House Aging, Children & Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1415
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1415”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1628
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1628”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1636
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1636”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1916
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1916”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1998
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1998”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1027
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1027”
|
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 4, 2026
All right, members, without any objection, we're going to be kind of skipping around today because several other representatives have some bills to run. So, without objection, we will begin with Representative Pierce, who will be presenting House
Bill 1998. Representative Pierce, you're recognized. I apologize, Madam Chair.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
0:23
Thank you. I'm proud to be before this committee. I spent two terms down here in this committee.
Speaker 6
0:30
All right, let me find my, let me find it. Okay,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
0:39
thank you, Madam Chair, excuse my input. Okay, this is an act to clarify the law regarding the lowering of state flags when a member of the armed service is killed in action for other purposes. What this bill does right now, they have, if you have a soldier come back and they have to get the permission from the state to lower the flags all the way around the state flag, and the other one comes from the federal.
If you're in a small community, by the time they get out there and get there, it may be a week. But the people in the community already know because once the people, the ones that come and notify the kin, it gets out in the community very, very fast. So what we're asking to do is for the county and the city halls in those communities to be able to lower their flag when they hear about it right off the bat after the people come and notify. And that's what we're trying to do, to respect them a lot faster than what we're doing right now, because sometimes it's over a week or longer before the word comes down.
So that's what we're asking for on this. And I'll take any questions. Do you have any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass. Motion to pass. Representative Dickinson, you're recognized. We have a motion due pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
2:05
Congratulations, Representative Pierce. Your bill passes. Thank you,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
2:09
Madam Chair. I appreciate this committee because, like I said, I spent two terms on it, and y'all do a great job down here.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Representative Wilkins to present House Bill 1415, and we do have an amendment to this one, so we'll be getting
Speaker 24
2:33
the amendment to you. Madam Chair, if I might, while that's being distributed, I believe we have Amy Ford from
Speaker 26
2:39
the AG's office and someone from DHS who will also come to the table with me for the presentation. Okay. If you would please go ahead
and state your name and who you're with for the record. My name is
Amy Ford
Unverified
2:52
Amy Ford, and I'm here on behalf of the Attorney General. I'm
Speaker 31
2:57
David Griffin. I'm with the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education with DHS. All
right, members, we have the amendment, and we will need – you can ask questions
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
3:10
or – Representative Wilkins, would you like to explain
Speaker 37
3:14
the amendment? Yes, Madam Chair. The amendment is pretty simple. It simply
Speaker 26
3:19
deletes the words privately owned and substitutes private on two different lines of the bill. Representative Wilkins has explained the amendment. Are there any
questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, is there anyone
in the audience who would like to speak for For the amendment? Against the amendment?
No one would like to speak for or against. What's
the will of the committee? We have a motion to do pass. All in favor
Speaker 26
3:58
say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, committee. House Bill 1415 relates to an incident that occurred in my district, and I'd like to turn now to Ms. Ford to explain in greater detail the bill.
Speaker 43
4:17
Ms. Ford, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm here to testify on behalf of HB – oh, they
Speaker 44
4:27
may not be close enough. I'll get closer. testify on behalf of HB 1415, due to a ruling in the Court of Appeals, the
Speaker 43
4:37
case was Newman v. State. Mr. Newman is a level four sex offender, and he was determined to have been working in a private daycare center as a carpenter.
When he was brought in on a parole violation, they returned him to prison, and he appealed that decision. The Arkansas Court of Appeals found that 514-129, the statute in question, that he didn't violate it because it said he was not there to work or primarily interact with or directly with a child under 16. But he was in the facility. He was in the room with the children.
We have a petition to the Supreme Court to rehear this, and that matter is now under a determination. I believe the vote sheet was issued last week, and we should have a determination from the Supreme Court soon. However, it is more important that we correct the language of bill to make it perfectly clear that a Level 3 or a Level 4 sex offender is not to be in the presence of children under the age of 16 in a private daycare. So we're asking a good vote on this. It is a package bill for us, and we believe it's in the best interest in the protection
Speaker 34
5:53
of minor children across the state. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. I appreciate this opportunity to be here on behalf of
Speaker 45
6:06
DHS. We are – would definitely concur with the comments that you just heard and feel that this bill fills an important and fairly major gap in current legislation and regulations and would allow us to also help better protect children in child care. Currently, we do background checks for child care centers.
Sexual offenders are not allowed in there. However, a lot of times when it deals with a contractor or other person that's there on a part-time basis not working directly as a member of staff, we don't have those background checks, and it's kind of hit or miss in those cases. So this would really, I think, put everybody on alert that this also applies to that group of people and that if they're going to be there working in a child care center, it needs to be in the evenings or weekends when children are not present. All right,
members, we've heard an explanation of the bill,
and we have a few questions. Representative Harris, you're
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
6:59
recognized. This question is probably for DHS. In owning a private preschool that we have, We have found that you don't have to do a background check on kitchen help and different people which are in contact with children. We do it as a, we do it to, as I don't know the word, to make sure that we're covered.
But then when it came down to it, we didn't have to have a background check. I just, I don't understand that
because I think this kind of talks about sex offenders. Can you answer that?
Speaker 45
7:36
Yes, I'll attempt to, and I also have someone in the audience who manages our background check system if I can't get in enough detail for you. But the kitchen staff and people who don't work directly with children would need the background checks if they're actually an employee of the child care center. Now, there are a lot of situations where, for example, in a school district or someplace else where they have a larger organization and that person is not directly a child care employee that they would be exempt from these requirements.
But we do require the background checks on anybody employed directly by the child care center. That's the limit of our regulatory authority. Well, then I'd like to make a statement
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
8:09
that y'all need to make sure at the local level that they are doing that. And
you may say you're doing it. I'm not saying you personally, but may say you're doing it, but for a fact, I know you're not. Because we had the instance where we had someone working on the playground and in different areas that they said we didn't have to have a background check for, and that also went
to kitchen help. That was from a local luncheon series.
Representative Harris, I would just like to remind you that just questions and not personal opinions. Sorry, and, okay, here's the question. Why are we just dealing with level three and four sex offenders and not the whole one and two? I would probably pass that question to the AG's person in
Speaker 45
8:47
terms of how they've classified those and in terms of the classifications that they feel warrant our attention. And I apologize, Madam Chair. Why are they level three and four?
Speaker 43
9:02
Well, first of all, this was how the law was enacted. A Level 3 and a Level 4 are our most bad offenders, Level 1 and Level 2. There's just been a line drawn that the restrictions there are less, probably less, but it's just an arbitrary line between Level 2 and Level 3. That's not
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
9:29
the question, because I know what Level 3 and 4.
