House State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1046
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1046”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1739
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1739”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1797
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ry Commission. The Representative Lee has a request to hear House Bill 1797 this Friday morning, this next Friday morning. Representati…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1926
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1926”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1984
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1984”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:00
Members of the committee, we have been assigned several bills that has coming down, and all those sponsors, we'd like a good hearing on them, so we're getting jammed up on the time frame. And so the request I have, the will of the committee is, are we willing to set a, after adjournment Monday for a special order to, as a body, to review the constitutional amendments
upon adjournment Monday afternoon or another day where we can schedule this?
Just the House side. But here's the final plan. Final plan next Friday upon adjournment. We're meeting and we're voting on the
constitutional amendments in this body. Next week we will be getting with Senator Madison and setting a date where we as a joint body can hear the constitutional amendments.
The problem is we're getting pushed by the sponsors of bills who want to get their bills out on our regular agenda days, the Wednesdays and Fridays. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I'm
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:22
perfectly willing to meet Monday afternoon just to hear the constitutional amendments. I want to be fair to our other colleagues who still have bills to run that are non-constitutional in the sense of not one of these 12 or 13 that we have.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:44
to it. Well, I appreciate that because we're running out of time and we want to respect our members who are our running bills. So
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:57
if without objection – oh, I'm sorry, Representative Hutchison, I didn't – All the constitutional resolutions from our committee, are they going to be heard by the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:09
Senate side? But those that do pass out of our committee will go to the joint committee of the Senate
and the House on a day set by the Senate, and we will alternate. Senator Mattis and I visited Wednesday afternoon. I had a request. She had a request. We've made a compromise without objection from the committee or the committees. The House member's bill is going first. We're going to have the first bill out for a vote.
Both sides have to vote in an affirmative for it to pass. But as a concession to the Senators and the Senate, I have agreed that we'll move down on their end. They did not want to go to Big Mac, but, you know, we get what we want. They get something they want, and we'll proceed as trying to help the body move forward. You know, I'm such a polite person. You know, everybody knows I'm just compromised everywhere. So that being – oh, don't shake your head there, Eddie.
Speaker 11
3:21
Anyway, yeah, and anyway – So there isn't a number
Speaker 13
3:27
coming out of each side. If this body votes all the constitutional amendments
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
3:33
out, we're going to take all the constitutional amendments from the House down to that joint budget. We will take them in order. When we get there, they will be ranked by the numbers, I think.
And then we will, as a body, our joint committee, we will hear those and vote on them. We will not hear testimony. We're just, I don't think we just, we, do we, I don't think we heard testimony on the last in the joint. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 17
4:06
we did on, we did remember Mr. Malik, went on his side. Oh, yes, I do remember that. Yes. And
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
4:11
he's in the House today. He is. And, yes, we'll hear a testimony just like a ready to vote on it, on an alternating from the House to the Senate to the House of the Senate until we get the three.
and when those three, which is the constitutional limit, that we can refer out. Mr. Chairman, if I may,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
4:31
have you, I think we still have 11 resolutions on the list. I think two have been withdrawn. Have you had any conversations with members that they may not actually run these? There's been several that have said they're not running their bill. Friday we will have, if I
Speaker 24
4:47
see what you said, if you don't run it, you're going to
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
4:50
be here. Friday afternoon upon adjournment, we're having a meeting of this body, And we're voting these constitutional amendments up and down, and that's the end of it
because we've got to move on with the redistricting, and we've got to move on with the regular agenda. We have several bills here that we've got to handle. They're important to the state and to the sponsors. Because Senator Madison wants to have a joint meeting next week fairly early. Mr. Chairman, I'm fully in agreement with what
Speaker 25
5:16
you want to do, and I think we need to meet next Friday. We're going
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
5:21
to meet next Friday, but I need to know is it okay if we can meet Monday upon adjournment to hear any constitutional amendments that wants to be presented.
It doesn't necessarily mean they may not. One of you members, we may not run a constitutional amendment Monday, but it does not mean that next Friday afternoon one of the members of this body doesn't make a motion to do pass any of those.
Speaker 31
5:49
13? 13. 11. Okay, I guess I misunderstood then, so I
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
5:53
thought Monday we were going to listen to the ones that showed up, and that's the ones we were going to refer out, but you're telling me
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
6:03
that later on they have a chance to? We let the subcommittee go over them and we're going to get a report from the subcommittee on, and what they did was try to get the sponsors to understand the issues that may arise, but But we still have to vote on it and hear them as a body. We cannot shuck our responsibility. So we've got to hear it as a body, and we're going to do that Monday afternoon without objections on 15 minutes upon adjournment.
