House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (12)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1006
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1006”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB307
· 2 mentions in chapter
Matched: “SB307”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1438
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1438”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1563
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1563”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1631
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1631”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1759
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1759”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1859
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1859”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1873
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1873”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB247
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB247”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB252
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB252”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB310
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB310”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB423
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB423”
|
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
He is here to present, what's the bill number? 1006. 1006, that's right, House Bill 1006. Mr. Cheatham, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee. I'll try to be brief.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
0:14
I understand you have a special order at 1030, and I don't want to get in their way. Of course, I may have
someone behind me that may have a few comments about this bill,
but House Bill 1006, if you remember, if you were here last session, it came up at the
end of last session that a little controversy in North Arkansas about circuit clerks and fees
that they were generating for their self through sales of judicial foreclosures. This is not a non-controversial bill, I guarantee you, because it's dealing with people that are elected officials just like we are, people that do a good job. You know, they have to do a good job, but they will not be where they are. But it's, I guess the point I want to make, and again I'll be brief, but basically what this bill does, if you read it,
of course it's been a while since you've had a look at it probably, but basically what it does is it takes the fee the circuit clerk gets, which goes in his or her pocket. It does not go to the office, does not go to the county general. But what my bill correction to that does, it takes that money that a circuit clerk generates for a foreclosure sale and puts that money back into the county general.
Most of your counties don't generate a lot of money, the clerks, for this. Of course, in North Arkansas, we had circuit clerks, and the last year made over $100,000 of sales, plus their regular salary of $60,000 or $70,000. Again, every county does not generate that kind of money. But I think what caught my eye, I guess, because I was contacted by some people to run this bill, but I guess what really caught my eye was that we have elected officials,
the only elected officials that I'm aware of that actually can receive money for doing duties that are connected to their job, as I feel, and put it in their pocket. It does not go back to the county general. It goes in their pocket. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll go into more detail if the committee wants to. I'll certainly entertain questions. Thank
you, Mr. Cheatham. We appreciate that explanation. Members, any questions for Mr. Cheatham? Mr. Deffenbaugh, you recognize? Thank
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
2:36
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Cheatham, make sure I'm kind of understanding this.
All right, a county clerk, if they make a sale under this bill, circuit, I'm sorry, circuit clerk will, they'll have to return their fee back to the county and to be used
wherever. Yes, the county, the quorum court could put the money
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:59
back in that clerk's office or it could be used for other purposes. All right. I didn't make one point. The circuit judge does not have to sign this to circuit clerk. Of course, they do a good job.
We figure they will anyway, but that option is still there. The circuit clerk, if the clerk says, I can't do it or don't want to do it, she has an option to say that, and the circuit judge can send it out to
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
3:28
an individual. Okay, good. Okay, keep going. All right, so, but any other commissioner, right, anybody else that this could
be assigned to, if I'm understanding right now, they could be a city official or a county official also, couldn't they? Are they going to be a non-county?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
3:42
They cannot be an employee of the circuit clerk.
In other words, a circuit clerk cannot do it and keep the fee. An employee of that office cannot do it. But, yes, I guess it could be another. Someone else who works in the courthouse, I guess, could take that money if they did the sale. But, again, the circuit judge is not going to send it out just to anybody because there is some paperwork involved. And, you know,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
4:09
just a perspective, some of those people, some of these commissioners could also be on city time or county time,
and then they could get some benefit from. Well, if I were
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
4:24
the county judge and somebody else was doing it on county time, I believe we'd have a little talk. Okay. All right. But it's possible. Well, it's possible. And that's one reason that this brill is brought forward is because the work is done on county time, using county equipment, using your electricity, whatever, is done during that eight-hour workday, and this county is not getting any benefit from it.
Speaker 28
4:51
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
4:57
Steffam. Mr. Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Representative Cheatham, I guess part of the rationale for clerks getting this fee personally was that it wasn't part of their prescribed duties. Is that correct? That's correct. And does this bill do anything to affect that? Does this do anything to prescribe this if they're appointed by the judge to be part of their duties as a circuit clerk? No. No.