The question is, why did we in this bill not include level 1 and level 2 sex offenders around
Amy Ford
Unverified
9:39
children? That is the current law. We didn't change the
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
9:43
current law. Okay. Can it be amended to this bill to include level 1 and level 2? I think that's important. You're talking about – well, I can't make a comment,
Speaker 61
9:59
so. Representative Harris, if you're asking me that question, I certainly
I certainly would, if that's something that you want to pursue as an additional piece of legislation in the future, you know, I'd be willing to work with you on that. But at this time, it was felt that particularly
Speaker 26
10:16
Level 3 and 4 needed to be addressed because of current law. Well, the only issue I'd take with that,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
10:23
Representative Wilkins, would be do you not think it's important to do now
because this is a good bill, period. It's a great bill. And it will pass. would also pass with the amendment of sex level 1 and 2, so do you not think it's important
that I not have to wait two years because I can't file any more legislation? Well, I
Speaker 26
10:45
tell you what, after you get this out of committee for me today, we'll talk about amending
Speaker 67
10:51
it and see what – run it up the flagpole and see how many
Chair
Unverified
10:57
folks salute. I appreciate that a whole bunch. Okay. Representative
Walker, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess you would also… MS.
Can you speak into your microphone? MR. I guess, Mr. Wilkins, you have an opinion about whether in view
of the fact that sex offenders are in such unpopularity, you would have no objection to an amendment prohibiting them from
Speaker 74
11:26
breathing? MR. Yes, I would, Representative Walker, have a problem with that amendment. Well, my concern is this. If a person has
been convicted for murder, he or she may work around children.
Is that right? And is on probation. I couldn't answer that question, but I would assume that's a problem with this. If a person has been convicted of robbery or assault, they may
work in the public domain. Is that correct? Now, in terms of your bill, doesn't this seem to shift responsibility from DHS and perhaps try to cause them to have less work to do instead of fulfilling the responsibilities
that they're supposed to do in keeping up with sex
Speaker 61
12:19
asking me that question? MR. Yes, I'm trying
to. I can't answer that, but, you know, perhaps the HG's office could or DHS could. I understand, but doesn't DHS have some responsibility when you're dealing with youth and families to monitor what's going on and to make sure that the facilities that it audits and monitors are complying with the law?
I would say they certainly do have. And I'd like to address this question to
the person who's here from DHS. I mean, why are we not imposing more responsibility on DHS instead of putting all the burden
on the offender? Okay. In response to
Speaker 55
13:02
that, I think the issue for us is that in these cases, a lot of the folks
Speaker 45
13:08
that they've identified in this bill are not facility employees and therefore not subject to our normal background checks. These are people who may be working for a lawn service company or an air conditioning company
Speaker 34
13:19
who might be there and have incidental contact with children during the course of the day, but would be
people who are entirely off of our radar screen. Well,
I'm just trying to understand how you could enforce this. A person who comes into who's working for a company and who's with a crew, And he's been cleared otherwise, and he doesn't come to work or she doesn't come to work for the facility, but he's left in a truck or something 2,000 feet or yards away.
The truck has got to come, or at least the access vehicle has got to come into contact with the facility. I mean, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to just make sure no kid is within 1,000 feet of a sex offender at any time? It's my
Speaker 45
14:12
understanding, Representative Walker, that what this would do would basically notify or place these folks on notice that through their probation or parole officer or whatever other contact they have with law enforcement,
that they as offenders would not need to be in a child care facility as they were working for a contractor if children are present. So it would have more in effect, I think, on the individual than it
would necessarily on our upfront enforcement efforts. Well, here's my last question. Assume that this person and
the contractor are sensitive, and there's construction work necessary or other work necessary at a daycare facility or some other place where children are present, and it's to be performed after school is out like 3.30 or 4 o'clock.
Would the person be prohibited from working there after 3.30 or 4?
Speaker 45
15:03
It's my understanding that they would not as long as
children were not present. But let's assume that a child comes there with his parent, leaves a cap or anything. Does that somehow or another make the person in violation of the law? I would probably need to defer that to the AG's office. Well, you have those situations where people come to school. I mean, other kinds of things happen. So what you were really saying that child offenders, sex offenders in 3 and 4, or category three and four, should never really be working in a facility in something where
children just have the remotest, where children are present all the time or most of the time or some of the time. That would
include a courthouse. That would include a jailhouse. MR. If
Speaker 61
15:47
you don't mind, I'd like to ask Ms. Ford to respond to that because she did address that in her initial comments. MR. Well,
just before she does, here's my question. A lot of times these sex offenders are in jailhouses and children are present. How do you deal with that? I mean, the sex offender is in violation because he's near children within 2,000 feet, right?
Speaker 43
16:09
2,000 feet applies only to residency. And if the children are in the jailhouse, they're in a protected situation. They have law enforcement there to protect them and to watch. with regard to if they're working after hours when children are not normally present, then it would be a fact determination for the court if charges were brought against the sex offender for a violation of this statute. All right. Thank you.
Representative Elliott, you're recognized.
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
16:44
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Wilkins, I appreciate you for bringing this bill. I,
too, think that it's a great bill. And I want to ask you, is it not your understanding that we shouldn't be putting these convicted felons who already know that they have issues with children, we shouldn't want to put them in harm's way in reference to giving them the opportunity to re-offend again.
So I think that this bill helps not only them but protects our children so that they might not have the urge or they might not be tempted
Speaker 61
17:32
to do anything. Yes, Representative Elliott, that is true. and the purpose of this is simply the protection of children. And, you
Speaker 26
17:42
know, while I recognize the concern that Representative Walker expressed when he said, well, then, you know, we shouldn't let them breathe,
I understand what he's saying that you don't take things to an unreasonable point. But at the same time, when you're talking about level three and four sex offenders, I think we need to be as careful as possible in protection of our children because everything that I have heard in testimony over the years here has indicated that the reason for those designations is because those are the individuals that are most likely to reoffend.
Speaker 67
18:25
And so this is simply for the protection of children. Well, my other question is, as legislators, if we don't enact laws to
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
18:31
protect them, then who will? I agree. Representative Hickerson, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam
Chairman. I just have a motion at the proper time. Seeing
no other questions from the committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill?
Against the bill We have a motion from representative Hickerson I'm they do pass do pass as amended. Yep Discussion on the motion to Okay, you're recognized. No,
I don't I don't countenance. I want to make that clear I don't countenance sex offenders, but there are some things we should That should go without saying clearly the only people who can make laws are the lawmakers So there's nobody else who can make a law.
There can be regulations, and the Department of Human Services prescribes regulations all the time, and they can enforce those. They have adequate resources to do it, and they also have money from the federal government to help. In terms of ñ and I guess I want to just say this to Representative
Harris. Representative Walker, if I could ñ are you speaking against the bill or against
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
19:55
the motion to accept the bill? I'm trying to have the discussion with my members of the panel regarding perspective.
Okay, but I think you need to speak against, if that's the case, then you
should just, we could, you can explain that you would like to speak against the bill, but
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
20:14
the motion is to pass, so you need to speak against the motion. My understanding of the parliamentary rules is this, and no disagreement, but the only time we can have discussion is after
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
20:26
a motion has been made to pass.
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
20:29
Representative Elliott, you're recognized for a point of order. Representative Walker is not speaking against the bill.
He's giving his opinion. I'm talking about the propriety of just passing things
simply because we have personal offense. I mean, we can always do that, but at some point we have to have things relate to evidence. to some need other than the fact that somebody like you have some personal experiences with daycares. I mean, we all have personal
experiences. Again, Representative Walker, I'm sorry.