Is there any objections to that? So we schedule that, and then next Friday upon adjournment we're meeting and we're voting on the constitutional amendments. Now, if there's not any objection, the next order of business is an exception. Representative Clemmer, well, let's get
the first one first. Let's go to the first one. We've got a special order request for Representative English to hear House Bill 1046.
She would like to set up a special
order for next Wednesday morning. It's at the bottom of the agenda, on the
regular agenda. She's asked for a special order for this coming Wednesday morning,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
7:30
first on the list. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Being a participant in special orders, asking for them, I tried to ask for them in the early
part of the session. I was in one yesterday in the revenue and tax, and it took up the entire day. And the closer we're getting to the end, I'm afraid that special orders will keep us from getting to some of our normal business. So that's just a concern that I have at this stage of granting special orders. Unless there's somebody that is like mine, yesterday we had somebody from Connecticut
come in to testify, but I locked in that date over two weeks ago, and that's just a concern that I have about special orders at this date. I
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
8:26
understand, but the special order arrives because of some opposition
from agencies and other entities who want to make sure that they know when it's running, where they could be here with their testimony. Well, they can walk across the street. Just up to the will of the committee, if they vote, y'all vote for it or not, it's fine with me.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
8:47
Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I sort of feel the same way. I think at this point in time, essentially starting next week, we'll have a little less than, help me out if I'm wrong, two weeks or left. And I think that sponsors of bills understand that, and if they want to get in here and run their bill, get in here and run your bill. And I'm not really prone
to giving people a special order of businesses the last two weeks of the session.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
9:18
Representative Hutchison. I make a motion that
we vote on Representative Mr. Klassman. He said, Yes, ma'am, you can at the proper time, Because we have a couple more members that raised their hands, if
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
9:44
that's okay. Representative Hobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I definitely respect my colleagues on their comments.
However, if there should be a case where even though someone that wants to testify may not be coming from Connecticut, there may be some that want to come from other states. Therefore, I would like to, and whether it's special order or not, we still
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
10:06
need to hear those bills. I agree. And we can go and have lunch brought in if y'all so desire to stay, and we can make arrangements for that if we need to. Representative Harper?
Speaker 53
10:21
I like that last part. You know, that day we had to stay here without any food. But we were hard to deal with later in the day. I don't know if you noticed that, but anyway. I avoided you all
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
10:40
afternoon. We'll have popcorn and ice cream. But, no, we can make arrangements to have lunch here if we need to. So I'll stay and we can come back. We're going to take care of our business in this committee before we leave here,
if we have to come on Saturdays. So anyone else from the Heads of Comment? Representative
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
11:05
Hutchinson, do you have a motion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that we accept a Representative English request for a special
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
11:16
order. What's it next? Which day? We have a motion to accept Representative English on request for a special order. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? No. Ayes have it. Now to the next, and here's where we're getting sticky, folks. Klemmer has a constitutional amendment that the Lottery Commissioners would like to set up a presentation, a special order to do a presentation. Is that right, Representative Klemmer? Representative Klemmer, I'm just asking not
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
11:45
to be scheduled on that day. I don't care when you put me. I have a longstanding out-of-state commitment next Friday.
That's on the vote of your... Mr. Chair, just so what I
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
12:04
have to present that day. Well, next Friday we're going to vote on the bills. We're going to finish them up, but we can – that's what I'm getting to right now. Okay. I just didn't want to present that day. I just didn't really want to do committee discussion. We're trying
to get the House bills cleaned up right now to get this settled. Representative Clemmer has a constitutional amendment that is extraordinary in that
there's going to be some lottery people here to present PowerPoints and other documentations
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
12:31
and they were asking for. Mr. Chairman, I
Speaker 71
12:35
would remind that we don't use electronic devices. The PowerPoint is acceptable. I asked the parliamentarian before I went there. Oh, okay. If he is here to testify in person. So we should
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
12:47
bring our own. I could bring my own PowerPoint if I want to. Yes, ma'am. You cannot bring a court
to the parliamentarian. You have to be here in person to answer questions. Okay. And the lottery commissioners will have to be here in person in order to have a PowerPoint.
They will have to be here to answer questions. And they will not be able to use PowerPoints. It has anything to do with someone making a statement on the PowerPoint. It's just to make information. According to
the parliamentarian, because I cleared that with him before I made that statement. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
13:22
I didn't know how far our electronic ban went. Well, cell
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
13:26
phones, and I'm going to start doing tombstone territory, I guess, and collect them at the door if we keep using them here in this committee.
