint. Wednesday. On Wednesday.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:26:49
I'm sorry to be so confused. I know these are hard questions, but your understanding is then that we will vote whether or not we've heard
them all on Friday? How can we vote on which ones to refer out if we haven't heard them all? Only the ones we're going to refer to the joint.
Speaker 102
1:27:20
Please. Let's let Sherry tell you. Okay. It's from my understanding what's going
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:27:23
to happen on Friday. The ones that have come and presented here will vote to refer those out, which everyone succeeds to go out. Wait, how many can we refer out? As many as you want. Mm-hmm. If you can refer all of
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:27:45
them to the joint committee, but the joint committee can only refer three. Right. What is this about? It's our year to have two, and is that informal?
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:27:53
I think it's an informal kind of thing. where last year I think the Senate got two out and the House got one, and so this year it's supposed to be the House is supposed to
get two, but it's not a written rule. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I'm sorry, Committee. I'm unclear about it, too. Any other questions or business? We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HJR1010
HJR1005
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 3
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 51
Corey Cox
Unverified
Speaker 55
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 120
Speaker 122
Speaker 124
Speaker 130
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 119
Speaker 29
Speaker 152
Speaker 153
Speaker 159
Speaker 165
Speaker 170
Speaker 102
Sarah Moore
Unverified