All right. But the time to do that is when you recognize to speak against the bill, so the motion on the floor is
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
21:17
due pass as amended. I'm not opposed to
the bill. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations your bill passes as amended thank you madam chair and thank you committee you're welcome next step is representative Stewart presenting House Bill 1636 representative Stewart you're recognized to explain the bill
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
21:41
thank you madam chair House Bill 1636 is a Arkansas National Guard bill has been vetted by the governor's office and it basically is to amend the military military code of Arkansas to make wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance punishable by a court-martial. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Any questions
from the committee? It's pretty straightforward. On the second page, it says a person subject to the code,
that would be the military code, who wrongfully uses. That would allow them, if they have a prescription drug, they're fine. It's just the wrongful use of a controlled subject or substance by a person subject to the military code. It only affects
the National Guard. Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized for a question. Stubblefield. No, Deffenbaugh.
He got before you. I apologize, Madam Chair.
Speaker 127
22:50
I didn't see Representative Deffenbaugh.
That's okay. Excited about your eagerness.
He always does that to me.
Representative Devin Ball, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Stewart, this just for my information. What kind of laws are in place for somebody caught now using any of these substances?
Speaker 133
23:16
I think right now they are punishable by
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
23:20
nonjudicial punishment, in other words, not by court-martial. This makes it a court-martial offense, and I think it aligns it with the Uniform Code of
Speaker 134
23:31
Military Justice. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks.
Representative Elliott, you're recognized for a question. That was what I
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
23:39
was going to ask Representative. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Stewart, what happens? Is there no form of rehab for these military people?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
23:53
a process? The court-martial can prescribe any punishment or lack of punishment deemed necessary, and the military does have drug rehab programs. So that could be part of the punishment or what the judge decrees for that individual soldier. Okay, because
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
24:09
educate me a little bit. I thought a court-martial meant to be kicked out of the service. No, a
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
24:18
court-martial can have various degrees of court-martial
and also various degrees of punishment. And they can do very little. They can do a fine. So it's a wide range. But this does allow the person to go through a court-martial proceedings, have a defense lawyer there with him, and give him all the rights just like you would in a normal
court. And it's just a court of military people for military people with a military judge.
Okay. Thank you, Madam. Representative Stubblefield,
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Deffenball asked what I was going to ask, but I would like to ask a question. Representative Stewart, is the military behind this? Yes. It's a military
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
25:04
bill. It's part of the National Guard's package, and it did go through the Governor's
office. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Pardon
me. May I? Representative Walker, you're recognized for a question. Let me ask you this. We have had situations recent where people have gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, places like
that, and they have come back and they have used drugs while there, and they have been in the Arkansas Military and National Guard. Some of them may be even somewhat addicted, but they don't come back and say, I'm an addict or anything like that. So you're going to put them in a situation now because of something that they may have had no control over in terms of how they came to this circumstance. You're going to put them in a situation where they shall be court-martialed and shall be
punished? I mean, I'm concerned about that because all the literature says that when people come back from abroad and have been involved in wars and things like that, they are different people, and you have to take into account their circumstances before you proceed with discipline for behavior over which they may have no control. I mean, so why is it necessary to add something?
I just want, what motivates this bill other than that somebody wants to have another bill? I mean, is the current law not working to address the overall circumstance of these people who go away, defend us, protect us, and then they come back with, all of them come back with some disability? I mean, almost all of them. You cannot go to war without incurring some kind of disability, mental or otherwise. But what is necessary? precipitates this this this is a bill
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
27:03
to subject a person for the military code
who wrongfully uses these drugs now it doesn't say that they have not gone through other this is just part of the code to allow the military jurisdiction over the discipline of their soldiers well here's my question but they do have drug rehab programs they have all the other things that you would have on the the outside, probably even more, but sometimes they're going to need the ability to discipline these soldiers, and the court-martial can be as severe or as light as the judge and
the case would indicate. The last
part of this says, a person subject to this code who wrongfully possesses the metabolites of a controlled substance in his or her blood or urine shall be punished as a court mate the marshal may direct I mean and here's the understanding that I have a lot of these people over there I mean they've been fighting for months and months they come back they don't marijuana opium whatever and it may not be known so when they come back some
person over here some civilian who may be of who may have been listening to us you know very punishment mode says well the person is technically guilty of a crime so we've got to punish them so they have some marijuana in their blood that we're going to test them and if they have it then we're going to punish them I mean it I mean what is the what is the humanity of that when you deal with military persons many of whom in the last five years have been abroad and served various tours of duty I mean most of the people over there have served
tours of duty so why are we going to just expose them to something that we just don't like by way of our behavior I mean by way of our own
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
29:00
value systems why Why is it necessary to put this
forward? The military holds their people maybe to a higher standard than the normal person. And I served 28 years in the military, and I know that we have to have discipline there in order to control our people and have that high standard.
And we still have the ability, the court-martial judge and the jury sitting there, they're they're all military officers and NCOs, then has a wide range of discipline and sentence that they can impose on that soldier. So and your question was you thought it was automatically kick them out of the Army. Not
necessarily so. You can be court-martial and still stay in the Army or in the Guard.
Mr. Chairman, one last question, and look, this bill is a shell bill.
It's not. It's S-H-A-L-L. It does not have a range of considerations that are sensitive to the circumstances of the veteran who has come back. It does not have anything in there for counseling upon finding of a presence of a controlled substance. It doesn't have anything there about how you relate to it short of punishment. And I think that when you start talking about people who have been in war and all the stuff
that goes along with that, you have to have some sensitive treatment of those people. I don't care about the military coming and saying that they want something. I mean, it's just like police saying that they want something. They want to make everything a crime, maybe. Maybe people here do, too. But when our folk go abroad and they serve, we have a duty to treat them sensitively and cause them to be able to be re-integrated into society on sensitive terms which take into account where they are and the like.
Many of these people come back after leaving with wives and children, and they come back and don't have families. I mean, being on marijuana and things like that is somewhat understandable. I mean, there are so many things that provide a basis for this that ought not to be reflected in paragraphs B and C of this on page 2. And that's, I guess, against the bill, and I know you're carrying this for the military, and I know you're sensitive, too. But I would ask that you withdraw this bill because it's not a good bill.
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
31:26
Representative Stewart, do you have someone here that would like to come and speak?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
31:31
Do you have someone from the governor's office that may be
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
31:35
able to shed some light on this? Okay, thank you. If you would please go
Speaker 153
31:42
ahead and state your name and who you're with for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Nicole Hart, Governor's Office. I'm the Governor's Military Liaison. Representative Walker, your passion for our veterans and our military service members is commendable. I do recognize and understand your concerns.
The reason why the National Guard indicated to us why they needed this bill, there are certain laws that are already in place regarding individuals in the service that are on active duty. When you go to a drill weekend, you're on active duty. When you go off for the night, when you go off for the day, you're no longer considered on active duty, but the law only indicated that they could be punished under the court martial if they were tested while on duty
and they were found with the substance in their system. This allows for the National Guard to, even if they go away for the night, like on drill weekend when you do go home and you come back, if the drug is found in their system at any point during that drill weekend, that they would be court-martialed. Within the court-martial in the military system, all of those things that you're indicating the concerns about are addressed under that court-martial. so the counseling indicators, programs that need to be addressed for military members who need assistance in other ways.