Sir? I was going to point you to do that. Anyway, Representative Lee, do you have your hand
Speaker 21
13:44
up for a question? No? I did, but I'm putting
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
13:56
it down, and I no longer have questions. Mr. Chair, if I may, question to the Chair.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
14:04
Can you limit special orders time-wise? I think this committee can limit if they assess that their will.
Speaker 21
14:10
The committee can do what they want to. Okay. Y'all
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
14:17
can limit within the framework of the roof. I don't want to short anybody, but I don't want, like we've had a couple in education that, you know, are things that drag out for an hour and a half, and I just want to be fair, but at the same time, I want to
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
14:30
be fair to everybody. That's true. Thank you. If y'all tell us if the committee makes that decision right now, we can inform the sponsors. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Representative Klemmer. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
14:41
I apologize for being late. I heard this morning that my daughter was under a tsunami warning in Costa Rica, so I was dealing with some of that. So please accept my apologies. Has it hit? No, it's coming this afternoon. So I'm telling her, why don't you go in? Anyway, sorry. Get off the beach. Anyway, that has nothing to do. I'm just apologizing for being late. But my question is, can I present on
Speaker 71
15:10
a day different than we vote?
That's what we're trying to do right now. I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:16
just want to make sure you understood my request. I do.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
15:19
Okay, thank you. And what I'm trying to do is get the will of the committee to allow you to do this Wednesday after Reverend of English gets through. And you're doing a marvelous job, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 71
15:28
And try to get that taken care of. And because of the crisis that your daughter may be facing, if you get a call, you have our blessing to answer it. Well, I've already turned my phone off. She accused me of being dramatic. But, you know,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
15:42
when it's your kid. Well, I appreciate that.
Anyway, what's the request of Representative Clemmer to set up a special order for the second behind
Representative English to hear her constitutional amendment this Wednesday morning? Do I have a motion to allow that? Representative Steele, did you have a question? I'd so move. Mr. Chair, you've confused me now. We're
going to hear the Constitution amendments Monday afternoon,
but the problem is that Monday afternoon for the lottery people, they're not able to be here Monday afternoon. Well, why
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
16:28
not? If they can't be here and testify, what's the problem? Hold on. Rep. Klammer, are you able to be here Monday
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
16:34
afternoon? Yes, sir. Okay, well, we'll do it Monday afternoon. Is that fine? Yeah, I mean, they will
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
16:42
come across the street or wherever they are, get in your car and come a half a mile.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
16:47
We will inform them. That's the wish of the committee. Representative Clemberg will be here Monday afternoon to do this from the Lottery Commission. The Representative Lee has a request to hear House Bill 1797 this Friday morning, this next Friday morning. Representative Lee, do
you have that request? Representative King's, did you have that on the special order request? Yes, Representative King. Would you turn your mic on? Sorry, we're...
Speaker 95
17:18
That's not. Yes, he asked me to request that. 1797. We have a request
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
17:26
from Representative Lee. Can I ask for clarification really quickly before
Speaker 97
17:30
I make that an official motion? My understanding is that when we do ask for a special order, we can limit debate during that special order. Right. You can't. Okay. So it wouldn't take up the whole day. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, sir. All this is doing is letting you go first.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
17:49
Or ensuring it happens sometime during that day. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. That's all it's doing. Okay.
Speaker 97
17:56
It's allowing you will be heard that day. Thank you. I needed that. Or Representative
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:01
King will be heard that day on my request. Yes. Thank you. If we get it passed by the will of this committee. You got it. Do we
have a motion for that from you? Yes, sir. We have a motion, Representative Lee, to allow House
Bill 1797 special order next Friday morning.
Representative Tyler, did you have a question? Yes, sir, I did.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
18:23
Could we understand the reason for the special order request? I would have to
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:28
ask the sponsor, Representative Lee, do you have a? MS. No, sir. I don't have a reason. MR. Are you
all bringing in other people or anything? MS. Representative King knows I'm a member of this committee and requested I made this request,
Speaker 97
18:41
and that's all the information I have. I'm sorry, Representative Tyler. MR. Representative Bernard. MR.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:50
Mr. Chair, since the wisdom of this committee is that we're going to allow a special order of business in the last two weeks, I essentially don't see any difference between giving a special order of business to Ms. English, so I'm in favor of giving it to Mr. King. I mean, the rationale is there. There's no difference. We can limit,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
19:08
you can limit debate, but the question is, all this does to a special order is to guarantee that
they will be heard that day. That's all it does. It doesn't necessarily mean that they, it just means that they're going to be heard
that day. Is that not, that's my understanding of the special order. And Representative King is asked that he be heard that day, and he will be here to present his case. That's pretty much all it does. And you can limit debate at that time, at any time that the committee chooses to do. So all we're doing is telling Representative King he will be heard, his bill will be heard on that Friday morning, next Friday morning. Immediate consideration.