Another question. I know I've talked to you about the possibility of allowing the clerks to maybe to cap it at a certain amount since it is extra work and since it's not part of their prescribed duties, to allow them to collect a fee up to a certain amount and then cap it there and the rest go to
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
5:39
county general. Did you explore that option? Mr. Steele, I did. Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you. That was my first thought, was to cap it at a nominal fee and then either put the excess back in county general. But as we talked to the legal people that writes the bills, there was a little problem with that
because Amendment 55 says that if you're an elected official, you cannot receive fees of the office. And he said we can't do it that way because it really is not constitutional. So that kind of took that out of
the works. Thank you, Mr. Cheatham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Members, any additional questions? Representative Hammer? Motion to the proper time.
Thank you. All right, we'll take care of that. Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill?
Please sign up if you want to speak for or against the bill.
Mr. Crane, you're recognized to speak against the bill, I
think. Mr. Crane, please state your name and
Speaker 45
6:42
your title for the record. Mr. Chairman, I'm Larry Crane. I am the newly elected Pulaski County Circuit and County Clerk. and let me get several things on the table first of all I do not do these sales personally I have not done these sales and so I really don't have a dog
directly into this hunt I do have employees who have done these sales and quite honestly they have in fact taken commissions off of them in our county we have about fifteen thousand dollars a year worth of commissions that flow through to the various people who do this job the rest of the sales are done by a non-judicial process, and there are a bunch of those. What's happened here is that, as you're well aware, in the north part of the state, we have had an economic downturn that essentially has destroyed the land development community
in north Arkansas. Not only was it residential land development, but also commercial land development. And they have enjoyed having several large, large companies go under. That is the reason that the one sale that everyone knows about, the $24 million sale, happened. No one wanted it to happen. Certainly the clerk didn't depend on it happening. And if they could take it back, I'll bet you there are a lot of people up there that would take it back and have it not happen. What that is, though, is an aberration in a system of taking care of your business,
the business of the people all across the state of Arkansas, in circumstances that no one really wants to happen. No one wants to go through a foreclosure on anything. No one that I know wants anyone to go through that process. But for over 30 years, we've had a process in place where the clerks were able to be assigned by a circuit judge to go take care of this business for everybody. It was in addition to their ordinary duties. It was back during the chancery years where we actually had a chancery judge, and they
took care of this kind of stuff. The clerks were compensated at one-tenth of one percent of what they did. And that isn't much money unless you're talking about a situation, an aberrant situation like in North Arkansas where you might have a $24 million sale. It adds up in a hurry. Is this a problem that we're going to have for a long time? No. Quite honestly, it's not because the foreclosures, people are going to go ahead and go under and things are going to be sold.
And the estimate is that the foreclosures that are fixing to be processed may be as As many in the next two years as we've had in the first two years, they're probably not going to be the biggest ones like these are because, quite honestly, those people were hung out so far that they can't go back and they've already gone under. So what we're trying to do here is to change a process that has worked for the benefit of a lot of people for a lot of years to have a system that was orderly and reliable. And we're going to change that because we have one aberrant situation in the north part
of the state. Most of the clerks in the state of Arkansas make a couple of hundred bucks a year out of doing this. It's not big money for anybody who is outside that particular area. All of the clerks are in agreement that they would prefer not to have anything done to let the system take care of itself, to let the foreclosures in north parts of the state take place, and to roll on down the line with things getting eventually back to normal. We are addressing an aberrant problem with a change in a system that has served us very
well for a long, long time. And I would ask you to please not do
this. Thank you, Mr. Crane. Any questions for Mr. Crane, Mr. Walker, Mr. Steele, did you have a question also?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
10:43
Mr. Steele, you're after Mr. Walker. I'll defer first to Mr. Steele. I'll beg you, Mr. Walker.
I'm sorry, I'm forgetting your name. Larry Crane. Mr. Crane, this is all public information, correct?