All of those things are addressed under the court-martial. They're not just punishing them, per se, but they need to find out who has a problem so that they can assist
them. And in essence, I guess this allows for
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
33:28
that. Representative Benedict, you're recognized for a question. MS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll address this question to either one of you who prefers to answer the governor's liaison or Representative Stewart. On page two, lines five and lines eight, it says, as the court-martial may direct.
The fact that it says may direct, they may direct no punishment, they may direct rehabilitation, they may have lots of – this gives them the – where they don't have to shall be punished. It says,
that discretion. They have a very wide latitude.
That's what that means. Thank you very much. Representative Sanders, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is this. Ma'am, Ms. Hart, if, in fact, when the servicemember is overnight, when he or she is not dubbed to be under the court-martial system,
What would be wrong with referring this to the civilian authorities and have them prosecuted, if need be, under civilian law? If, in fact, they aren't under the auspices of the military when
they're not overnight, why couldn't we just refer? Because certainly we have civilian law that deals with
Speaker 153
34:42
this. Representative Sanders, respectfully, I am not speaking for the military. I represent the governor's office, and what was presented to our office as a reason behind
fouling this bill is the information that I'm giving. Your question is a good question, but I think that that question is better directed toward the Department of the Military who can answer. I can only make assumptions as to why they would want to have jurisdiction over the service members at all times while they're on duty, but at this time I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make those comments because I'm not representing the Department of the Military, but rather the Governor's Office. Representative Stewart,
Speaker 22
35:20
do you have any idea as to why they feel they need this? What you're asking is,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
35:25
if they take the drugs at night,
the next day when they're on duty is when the urine test is administered. So technically, they are on duty when the test is administered, and that's what it says, I think, in the last paragraph, if they do a blood or urine check, then they come up hot, and at that time they are on duty and in possession of the drug in their system. Okay. So, I mean, but
even then, even if a test was taken, they would have no idea when the
drug was taken, and if they suspected that it was taken in that time, could they not refer that to the
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
36:10
civilian authorities? They could, but the military, as long as there's been a
military, has its own code of military justice to administer to the people who are subject to the code. And there are many, many laws
Speaker 133
36:21
that the military has that the civilian courts do not have. Let me ask you another question,
if I might be able to. If, in fact, we have someone who's down here on duty, and they obviously have been under the jurisdiction of the Guard during the day,
and they go out at night and they have a few too many to drink and they are involved in a car accident and end up killing someone or just getting a DWI, are they under current, you know, military code? Would they be prosecuted under the military code or would they be
Speaker 133
36:55
prosecuted under the civilian code? That would be a civilian
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
36:59
code because this – or it could be both, you know, Depending on what kind of duty they're on.
If they're on annual training, there's three or four different types of duty that you could be under. Some duties you're on 24-hour status. Some drill weekends you're on, you
know, eight-hour status. Let me ask another question, if I might, Madam Chair. If, in fact, again, because that's what we're talking about doing is giving the Military Code of Arkansas complete jurisdiction over these individuals when they're on guard duty. There are obviously a number of other crimes that could be committed, you know, murder, you know, serious, serious crimes.
Is there, does this accord, would this accord with other parts of the military code? Are those individuals under the jurisdiction of the military if they go out and commit murder at night when they're, you know, when they're not in doing drill or involved? Do we know that? I'm not sure on
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
38:02
the drill weekend, but I know on active duty or annual training, then you're on 24 hours. You're under
the UCMJ. And what this one is doing is we're only saying that the only time they can check you, do a blood test or a urine test, is when you're on duty.
So you're on duty and come up hot, then you're subject to, because you're there wearing a uniform when you're tested, And if you come up hot, then they want to
have the ability to align this with the Uniform Code of Military Justice for all these controlled substances.
Okay, I guess the question I'd like to have answered is if a member of our armed forces was – would they be out from underneath the jurisdiction of the Military Code of Justice
if, in fact, they go out and commit murder on a weekend, sort of the scenario that you're laying out? Only to see, I'm trying
Speaker 153
39:03
to see if this accords with that. Under, Representative Sanders, under Title 32 orders, which is what a service member would be on during your weekend, they can be tested, and let me make sure I say this correctly. The law previously stated that for this particular bill, they could only be tested while on duty and then be subject or punishable under that particular law while on duty.
So they would have to have been tested while on duty. This allows for during any duration of that weekend if it is found in their system and not necessarily while they're on duty. They're considered on duty but not physically at the post. And so this allows for that. Under Title 32, regarding any other crime or law that they may commit, they would be punishable by both. Of course, it would be at different times because the civilian authorities would have authority to handle them as needed.
But then they also would be held accountable on the military side under Title 32 orders, military code adjusted. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Isn't it true that some of these drugs remain in a person's system for
weeks, if not months, after they've taken them?
Speaker 170
40:31
Wouldn't that complicate the evaluation of the punishment simply because some of these
drugs stay in the system so long that it would cause some, I mean, And I could see some potential problems here simply because these drugs do remain
Speaker 141
40:49
in a person's body for a long period of time. Yes, if you
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
40:56
think it's necessary, we can pull this down. I'd ask the military lawyers to come today.
They are in Washington, D.C. today and couldn't be here. If you have major concerns, but the major point is this is a military code for military people. And they do not condone the use of drugs. Anytime you have drugs in your system, you are considered to be a
Speaker 173
41:23
wrongful user of those illegal drugs. Period.
Representative Harris, you're recognized for a
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
41:40
question. It's hard to bring a bill when Representative Walker is on the committee because it can get – But for one point, I think he's making a very good point about just this one point. No, I'm teasing, which I respect him, and he knows that. But Representative Stewart, I think if we're reading too much into this as far as this is giving the military the authority over the military.
So it actually could be a good thing that he's tried in a military court than in a civilian court. Is that correct? Because it would address the post-traumatic while he's in Afghanistan. The military court would be more aware
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
42:30
and more compassionate toward the soldier than probably some of the civilian
courts. and they know the full gamut of assistance that the military can give to that soldier,
drug counseling on through. So I think it is
a good thing that they would be tried in, if he's going to be tried,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
42:52
be in a military court rather than a civilian court. And just from not looking too much into
this bill, I think that you would agree then that is the intent is to
give, I mean it's going to be better that
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
43:07
the military courts have jurisdiction over the
soldiers? The military has more knowledge on military manners and what they need from discipline and for be sure
that these soldiers are ready and not dangerous to other soldiers. You don't want people out on your firing range under the influence of drugs. You don't want people driving a tank under the influence of drugs. The military works under a different set of rules than a civilian. So they have to be more aware of drug use and keep it under control. They just can't say, well, you know, we know you took it last week, so we're not worried about it. If it's still in your system and it's still affecting your military duty and possibly your safety and the safety of other soldiers,
then they're very concerned with it and want it to be stopped. And they do have the provisions to help soldiers because they know this. They've gone through these wars. They know all the problems soldiers have, and they have programs set up to address all of those. And that's probably another question is that two weeks
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
44:08
ago we heard that testimony about putting an emblem on the back of a driver's license because there's reasons, you know, if they see something on the side of the road, it may panic them because of where they've been.