We have immediate consideration on the motion, non-debatable. All in favor, say aye. Motion to allow Representative King to have a special order on Friday, on March the 18th, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
No. Motion carries. All right. We're getting ready to get started here. Now, we're going to finish this up Monday afternoon, Constitutional Amendments upon adjournment. Wednesday, we've got two special orders in the regular committee. Friday we got a special order
and the regular committee and if y'all want to limit debate it's fine with whatever the body wants to do with that being taken care of let's go to the regular agenda and we have four bills from sponsors that was here the other day that was not able
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
20:51
1498 Representative Link are you ready? Yes sir reduce your bill? Absolutely. House Bill 1498,
best explained, you know, I consider government
like a big ship. You can't make fast changes. You can't make quick turns. And I think this will start a turn in the right direction for our state. I think it's something most of our constituents would like to see. It is not very complex. It probably looks more complex complex than it is, this would require agencies to file their annual reports. Those agencies that are currently required to file reports at all would require that they file them electronically. It does not keep them from printing reports.
It does not keep them from giving reports to the public in printed matters at all. It simply requires that if they file a report, they also file it electronically. they have a website there to post that report electronically on their website. It does not require that they build a website to post it on. So all we're doing is we're taking this language and requiring that they, once that annual report is posted, we would assume it would be in PDF format, but they must post it electronically. And I believe that the
reason I say this starts the wheels turning is 30 years ago we said that we would have have paperless offices, and we're not doing anything to develop those paperless offices in government. I believe that this would slowly start turning that direction. So I'm ready
Speaker 108
22:21
for any questions. We have Representative Hobbs for
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:35
from the committee have Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Link, I agree with the intent of your bill, but I just have a couple of questions. You know, I agree that this day and age I go to the Internet like it was a library in my house. I do have a question. For those who don't have, I'm more concerned about the smaller commissions or boards that we have. How would for like, let me give you an example, the Board of Sanitarians who has just one
employee or another little board or commission that has just, you know, a halftime employee. So if they're required to do a report and they don't have a Web site, what do they do? Can they use a state agency, another state agency's Web site to post it on? They'd be welcome to do that. But
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
23:33
I mean, can they? Yes, they certainly could. Have you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
23:36
asked the question, I mean, did you talk with anybody about that possibility?
I did not. Like DHS or DF&A or anybody? I did not.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
23:47
I would hope that under House Rules, using the Library tab on the ArkansasHouse.org site, we would be able to post state agency website, not state
agency websites, state agency reports in PDF format. MS. For
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:02
example, if you had a small board like that that didn't have a lot of funds and doesn't have a website, I'm going to vote for this, but I'd like you to investigate
that before you present it, if it passes in here, before you present it, so that there could be a clarity about that, because that would be a good solution. MR. I
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
24:26
think it's a very good idea and request.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:33
MS. Okay. And did you run in, did you talk with any of the big agencies about this? MR. I did not. MS. Did you have encounter anybody that endorsed your bill, entities?
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
24:50
No entities that have endorsed. No entities that have pushed back at all. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Representative
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:55
Link. Thank you. Any other committee questions from the committee? Representative
Speaker 41
25:02
Hobbs, you have a motion? Do pass, sir. We have a motion to do pass. Is
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
25:13
anyone from the audience like to speak against this bill? Anyone for the bill?
If not, we have a motion on the floor, Rep. Hobbs, to do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any
opposed say no. You passed your bill, Representative. Thank you.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
25:32
Thank you very much, Chairman, Committee. Appreciate it.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
25:35
Representative Edwards, House Bill 1926. Representative Edwards, welcome. You're welcome. Are you ready to present your bill? Yes, sir, I am. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
25:56
is to improve medical care in Arkansas for patients of the future. Here's what we're trying to accomplish. when an individual who has been a victim of a trauma, whether it be an accident, gunshot, whatever you want to classify as a trauma, if they're in one of our designated trauma centers and they pass away,
from time to time there's a situation where the chief medical examiner in the Arkansas State Crime Lab will ask to do an autopsy. And when that autopsy is done, that autopsy is the information really where a lot can be learned about specifically why that individual died. But if our medical professionals don't have the opportunity to learn and engage from the experiences
that they can see and only learn from an autopsy, even though that person has passed on, what that autopsy can show may help save lives in the future. But right now, there's not a methodology for a trauma center hospital to gain access of an autopsy from a medical examiner. What this bill does is it allows the Department of Health to be the gateway, if you will.