And so do you suppose there would be a certain political liability if a clerk were to collect an outrageous fee in one of these foreclosures? I think that
Speaker 45
11:03
the clerk in Benton County is probably in danger of losing her job unnecessarily and inappropriately over this issue. So in your opinion, do you think this is
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:11
something that could just be handled by the election process in general? I think that
Speaker 45
11:16
in probably 90 percent of the cases across the state of Arkansas, it is handled by the collection process. I'm sorry, I meant the election process.
That particular problem may well be, but the next
Speaker 51
11:27
clerk is going to inherit that problem no matter what happens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:38
Mr. Walker. Mr. Crane, I take it that you want to make sure that employees who perform extra work such as this are in a position where they may get extra compensation on occasion. That would
Speaker 65
11:51
be what happens in my office today, yes.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:54
Well, that means they get overtime. Yes. And it's all pursuant to the same formula.
Speaker 64
11:59
Well, actually, the people who go over and do
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:07
do that many. Well, since you don't, why is it that you, and you have a number of deputy clerks? I do. This is assigned to a deputy clerk? Typically, yes. And that deputy clerk to whom you make the assignment is the beneficiary of the money received? Yes. Why should one deputy clerk on the part, simply because you have made a choice to assign something to him or her for overtime or extra work,
be compensated at a rate, either by accident or artifice, at a greater rate than other people doing the same work?
No one else is doing that same work. Well, it's an assignment, but I say the same work. They work for the clerk's office. They don't have special qualifications which require a license. And they do whatever you assign them to do. So by that, I mean the same work. So why should people in the same pay grade doing generally things that you assign them
be in a position where some, because of your assignment or because of luck, get treated more favorably than others? You know, any person who wants to do
Speaker 45
13:14
overtime work in my office is allowed to do it. We have plenty of work, and until the money runs out at the end of the year, we're going to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:25
let everybody share in it. Well, I would hope that overtime work also would be only obligated as necessitated rather than simply because someone wants to have it done.
And would you not agree that you have to have standards and systems of application of the standards if you're going to have a fairly operating office? Yes, I do. And, Representative Walker, we need to keep
Speaker 45
13:48
in mind that if you pass this bill that those people are going to continue to do that work and they're
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:55
not going to get one thing for it. Well, but that would have been the case if this windfall had not occurred. Isn't that correct? Yes. All right, so you were just simply saying that it's sort of like the lottery or going to Tunica.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
14:08
They get lucky and they get to keep it. Mr. Nichols, you're recognized. Yes,
thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crane, when I think he mentioned about $15,000 that your employees earned for doing these sales, while they were receiving, I guess, a commission for doing this sale, I I'll assume it was between the hours of 8 and 5.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
14:43
o'clock on a Thursday afternoon. 2 o'clock on Thursday afternoon. Were those employees taken off the clock during that period of time as far as their regular hourly compensation, or did they receive their hourly compensation plus the
Speaker 65
14:58
commission? Typically they would get a break at
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:01
that time anyway. So they're doing this over as considered their break time? MR. Yes. Okay. That's how you have – so they're not, in essence – I hate to use the term – double
Speaker 80
15:16
dipping? MR. No. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. Mr. Steffenbaugh.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
15:28
MR. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just had one more question I thought about.
your county clerk's schedule or some of your county circuit. I need all the help on you. We're combined, but there are two different branches.
Sorry. Is there, you know, we say on the clock, but is there schedule defined 8 to 5, 8 to 4? Is it a well-defined schedule? You know, we're having an election today, and we'll
Speaker 51
16:02
have people working a lot of long hours. Yes, sir. And when they
Speaker 45
16:09
need to work long hours, they do it and they get paid for it. At
Speaker 51
16:14
530 this afternoon, I'll be with the quorum court doing my job,
and there'll be two of my employees there with me. And when they get through, we'll go home. And we pretty much all pitch in and do what needs to happen. And if you're an hourly employee, we're going to pay
you if you're there. MR. And is that wrong? MR. All right. Thanks. MR. Any additional
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:41
questions for Mr. Crane? Mr. Nichols. MR. Yes, Mr. Crane, when you said if they're an hourly employee, are the people who do these sales in your office, are they considered hourly employees?