But I think that's what this bill addresses, that they're going to be able to address those issues instead of a court of law. I'm not a lawyer, Representative Walker is, but they would have to address the soldier in a whole different light, not take everything into account. Is that correct? Do
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
44:38
you? That is correct. And the court-martial is made up of officers and NCOs that have been in the military, you know, most of their life and are very attuned to the problems soldiers have. Okay.
Speaker 153
44:51
I wanted to say that I did misspeak. the law currently is that if the soldier can service member can only be punished if they are found doing the drug. So this law allows if the drug is found in your system. So that's the difference was that if before you could only be punished if you were found doing the drug while on duty. And this law allows for if the drug is in your system while on duty. And I just want to make sure that you all understood that, because I think I may have misstated that before.
So the law previously stated that they could only be punished if they were doing the drug, found doing the drug while on duty. This allows for it to be in their system at any point, and so then that
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
45:37
explains for the overnight. Representative Stewart, do you not agree, though, that there's reasons why they're doing these drugs, okay? And then the other, so we're going to catch them, which if they weren't in the military or in service, they wouldn't be caught. I mean, these guys have fought for our country in bad situations, so are we trying to catch
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
45:56
them doing wrong, or is that the intent? Well, like I said before, we
are very concerned with the safety of the soldiers while on drill weekends or on training exercises. You know, you can't go out there and perform your military duty if you're under the influence of drugs in a safe manner. So this gives the military a mechanism to check that and make sure the people who are on their own duty are not under the influence, wrongful influence of controlled substances.
And at the same time, if they do detect it, then they can put in place the measures to provide assistance to that soldier that they may not have known about before. That's
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
46:37
what I wanted to know. Thank you
very much. I have a quick question. Representative Stewart, to follow up on Representative Stubblefield's question as far as sentencing, this bill doesn't address that, does it? It simply is putting in and listing illegal substances that can go, that will now be addressed by the military, by a court-martial, correct?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
46:58
Yes. On page one, it has an entire list of controlled substances to include schedules one through six, and it just says these are the ones that we'll test for.
We shall court-martial you, and then the court-martial may direct any type of punishment or lack
of punishment that they think is necessary. Thank
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
47:25
you. Representative Elliott, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Stewart, in this listing of controlled substance, you've already stated that some of them stay in your system for some period of time, some 24 hours, some as long as even 30 days.
If a person is actually dead to drugs, and it
may be in their system, but 20-something days later, they go to drill and they're tested, then under this bill, they will still be court-martialed, right? Yes. Okay. My second question is this. As a court-martial, do
they lose any benefits? They can. There's a wide gamut of
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
48:11
punishment. The Uniform Code of Military Justice lays it out, depending on the severity of the case.
I've been to the penitentiary at Leavenworth, and there are people there on death row for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, murder, rape, et cetera. But for drug use, there are a litany of punishments. It's going to be on the severity and the facts that come out during the court-martial. As these NCOs and officers question that person with his attorney there, they'll find out what happened, how he did it, has he been doing it, is he a hard drug abuser, was it a one-time thing,
and those things will come to light, and then they'll make a decision on the level of punishment, if any, or put them back into the rehab program. One of the concerns they have, they have lots of money invested in a soldier. They don't want to kick soldiers out. They want to take a soldier and keep him in there for a career. You know, the money they invest in basic training, advanced training, et cetera, is considerable. So their goal is to keep a very active force, keep the roles, you know, keep the numbers full,
and they are concerned with keeping those soldiers in the system. And if they can give them assistance, give them guidance, give
Speaker 133
49:31
them rehab, then they're willing to do that. if that is true represent Elliot if
I could interrupt for just one moment I need to a state to the committee I appreciate all of the questions and I'm sure representative Stewart
does as well but I'm gonna ask you to keep it now I'm sorry keep it strictly to the build ask questions
about what happens when you're court-martialed and that thing is it those type of questions are not what
what the bill is about and I feel like we're kind of getting off on some other questions as far as the sentencing and things like that secondly I would like to remind y'all when you're recognized for a question it's a question and you have to be recognized by the chair for a follow-up I think we're getting with again I enjoy the questions and enjoy the conversation but in order to keep the process moving just a little reminder thank you madam chair you're Welcome. Did you have a follow-up, Representative Elliott, to your first question?
No. Okay. Representative Walker, you're recognized
for a question. Going back to page
2, B and C, it says, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct would you have a view that initiating a person having a prosecution initiated against him
is punishment to begin with because he has to defend or she has to defend and then punishment here is required and it does not leave as a range of and that counseling is not punishment you understand my
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
51:24
question the range of punishment if we want to call it
punishment the range of that the court martial can do widely varies
it can be as little as additional duty you have to pull some kind of additional duty it can be a fine it can be a loss of some of your benefits it can be loss of a stripe so there's several things there and each case is an independent
case the court-martial board made up of officers and NCOs will make the determination, and then they have the latitude of making the determination of what level punishment, if any, is meted out to that person.
And it does have in that list of punishments the rehab services that the military does provide.
seeing no further questions representative Hickerson you're recognized okay
we've got we've got one thank you um is there
anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill representative Benedict you're recognized for a motion thank you madam chair I make a do
pass motion we have a motion do pass before the committee all in favor say aye any opposed no
the eyes have it congratulations representative Stewart thank
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
52:51
you and before I run any more bills for the guard they will have a
lawyer here with me probably good idea next up we have representative letting to present house bill 1628 representative letting you recognized and if you would please have
your guests at the end of the table introduce themselves and state who they're with, for the record. MR. Thank you,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
53:16
Madam Chair. I'll let them introduce themselves before I continue. MS. Kristen Harper.
Speaker 200
53:22
I'm with the policy unit of the Division of Children and Family Services. MS. Lisa McGee. I'm an attorney with the
Speaker 201
53:27
Department of Human Services. MS. Representative Letting, do you have an
amendment? MR. I do. MS. Okay. Committee members, we do have an amendment to this bill, so we'll be passing it out at this time. MR. Would you like me to wait until it's distributed?
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
53:44
The amendment just makes changes to two
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
53:49
sections of the bill. The first change is that Section 1, we deleted it entirely. It was incorrectly added during the drafting process. I think we all recognize that we put our fine drafting attorneys through their paces the last couple of weeks, and so that was a minor mistake that we corrected. The second change in the amendment on page five, starting on line 27, we're changing
the language so that the circuit court shall not appoint a person rather than a circuit court shall not approve a person. And on lines 30 and 33, we removed the words and approved so that the court is not limited in making appointments to only those persons approved
by DHS. All right, committee, you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment? Is there anyone in the audience? Representative Harris, you're recognized
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
54:45
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Letting, can you repeat that last explanation of the amendment? On
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
54:52
page 5, starting on line 27, we're changing the language so that the circuit court shall
not appoint a person rather than a circuit court shall not approve a person. Originally the word was approve. We're changing it to a point, and on lines 30 through 33, we removed the words and approved so that the court is not limited in making appointments to only those persons approved by the Department of Human Services.
Seeing no further questions from the committee, is there anyone in the audience to speak for or against the amendment? Seeing
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
55:27
none, Representative Benedict, you're recognized. On the amendment, I make a do-pass motion.
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
55:33
We have a motion do pass before the committee. Any?
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Amendment passes. You're now recognized to explain your bill. Thank you. This bill, we're
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
55:46
amending two sections of the guardianship statute. The first substantive change, we're going to be on page three, line three.