They can make the request to the medical examiner and state crime lab for the autopsy and then in turn give that into the medical facility where the patient had died so the physicians and the nurses who can conduct peer review boards to determine on how to provide better care in the future can have the opportunity to do so. As everyone on this committee knows, I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV,
but I have had some experiences where I've seen where medical knowledge has made a huge difference in lives. And as terrible as war is, one of the great successes out of the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq has been with the sharing of medical information that has significantly cut the rate of death for our service members. I see this as being another tool that we can use here in the civilian world to help our citizens obtain better care.
The individual that that may save could be anyone in this room, and I'll be happy to take any questions from
Speaker 119
28:50
the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Would
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
28:55
the family of the deceased person have any type of input on how this is done
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
29:03
or whether it's done or? If – and that's an excellent question. There are protocols, and I have some individuals here from the health department that can speak
more in detail on that, but there are situations from time to time where, for example, for a religious purpose, some people don't wish to have autopsies. But, again, we're talking about cases where there's actually been an autopsy by the state crime lab. So if there's, they have to be involved with an autopsy. This doesn't require an autopsy. This doesn't mandate an autopsy.
Obviously, if a family, from time to time, there are families who wish to have their own autopsies done with, you know, private pathologists. But there's nothing in this bill that it's a decision that's made by, in the event that a medical examiner. But I'm sure that, you know, the wishes of a family can be taken into account. But there's not a – the medical examiner is the key, I think, in this particular case. Thank you very much.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
30:16
Representative Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A hypothetical question. A young woman, teenager, was in a car wreck and there was autopsy or something, and it revealed that she was pregnant. Would the family maybe not want that out as she was a teenager? Would this information be made public? Absolutely not.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
30:47
This would be, and that's another very excellent question, and Representative Hutchison, that's the same question I had when the health department approached me about this bill. This would be an extremely confidential document. that would be covered by HIPAA so that all the individuals involved with being entrusted with this document would be bound by that. And the other issue, of course, would be what they would be focusing on would be the issues of,
is there something that we can do better to improve keeping someone alive and healthy in the future? That's an excellent question. So
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
31:32
if she was involved in a murder or something and that might be a crucial factor, would it
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
31:40
be revealed then? Well, this is not for – the purpose of this bill is not to be looking at criminal activities. There are separate ways to deal.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
31:51
Could an attorney ask then for this information? Well, they
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
31:55
can ask for this information in a criminal matter anyway. Okay. But we're strictly talking about what we can do to save and improve lives in the future based upon the actual trauma that had occurred to somebody. Very much. Thank you,
Speaker 124
32:10
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 82
32:13
Representative Edwards, this is a good bill, and I really appreciate it. I was not aware you were bringing it until just this morning,
and I think it will benefit the trauma system that was set up last year. and I have a motion at the proper time. So just bear with us.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
32:54
Representative Hopper. Thank you, Mr.
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
32:58
Chair. Representative Edwards, is it in your understanding that since this is for the purposes that you've outlined, would the report even necessarily identify the individual?
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
33:13
You have asked another one of the questions that I have asked. And there's a key component that has to be met in that when an autopsy would be transferred from the medical examiner under this bill to the health department,
back to the treating hospital, there would have to be the ability to trace, to make sure there was case accountability so everyone would know which case they were talking about because the hospital would have their charts about what they had, and they would have to be able to match that with what the autopsy did. So there would have to be, at a minimum,
kind of identification that would keep the cases from being confused with each other. I think, again, going back to the protocols for confidentiality, I think there's enough of the safety in place right now to ensure that. But one thing, because it is an excellent question, and one thing I think that we all, as legislators, have to keep asking those questions
because there's always going to be a temptation somewhere, where, whether it's intentional or just due to carelessness, there's an opportunity for something to get out. But I feel that with what we're dealing with and the kinds of things we're dealing with and the sensitivity of what we're dealing with, that there will be appropriate safeguards in place. And the health department has, I know they're very aware of this, and they understand that issue.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
35:08
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cheatham. I'll pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Edwards, do you know, let's just take a scenario, you have the hospital where the trauma victim or trauma person was taken and they unfortunately didn't survive the trauma. Do you know, and maybe the gentleman from or lady from the Department of Health might
be able to answer this, but do you know if the hospital does a medical autopsy on that patient? I can
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
35:49
answer that question. It depends. But if they do, if the hospital themselves does an autopsy, they're already going to be the custodian of that record. So this bill would not be applicable in that place. So there would be
Speaker 113
36:05
only in the cases where they actually did a medical Yes, a
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
36:09
medical examiner, the state crime lab medical examiner was involved.