MR. Some of them are. MR. But some of them are not. MR. Yes. that is exempt from the over overtime laws in some instances and so so they're there if they're on a break
Speaker 86
17:06
or not on a break there's no if you'd let me it
Speaker 45
17:11
might excuse me for interrupting but we're not talking about a lot of these over the year we're talking about a thousand dollars a month over the period of year
roughly which is $250 a week roughly so we're not talking about a lot of these that the county does the vast majority of sales in Pulaski County are handled by non-judicial
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:40
sale where the fees are a lot higher but we're addressing this as a state policy that covers all 75 clerks I assume yes sir and I think I'm I'm a co-sponsor on this bill with Representative Cheatham, and I'm concerned about some of
the issues that have come out, and I'd like to see all the county clerks not use the current situation to take advantage of the taxpayers of the state of Arkansas. It may be handled by the election cycle, but I think we can handle it through public policy and through passage of laws, and, you know, would you agree with that as that is also
a way to deal with this issue, is through public policy and the enactment of laws as well as the election cycle? MR. No, sir.
Speaker 65
18:38
I think the best policy would be to leave things that are not particularly broken well enough alone
Speaker 45
18:44
when you know that changing the whole system just to fix a problem that is obvious up in North Arkansas and it's going to go away in a few years, address taking the full force of public policy and law to address that is a waste of the public's money. Mr. Walker, one
additional question. Let me remind members we've got a 1030 special order. Go right ahead, Mr. Walker. You sure? I didn't mean to discourage you. I just wanted to remind you guys we have a special
order. Any additional question for Mr. Crane? Ms. Slinkert?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not sure I have a question, but I might. Just speaking on behalf of the Benton County Clerk, I do know of my own knowledge that
some clerks handle this personally if they have been appointed by the court to act as commissioner in a sale and I do know that the Benton County clerk does take this work home and does it after hours I just wanted to say that and clear that up it's also true that many of the clerks I mean many of the counties handle these things differently yes it is that it would not be you know I mean it would
not necessarily be a deputy clerk that would be handling this the other statement is that a circuit clerk if they are appointed you know they are an elected official as has been there
but they are also elected official 24 7 That's correct. I think I have another question for Representative Cheatham when he comes back, if I may admit it. Sure. We will get to him in just a minute. Let's see if
there are any questions for Mr. Crane. Seeing no additional questions for Mr. Crane, thank you, Mr. Crane.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to visit. Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, we're
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
20:59
back to Mr. Cheatham. Mr. Cheatham, would you respond to a question for Mrs. Slinker? I certainly would, and I'd like to
thank Mr. Crane, my friend, for being here with me today. and we are good friends. Go right ahead, Ms. Linkert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cheatham, if this bill passes, when this money is paid into the general fund,
of course it would have to be then appropriated by the Quorum Court. Did you happen to look into whether or not those fees could be, by this law, be reappropriated back to the circuit clerks for use in their office? Yes, ma'am, I did. Talked to several judges, county judges, and of
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
21:42
course we would hope our county judges and quorum court would be able to see the need for that office,
if they need additional help or need additional equipment. But most of those felt like it would be better just to put it back in the general fund and then reappropriate it as needed. Again, we would hope they would do that if that office needed different things. But we talked about that some and looked at that, actually drew a bill up that contained some of that, but we decided not to do that. MS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair. MR.
Mr. Vines has a question, and Mr. Powers.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
22:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cheatham, I think I heard you say this, but I just wanted
to make sure. This in no way impinges the judge's discretion to make this appointment.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:35
That is correct. Thank you. Mr. Powers? Thank you. Representative Cheatham, it's been described, this $24 million transaction, as an aberration. And what I want to know, in your opinion, is it a one-time thing or a one-time instance that this is a reaction to, or do you know of other possible exorbitant sums that have gone through the pipeline here?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
22:58
Mr. Powers, as my good friend Mr. Crane said, it is in the northwest corner of the state. There are several counties up there that have had this occur within the last year where circuit clerks were making anywhere from $75,000 to $120,000 plus their regular salary of $70,000 to $80,000. Most counties are not this way, but I guess what it, and I guess I may be in my closing mode right now since we're lack of time, but it doesn't occur in every county, no.