We've added the word endangered adults to the definition of incapacitated person. This change is necessary because both endangered and impaired
adults are in DHS custody, and we need to be included in the guardianship statute so that the court has a way to transfer custody from DHS to another person when a person in DHS's custody is endangered. On Line 5, also on Page 3, the code citation was incorrect, and we've changed it to is instead of means. There's just a minor change there.
The second substantive change is on page three, beginning at line 31. We're changing the code to allow a very narrow exception to the current prohibition against a felon being appointed as a guardian. This very narrow exception is for a relative of a child in foster care who has appeared before the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Board and successfully proven rehabilitation such that the Board waived the felony conviction and allowed the relative to be opened as an agency, foster, or adoptive home. This change is necessary because money, federal money, is now available for subsidized guardianships,
and when adoption is not an appropriate goal for a child, we want the subsidy to be available to the guardian so the relative can qualify to be an appointed as a guardian and receive the guardianship subsidy to help pay for the child and care, or the care of the child. The last substantive change is on page 5, starting on line 27. An evaluation of a prospective custodian or guardian is required on all adults in DHS
custody before a court can appoint a person or institution as custodian or guardian of the person or a
state. With that, we'll take questions. All right, committee. We've heard
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
57:52
Representative Letting's explanation of the bill. Are there
any questions from the committee? Representative Walker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Under on page 5, under provisions 5K sub 1 and 2, this appears to authorize the department
to approve any person, whether that person is a convict or not. Does this contemplate that the department will promulgate objective criteria to be utilized in the evaluation process of such person submitted for approval?
MR. I'm going to let Ms. McGee address that question. MS. Representative
Speaker 216
58:41
Walker, we have two different department divisions addressed in this bill so the one about allowing some very narrow exceptions on the
felons to be guardians is only related to children okay so this part back here that you had the question on is only as it relates to adults in custody well let's go for that for the adults that are in custody that's correct and what we want to do now is the same thing we have in the child arena we want to go out and do an evaluation of the person who's proposed to take the person who's in our custody and so that's what you'll see and then what we've got to do is promulgate policy within the department, which means we'll come back over here in front of the Rules and Regs Committee and use the Administrative Procedures Act and promulgate
some policy that we'll use as our standards that will be our guide. Then what we'll do, and you notice we struck the words unapproved, so what we'll do is we'll do the evaluation and we'll make a recommendation, we approve or not approve, and then it'll go in front of the court, and the court will make
the final decision of whether or not the person will be given
custody or guardianship. Madam Chair, thank you. My question was, though, do you either have or contemplate promulgation of objective criteria
to apply to these provisions at some point? Yes, we do. But they
are not in place? Correct. But the law would be in place upon its passage? No, it's not. There's no emergency clause. So
Speaker 222
1:00:06
the law won't go into effect until, I think it's 90 days after sine die, which will give us time then to promulgate some regulations and come in front of the Rules Committee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Harris,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:00:20
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Letting, I asked the question to you before this bill came, and you probably got the answer for me.
But this doesn't change what the voters voted on, the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act?
No. Okay, thank you. Representative Hammer, you're recognized
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:00:44
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as a point of reference, please, on page 3, line 32, when it says a natural person, does that just – I'm sorry I'm not educated on that, but does that mean like a bloodline relative?
Is that what the phrase natural person means,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:05
or what does that mean? Not a corporation. We're just specifying that this is an actual person and not
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:11
a corporate entity. Like a foster home or something like that, this boils it down to a person, okay? And second question, please. And I may be asking in a different way what Mr. Walker was just asking about, but do I understand this language to say that if someone is 18,
as long as they're 18 years old or older, sound mind, but they can have a convicted or an unpardoned felon on their record and still be allowed to fulfill the role of being a custodian under somebody who is under 18? Am I interpreting that correct? There is a very narrow list of
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:54
felonies that they would still qualify. There are certain felonies that if you've committed that felony, you will never be eligible. But if it's certain felonies and you've proved rehabilitation, you could potentially be eligible.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:02:08
Are those spelled out somewhere else, or why are they not spelled out in this bill as to what those felonies are? And would you mind
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:02:16
educating us what those felonies are, please? Absolutely. I'll
Speaker 216
1:02:19
allow Ms. McGee to address that. Thank you. Thank you. And the reason that the bill was drafted this way is it references back to being opened as a foster home because we have a whole statute that deals with that, and that's at 9-28-409, and I've got a copy of it, and you can see how many pages it is, and this is just that one section from the code, and it's over in the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Act,
and that's where you have the standards for who can be opened as a foster home and who can be opened as an adoptive home. And I'll start with the easy list first. This is a lifetime bar, and this came from Congress, from the United States Congress. No foster child who is in the custody of the department shall be placed in the home of any foster or adoptive parent if they have a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, a crime against children including child pornography, or a crime involving violence including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery.
So that's the lifetime bar. Then in the statute, this is the Arkansas law that currently exists, there's also a five-year bar. So no foster child, and again, this came from Congress, no foster child in custody of the department shall be placed in the home of any foster adoptive home. if there's a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense if the offense was committed within the past five years. So those are both edicts that came down from Congress. Prior to that, Arkansas already had passed a statute, and I think Representative Young from Texas, our candidate, this years ago,
and he came up with a whole laundry list of certain crimes that if you do a criminal background check and you get a hit on one of these crimes, then it's a prohibiting offense unless you come
Speaker 227
1:03:54
in front of this board and ask for the waiver. And so I can go through this list if
Speaker 17
1:04:01
you want. It's about two and a half pages. Probably not. But I would like
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:05
to ask, can you be a – because we have dealt with more bills on registered sex offenders and all the things that go with that.
can you in any way, shape, or form be a registered sex offender and still qualify to be a custodian under this bill? Okay, this is about being
Speaker 229
1:04:26
the first way to get an appointment for the guardianship is you have
Speaker 216
1:04:30
to be opened as a foster and adoptive home. And so you cannot be opened as a foster and adoptive home if you have, remember this is a lifetime bar, any crime against children, including child
Speaker 222
1:04:40
pornography, lifetime bar. So that's an easy answer. No, no one who's registered as a sex offender is going to ever be opened as a foster and adoptive home.
Speaker 17
1:04:51
Okay, and another question, why 18? And I
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:53
understand that people can go serve in the military and they can put their life on the country, for which we are very appreciative. That is a choice. How did you come up with the age 18? Because you can't even buy alcohol in the state until you're age 21. And so I'm just trying to rationalize how did you all and why did you all pick 18? where you're trying to match siblings up to take care of siblings even if that sibling has a conviction kind of thing or what what is it that that kind of
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:05:23
drives that 18 is already the age established in existing law if you look up at
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:31
line 27 on page 3 so you're patterning after what's already in place yes okay
thank you madam chair thank you for taking questions representative Hickerson,
you're recognized for a question. You're recognized. I just have a – thank you, Madam Chairman. What type of crime can you have committed and be eligible for this?