So if an autopsy was done in the facility where the individual died by hospital staff, they're already going to have custody of that record.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:26
So in cases where a trauma victim was, if there was an indication where the hospital did not do a medical autopsy and sent it or requested that a forensic autopsy be done, then in those cases they would have to access the records from the department, from the crime lab.
Speaker 142
36:54
Is that correct? And that's what, yes, ma'am, and that's what this bill is
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:59
attempting to achieve. And do you know on, do you have any estimation of what type, how many cases a year that might be where this would kick in? We have
Speaker 117
37:09
an individual here from the health department who will answer that question. Sir, would you state
Donnie Smith
Unverified
37:14
your name and who your risks are of the
record? Yes, sir. My name is Donnie Smith. Thank you. My name is Donnie Smith with the Department of Health. I'm the director for the Center for Health Protection.
Speaker 145
37:24
The current estimate is that we're probably talking about approximately 70 autopsies during the course of a year in which the results would be requested. And in most cases, what occurs is that a person arrives at the hospital and has an injury, which at least externally, it's a traumatic injury, but externally, unfortunately, the person may expire before a complete examination can be done medically. So the hospital on outward sign may not necessarily record that as being a significant-looking injury,
and yet the patient died. Getting the autopsy result after it's performed allows them to see, and probably the most dramatic example would be that the person had a severed aorta. That would not be evident other than a bruise on the chest, but certainly an autopsy would reveal that there was a very real reason that that person expired so quickly in the hospital, and that's just one example. But it's those sorts of cases basically where the individual is treated at the hospital
and unfortunately may expire before there could be a complete medical examination done
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:35
at the facility. MR. So you're not saying that every person that dies in a hospital from an accident is forwarded to the state crime lab for an autopsy? MR. No. No,
Speaker 148
38:52
and this would be very limited in its scope and would specifically
Speaker 145
38:57
relate to those cases where they're basically where the outcome probably does not necessarily match what you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
39:02
would expect with the preliminary findings. Or it's indeterminate. Okay. One further question, and I've almost forgotten it. Just the concern with the access. at the Department of Health be, would there be a limited number of staff at the Department of Health, and what would that number be that would have the authority to access
Speaker 148
39:29
those records? Basically, what we would do, I would
Speaker 145
39:33
anticipate what we would probably have is maybe two individuals.
Maybe we'll need to have a backup. There would be a request form in terms of the process that a hospital would submit. That would be reviewed. It would be forwarded to the crime lab. There would be a center point of contact that comes back to. That information would be shared only even at the hospital with basically the hospital trauma coordinator, and then obviously their internal policy as to who might have access. But basically it would be only our medical staff at the health department that would have access, trauma nurse, and
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
40:09
probably the consulting position. Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Representative Edwards.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
40:18
Thank you. There are no other questions from the committee. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak against the bill? Father Bill? Not hearing any. What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Lee? Do
Speaker 71
40:37
you pass? We have a motion to do pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Representative, you passed your bill. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 41
40:53
Representative Letting, are you here? He was here a minute ago. Did he step out? There. There you are. There you are. Representative Letting. We couldn't understand you, sir.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
41:37
That's quick. I appreciate that. The committee appreciates it. They were giving me frowns. If you would take the table to present your bill. We have an amendment, I believe. You have an amendment that you're wanting to handle first. The staff is passing out the amendment. We will take up the amendment first.
Speaker 41
42:09
Are you ready to explain your amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may, before I begin, I'm going to allow the gentleman with me to
Speaker 71
42:16
introduce himself. If you would, if you'd expect your name and who you're with, for the record.
Wade Marshall
Unverified
42:23
My name is Wade Marshall. I'm a captain with the Bend Fire Department
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
42:26
and a representative of the Arkansas Professional Firefighters. Nice to have you with us today. Representative, are you ready to
Speaker 154
42:33
present your discussion or amendment? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee. The amendment before you, when we filed House Bill 1739, We did have a few concerns from some different parties.
The chief of police in North Little Rock, Representative Tyler, your mayor, contacted us. The Municipal League contacted us. So we got everybody together to address a lot of those concerns. And these amendments hopefully address those concerns. And if there are any questions about the amendments, I'll allow Wade here
Speaker 161
42:59
to explain them. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I apologize for being out of breath. I run
Speaker 106
43:05
over from the MAC building. We know that. What this bill does, we're talking on the amendment now.
Wade Marshall
Unverified
43:12
Okay, the amendment. Some of it's just changing the I's and the B's and where it applies
Speaker 71
43:22
to. One of the problems was that... Excuse me, sir. Representative Tyler. I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, motion
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
43:34
at proper time? Yes, ma'am. I make a motion that we adopt the amendment to House Bill 1739.
Speaker 71
43:41
We have a motion to adopt the amendment on House Bill 1739.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
43:45
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We've adopted your amendment. Let's get to the bill now. Thank you. We have to be in the session in 10 minutes. I understand.
Speaker 71
43:56
Thank you. Essentially what we're trying to do
Speaker 154
43:59
here is to ensure that people get a fair shake. if I'm a fire chief and I have a vacancy on my force and I have a list of eligible candidates I should pick from that list of eligible candidates instead of using a temporary appointment to bypass that list that's essentially what we're trying to do here is to ensure that police chiefs, fire chiefs pick from that list
they have an eligible list of three people who have passed examination and they're the highest scoring applicants and so they remain on this list until there's a vacancy Sometimes a temporary appointment is used to bypass that list. So really all we're doing is to ensure that people who have worked hard, passed the examination, and are eligible for this position have a fair shot at it. Are
Speaker 71
44:42
you through presenting your bill, Representative? Yes, we'll take questions. Will you take questions? Representative Nichols?
Speaker 136
44:48
Motion at the proper time. So Representative Bernard? I'm
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
44:57
sorry, Representative Tyler? I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Letting, one of the concerns that I think I still may have, and I apologize for not talking to you about it this morning, but the 45 days, maybe it's because I'm old, but 45 days goes by very, very fast.
And when I think about, you know, trying to determine who, going through a process to determine who to promote, that is a very short amount of time. And we're going from an unlimited amount of time, which is what we have right now, to 45 days. Have you considered a longer period of time? I mean, I agree with the intent of the bill and what we're trying to do, But I'm very worried that the 45 days is too short.
Speaker 30
45:56
I understand. I believe there is still some consideration in that area. This
Speaker 154
45:59
list that has the three people on the eligibles list, these aren't going to be new applicants. These should be people that the chief is familiar with. So they're going to have a pretty good idea of who they're working with. I agree that they're still going to take some time to make a proper decision, but they're going to be very familiar
Speaker 161
46:21
with the people on the list. Yes, ma'am. Representative Letting summed that up very good. The civil service testing process is the application process for that job,
so that when the vacancy does come open, the chief then has 45 days to make his final decision. He has those three members of the top three to make the final
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
46:43
decision. Sorry about that. Representative, are you through Representative? I just wanted to comment
Speaker 176
46:47
on that one more time. Yes, ma'am. I agree that they've
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
46:52
already got an eligibles list, but you could have vacations and other things that get in the way, and I would just ask you to consider lengthening the 45 days
to 90 days, something like
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
47:11
that. Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Letting, I really do not have enough time this morning to really understand all of your amendments since it's a little lengthy. But I certainly agree with my colleague, Representative Tyler, on the number of days. A month and a half is not
a very long period of time when considering trying to promote somebody, even from an eligibles list. The direct question is, I got an e-mail from my chief at home, and he indicated that he was opposed to this bill. Why would he be opposed to this bill? If I'm going to allow Wade to address that question. Representative Menards, I will... Just a moment. I apologize, sir. Who are you and where are you from?
Speaker 40
48:11
My name is Wade Marshall. Okay. And you represent who?
Speaker 113
48:17
Arkansas Professional Firefighters. Okay. Well, Mr. Marshall, why would my fire chief
Speaker 161
48:21
be opposed to this bill? I think the number one reason without speaking to him would be that he saw the original without the amendments that we've made that address some of the concerns such as mandating. The original bill had language that mandated that they keep a list so that there's not a delay in promotions while the list is produced. And we agree that, yes, that would be a hardship on the city in between testing periods
to have another test in the middle of the year just to produce a list. So the current law says that you may have as-needed lists so that you don't have to test every year if you don't anticipate a vacancy. Sometimes these vacancies come up by unexpected injury, retirement, or resignation or termination. So then they would produce a list. We put that language back in there to allow a city to save the expense
Speaker 179
49:13
of maintaining a list if they didn't feel it was necessary.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
49:17
Is that what that amendment
on eligible list on an as-needed basis? Yes, ma'am. Well, that could have, I'm trying to think back, because he had a whole page full of questions about this bill, and I think that was one of them. But I have not had sufficient time for him or myself to digest these changes. But what other reasons could he have been opposed to this bill for?