And then you also – just a second part of that. You mentioned federal funding. This is so that you can allow these people to receive federal funding for their –
Speaker 216
1:06:04
And here's the irony. Right now, they can get the adoption subsidy. the federal money on an adoption subsidy. And what we're saying to do is now there's a funding stream for guardianship, and so if they could get the adoption subsidy, we want them to get the guardianship subsidy. It's more of an equality issue. So what are some of the things that could possibly waive?
Interference with visitation, interference with custody. Potentially, and I'm going to have to check backwards. No, that's not going to work because aggravated assault is already out. Assault and batteries are already a five-year prohibition. Another possible one could be kidnapping, false imprisonment, permanent detention or restraint. It would be those kinds of things because you can see on that big global thing I gave earlier,
it pulls in a whole bunch of stuff about any crime related to a child, anything that's related to violence. Those are already going to
be lifetime bars. Thank you. Seeing no – Representative Stubblefield, you're recognized for a
question. Let me get this straight. You can be convicted of kidnapping and still be eligible to adopt? But remember, once you get the hit,
Speaker 219
1:07:22
once we do the background checks on all of our people, anyone who applies to be a foster adoptive parent, once they get that criminal
Speaker 216
1:07:30
background check, then our agency has to be supportive of going in front of the board for the waiver. get the background check, we can say, oh, we're not going forward at all with this. But you could. But potentially could. But then it's still not the department's determination. We have to go in front of a governor-appointed board. So then this Child Welfare Agency Licensing Board will look at whether or not this person has been rehabilitated, and that's outlined also in the statute. That's all I have, ma'am.
Seeing no further questions from the committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill
against the bill all right the question before the committee is passage of House bill 1628 as amended what's the will of the committee we
have a motion do pass all in favor as As amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.
Unknown speaker
1:08:33
Congratulations. Your bill passes. Thank you. Representative Stubblefield, you're recognized. Yes. Can we have a roll call? I have to see two hands.
Do I see two hands? Okay. We will be taking a
Speaker 244
1:09:31
roll call. Just one second. We're getting the sheet. Representative Gaskell looked at. Representative Gaskell.
Speaker 246
1:09:38
Representative Summers. Representative Summers. Representative Williams. Representative Williams, Representative Dickinson, Representative Benedict, yes, Representative Deffenbaugh, Representative Harris, Representative Hammer, no, Representative Meeks,
representative Hickerson no representative Sanders no representative Walker yes representative Stubblefield no representative Elliot Representative Mark, Representative Hubbard.
Speaker 255
1:10:50
Are you going to be voting? Are you going to be voting? The
bill passed. Okay. The bill passes. Representative Letting, your
Speaker 257
1:11:10
bill is passed. Okay. And she's here. Next on
the agenda is Representative Hobbs, presenting House Bill 1916. And if I could, very quickly, committee members, I
just wanted to welcome back Representative
Hubbard. We're happy to see you there at the end of
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:11:34
the table, and welcome back. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and if it's permissive from you, I would like to ask these ladies to join me because they are the people who are well-versed in the early childhood education field. Yes, and if you
would please state your names and who you're with for the
Speaker 261
1:11:51
record. Gina Dickey, I'm representing the Arkansas Early Childhood Association.
Ann Patterson, representing the Invest Early Coalition and also a member of the Arkansas Early Childhood
Speaker 264
1:12:09
Commission. Michele Stephens, also representing the coalition. Representative, do you
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:12:23
do, and it simply adds Senator Bledsoe as a Senate sponsor on this bill.
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:12:28
All right. Do we have one to pass out? She's – all right. We'll be
passing it out, but you all have heard the explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment? We have a motion for the amendment. Anyone in the audience want to speak for the amendment, against the amendment? Representative Benedict, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I make a motion that the amendment do pass. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Representative Hobbs, you're recognized. Thank you. To
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:13:04
present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. City members, in 2005, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Task Force on School Readiness identified actions that states can take to support families, schools, and communities in their efforts to ensure all children begin school ready to reach their full potential. The task force concluded that achieving school readiness cannot be accomplished by any single
agency or individual. It requires public-private partnerships and strong leadership from governors. Public-private partnerships are often used to improve the quality of early childhood education. House Bill 1916 would provide an opportunity to use the interest in excess of funds held as a guarantee from the Arkansas Child Care Facilities Loan Guarantee Trust Fund to establish
seed funding for the Early Care and Education Foundation Partnership. And I'm going to allow one of these ladies to explain to you what that Child Care Facilities Loan Guarantee Trust Fund is. But before they do, I just want to let you know that kind of in a nutshell, what this bill would do is we already have the early childhood education we call it program or department in place there is money in a trust fund that's about ninety
thousand dollars again it's it's from interest that's been accrued from loans and this group of ladies came to me and asked me to sponsor this legislation that would enable them to set aside amount they're thinking maybe around $50,000 to establish a foundation so that they can go into communities and partner with nonprofits or whomever in those communities to provide education programs in early childhood.
It might be, you know, it depends on the need of the community. They would apply kind of like for mini-grants from this foundation and maybe parent training or just whatever the community needs. But again, it's a public-private partnership. So we take some state money that is currently sitting in a bank account, allow the private investors or nonprofits or whomever to say, you know, we want to build that fund so you can
go into communities and try to make a difference in these children's lives.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:15:41
Thank you, Ms. Hobbs. Would you have your guests identify themselves
Speaker 271
1:15:52
and they're recognized? Gina Dickey, Arkansas Early Childhood Association. The trust fund has not been touched since it was established. There's currently two loans that it will back up, and that principle would never be in question. It would remain the same. And in the last seven years, this is as far back as I found the information, we've never had a loan defaulted.
So it's been there, gathering interest, as Representative Hobbs said. So the idea is that if we put a little money on the front end, it would be easier to ask for our corporate citizens to leverage their own resources. We've had the opportunity to work with some corporations over the past few years in the early education community have been very supportive, but we've never had really a vehicle for them to work within. They kind of hit or miss as we ask them for assistance, either lending their expertise or their name to an issue,
But we've never had a vehicle for them, so we
Speaker 188
1:16:57
would like to establish that Representative
Walker you're recognized for a question may I have to Yes, you may all right I assume that you represent a private organization and that's an assumption is there Are there rules and regulations in place which would allow this seed money, I think it's
seed money, this seed money to be utilized statewide so that all areas of the state will be
equally covered? Representative Walker, I think I'm Ann Patterson, a member of the Invest Early Coalition. The first year we are looking at the establishment of that foundation, and I think certainly to address your question about distribution across the state, we have worked with the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education as far as Invest Early Coalition
and have consulted with them on this information, and, you know, I do believe that that will be addressed. I think they have a strong history of looking at the community needs and following
through with that. Does that address your question? Well, not really, but I'll go into my second. Is the Early Childhood Association Board publicly developed and
racially inclusive so as to
have a proportionate number of members of African Americans? Representative Walker, if I could, if
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:18:36
we could hold that until afterwards since the commission is not mentioned in the bill. Well,
apparently, okay, it's not mentioned in the bill, but
it's going to be handled apparently by a private foundation. Okay, I'll allow it. Okay,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:18:56
I'm going to attempt to answer that, and then maybe they can further explain on that. Representative Walker, Tanya Russell is the Director of Early Childhood for the state of Arkansas.