Speaker 148
49:51
Another change has been that the 45 days to mandate a promotion has
Speaker 161
49:57
been better defined. This was at the request of the Maumelle mayor and Maumelle fire chief that if you have an appeal of a demotion or a termination pending, which could last months, years, that you could use a temporary promotion in that instance until that is resolved. So that way you're not promoting somebody just to demote them. And that could be
Speaker 128
50:21
another concern because that was a concern from all mail.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
50:24
Well, maybe if it takes months and years,
that means that the 45 days was too fast. So, again, to represent Tyler's thing about the 90 days. I appreciate your response to my questions. Thank you, Mr. Marshall and Representative Letting. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cheatham. Mr. Chair, I'll be very
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
50:47
brief. I just noticed, I think, and I agree with Ms. Tyler, I guess, except the fact that the original legislation, I think, specified 60 days,
and she mentioned 90. So I think that, and I really think 45 is enough if it's a list and the chief is pretty familiar with those people. I'm sure there's other things besides test scores they look at, but I think it's a good bill, and I think we need to move on with it. All right, you're through. We have
Speaker 33
51:16
a motion due pass if you need one, Mr. Chair.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
51:18
Representative Lee. Your question was answered. My question was answered. Yes, ma'am. Is there any other questions? Representative Tyler.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
51:28
I guess I would beg to differ with my dear friend, Eddie Cheatham, just a little bit. The question I have is that there are some departments that do not keep an eligible's list because they are not anticipating turnover. And so, therefore, they've got to go through the process of testing and making those decisions in order to create an eligibles list.
And maybe it's just that I haven't had enough time either to incorporate the amendments into the bill and to understand it. But help me understand, when an eligibles list is not one there and a vacancy occurs, what has to take place and how much time is allowed now with your
Speaker 40
52:19
amendment? Yes, ma'am. Representative Tyler, if a locale, chooses to have an as-needed basis list, and then there
Speaker 161
52:26
is a vacancy created. The chief, within five days, notifies a civil service commission.
That could be through the HR director. That could be for whatever channels that he communicates with the civil service commission in that city. And then the civil service commission then, according to their local rules, schedules a test date. In Benton, we have a 120-day study period so that the earliest they could announce the materials for the test and have the test would be 120 days. So this could take a long process to go ahead and enact that eligibles list. Then it goes to the testing process.
The 45 days only applies to once the chief has the eligibles list delivered to him by the Civil Service
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
53:12
Commission. Thank you. You've helped me
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
53:25
understand that better. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One quick question. Mr. Marshall, tell me again, you're the association rep or executive director?
Speaker 161
53:36
I'm the legislative chairperson for the Arkansas Professional Firefighters. And you're
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
53:40
here indicating to us that they are supportive of this bill? The firefighters
Speaker 161
53:45
from 20 of our locals, well, actually, there's only 24 cities that have civil service commissions.
Speaker 40
53:51
About half of those are represented by us. So half of them, is Fort Smith among them?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
53:57
Yes, ma'am. And so you polled those?
Speaker 161
54:06
Phil Christensen is our local president in Fort Smith, and yes, ma'am, he is. So
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
54:10
you polled all 12 of those? Of our members, yes, ma'am.
Wade Marshall
Unverified
54:14
Okay, and they're all supportive of this
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
54:16
bill? Of our locals, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
54:23
Any other questions from the committee? What's the will of
Speaker 184
54:26
Representative Cheatham? I have a motion do pass
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
54:33
as amended. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to speak against this bill?
Yes, ma'am. I apologize. Will you state your name and
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
54:49
who you're with, ma'am? Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. My name is Lisa Mabry-Williams. I'm with the City of Conway. I'm the Human Resources Director. Yes, ma'am. We are opposed to this bill. We do not believe that 45 days is long enough for the chief to make a determination on a promotion. Right now, the time is unlimited. We would like to see the time expanded to possibly 120 days, but something greater than 45 days.
Also, we just received these amendments this morning. I really haven't had the opportunity to fully analyze them. We'd like a little bit more time to look at them and also get with our other cities to see if this fixes the problems
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
55:37
in this bill. Thank you, ma'am. Ladies and gentlemen, I hate to interrupt you. Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a session. We've got
to go in. We're going to have to defer this to the regular agenda on Wednesday as the rules books on page C12, line 13.
If you would, I'm sorry, ma'am, but we have a session and we're required. We cannot have a committee meeting during this regular session. We're going in in a regular session. So I
Speaker 71
56:05
appreciate your testimony. Tony, if you're through, if not, you'll have to come back next Wednesday morning, but y'all will be first on the list. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1046
HB1984
HB1926
HB1739
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 13
Speaker 17
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 25
Speaker 31
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 53
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 21
Speaker 95
Speaker 97
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 91
Speaker 41
Speaker 117
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 119
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 82
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 142
Donnie Smith
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 148
Wade Marshall
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 161
Speaker 106
Speaker 136
Speaker 30
Speaker 176
Speaker 40
Speaker 179
Speaker 128
Speaker 33
Speaker 184