She had planned on being here today, but because of a severe accident with her niece, she was not able to do that. But, and I don't believe Ann Patterson identified herself as the director of Head Start, yeah, the Head Start Collaboration. So it's not just, you know, Mrs. Dickey's organization that's asking for this. It would all go through the division of early
child care that is established. I mean, it's an agency within the state.
And as far as going across the state, I think they'll be accepting grants from all over the state. But again, in our meeting, I think the desire is very heavily to help go into those communities where the economics are not there to support, and I think that's
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:20:01
a large part of this desire. I'd be
a little more comfortable if it were reflected in the bill taking into account
my awareness of the history of the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:20:18
agency. Thank you. MS. I believe Arkansas Code 2078-503 is, I mean, that concerns part of it, but this is just a simple, as you can see, two lines, less than one sentence, that would allow the group that's already been established to form a foundation so that, as stated, gives them a vehicle to accept donations and also to give out those mini-grants to communities
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:47
that are needing the support. Representative Hammer, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hobbs, would you go back to the – on the money issue, $90,000 is – is it – did I understand or did I misunderstand, is that security for the two loans or is that an excess accumulated that is out there and accessible without any attachments to it?
Could you clarify that, please? MS. I'm going to defer to Ms. . Thank you. MS. That's the current amount in excess. MR. So the loans are secured by other monies other than the $90,000? MS. Yes, the principal. Okay. And will this bill be one of those that once we authorize it, it will be an ongoing process so that as excess money continues to come in the account, you can continue to fund? Are you going to have to come back to us with another request besides what's
Speaker 276
1:21:45
in front of us? Our understanding would be it would be continuation would be allowed.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:49
All right. And that money, just clarification, that money will be dispersed through the grant process. There will be no appropriations of that money through any other means other than grants are submitted and the board will determine who receives the grants.
Chair
Unverified
1:22:04
That's currently the idea. There's no bylaws
Speaker 271
1:22:08
or anything written, but there's 26 states who have a similar public-private partnership. We've received some technical assistance and gotten some information. Virginia, for example, has both some things that can be done at the state level, throughout a state,
and both at the local level. where then a
Speaker 279
1:22:24
match is then requested. It's a competitive grant, and a match is requested by that community. So we are looking at that as a model.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:22:32
Okay. And so last point is that if this is allowed to go through, there's no sense spending your time doing that until you know whether you're going to get the money to do that with. So once you get the money, then you'll go out there and follow those successful patterns and put it
Speaker 271
1:22:46
in place. Yeah, we spent about the first year, 18 months, doing planning and working in tandem with the Early Childhood Commission under their advisement.
Chair
Unverified
1:22:52
Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Representative Harris, you're
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:23:00
recognized for a question. I have a question. Also, I would like to make a motion at the proper time. Okay. Probably, Ms. Dickey, if I'm not mistaken, and anyone can answer this, but on grants through the DHS, there has to be a need, and it has to be in a high-need area. So if – let's just, for example, if someone in northwest Arkansas needed the grant, but then someone in central Arkansas with high poverty level, and you would take that – because this may answer – represent Walker's question – that you would take into consideration the higher need of the area?
Speaker 271
1:23:37
I would assume so. So in examples of when we first distributed Arkansas Better Chance, and when I say we as a state, it was based on the needs of that district. And that was clearly defined, that the higher the need, the money went there first, and it kind of went as we went along. I think it also depends on the community involvement, you know, the support that you're going to get from that community. And we're not really only looking at fiscal support. So it may be a matter of leveraging. We have a great brochure that could provide a lot of parent education,
but we would ask local employers to help with distribution to their employees and in maybe some cases help with the printing costs if that was appropriate. So it doesn't always involve money. I think in-kind support
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:24:26
will be a big factor. One more question, please. You're recognized for a follow-up. So Representative Walker heard that we will be fair, or you guys will be fair. And then the other is, so this is really just making sure we have a partnership because we don't have public education and preschool across the state, but this provides an opportunity for private organizations to partnership with the state, correct?
All right, thank you. I have a quick question for Ms. Patterson. My mother would kill me if I didn't ask this, but I'm assuming the Early
Childhood Development Commission is behind this since she serves on it. Yes, and we have identified four goals and – or five goals, I guess it is, and one of those goals is to expand partnership efforts throughout the state to improve quality early childhood education and opportunities, and that does include partnership with, you know, local communities, corporate sponsors, and those kinds of things.
So, yes, it does fit within the realm of the commission. Thank you. Thank you.
I should have had her come down here and testify. I told her I was going to make her do that one time. Okay. well bring your
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:25:35
next yeah I just want to hear thank you representative Harris you're recognized for a motion I would like
to make a motion of do pass with amendment we have a motion do you pass as amended is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against seeing then all in favor say aye
any opposed motion carries and your bill passes as amended representative Hobbs thank you madam chair thank you committee all right committee we have one more and it's a resolution and then we'll be done for the day so representative Summers you're are you gonna since you're here okay Rep. Summers, you're recognized to present your resolution.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:26:32
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize to the committee for flitting in and out
so much, and I didn't get my other bill run anyway. I should have stayed here. This is House Resolution 1027 to commemorate Walmart at their capital day on Thursday, March 15th. And I wanted to get it passed today so that when they're here next Tuesday, March 15th, excuse me, when they're here, we'd be able to have it on record. So I'd ask for a good vote. It should be in your packet.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:27:03
Representative Williams, you're recognized. Mr. Summers, is Walmart? corporate headquarters located in your district it is I'm proud to say I thought so I have a motion at the proper time seeing no
further did you know further questions is there anyone who wants to speak for the resolution against it representative Williams you're recognized motion
do pass we have a motion do you pass all in favor say aye any opposed motion carries your
Resolution passes. Thank you committee and thank you madam chair committee. I apologize Representative Deffenbaugh is going to present house resolution House Memorial resolution one zero zero
four for representative Branscom Representative Deffenbaugh you're recognized Thank You madam
chair, this is I'm doing this for representative Branscom it's It's a House Memorial Resolution in respectful memory of Mr. John Fitch
and in recognition of his contributions to the state of Arkansas and his local community. Mr. Fitch passed away Saturday, February 26, age of 60 years. He was Director of Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission. having been appointed by Governor Huckabee on January 22, 2007, and Governor Mike Huckabee served Mr. Fitch in
the Senate and said Mr. Fitch was a dear friend, dependable ally.
Thank you. You've heard an explanation of the resolution. Are there any questions from
the committee? No questions? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the resolution? Representative Summers, you're recognized Motion do pass, Madam Chair We have a motion do pass All in favor say aye Any opposed, no Motion carries and your resolution passes Thank
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:29:12
you With no other business to come before the committee We're only adjourned until Friday
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1998
HB1415
HB1636
HB1628
HB1916
HR1027
HMR1004
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 26
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Amy Ford
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 37
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Speaker 34
Speaker 45
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 67
Chair
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 36
Speaker 55
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson Chair
Unverified
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh Chair
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 153
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 157
Representative David J. Sanders Chair
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 170
Speaker 141
Speaker 173
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 216
Speaker 222
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 17
Speaker 229
Speaker 219
Speaker 244
Speaker 246
Speaker 255
Speaker 257
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 264
Speaker 266
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 271
Speaker 188
Speaker 276
Speaker 279
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 151