A majority of the counties, it does not occur. Probably 75% of the counties, let's say, it doesn't occur. All right. Thank you. Okay.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:41
Mr. Hammer, you recognize? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, question. Are you motivated on this bill to put forth the effort and everything on the basis of the dollar amount that was involved in a one-time situation or the principle that it goes to given the
fact that we're not talking about one county, we're talking about all the counties in the state? Mr. Chairman, I think you have a good point.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
23:59
I think I'm like everyone else. When I received a phone call about this $24 million sale who had a friend actually own part of that, lost part of that money in a sale, But I didn't, you know, when they told me that, I said an elected official cannot keep money because we meant 55. But as I researched it, this is the only elected official that can receive money. And like Mr. Chambers said, I think the amount, the large amount initially is what caught my eye. And I bet you most of you did not know your clerk could keep money in her pocket.
But it's the principle of the thing, whether it's $100 or $24,000 to sell. It's the principle of that thing. Second question? Yes, sir. Brief. This practice was stated a while ago as having gone
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:43
on for over 30 years. Is that correct? Actually, some of the legislation goes back almost 100 years. 100 years. So in
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
24:49
all your research, did you happen to calculate over the last
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:52
100 years how many thousands of dollars could have been put back in the county general revenue had this been going on? No, sir. I didn't do that. I didn't think so, but thank you.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
25:04
I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Steele, you're recognized. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Since we've
testified that this is a particular problem in individual counties, particularly in Northwest Arkansas, are you aware of any way this could be handled on a local level? Could the quorum court in those particular counties decide that their clerk's fees would go to county general, whereas maybe Howard
County or some other county that does it differently could keep on going along the way
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
25:31
they're doing it? Mr. Steele, I'm not a lawyer. We have several lawyers on this committee.
I'm sure they'll be able to assist you in legislation, but I'm
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
25:40
not able to do that. I'm a lawyer, but I tend to take Mr.
Speaker 128
25:45
Powell's legal advice over my own. That's probably a good thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional questions for Mr. Cheatham? Mr. Cheatham, would you like to
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
25:54
close for your bill? Briefly, Mr. Chairman, it's not an easy issue. My circuit clerk is a friend of mine, and we've talked about this. But it's something I think Mr. Hamer had a good point. It's this principle. Should an elected official be able to take money on what I consider their regular scheduled job
while using facilities and equipment that belongs to the people of the county? Should they be able to put that
money in their pocket, whether it's $5 or $100,000? I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Mr. Cheetah. Mr. Hamer, I recognize you for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion do pass. That's a
proper motion. Any discussion or questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of passing House Bill 10-0-0-6 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it.
Thank you, Mr. Cheatham. Members, as you remember, we had a special order of business at 10-30. We're a little bit past 10-30, but at this time, I am going to ask Mr. Ingram if he would come forward and bring whoever he'd like to bring with him to hear this special order. While we're doing that, I want to recognize former Representative Don Creekmore, who sat on this committee with me. She's here in the audience today. I bet she's probably here with this bill, but I just want to say thank you for
being here and welcome back. Mr. Ingram, you are recognized for House Bill 1563.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, first
let me thank you for the special order of business to address this need that we have. As I look around the committee, there are some that are on the committee. that co-sponsored this bill two years ago, and Representative Williams, you recognize Dawn Creekmore. Dawn was the mother of this legislation and did a tremendous amount of research. I began to do it when I was first elected, and someone told me that Dawn had
worked on it, and she had a stack of information that a prized show dog couldn't jump over. So she had done so much research, and I quickly agreed to co-sponsor the original bill with her. What Bill 1563 to amend Julie's Law simply adds rape to being swabbed with DNA upon arrest. We know from studies that in Denver, for instance, there's been a $90 return on investment for every $1 spent on DNA.
Between 33% and 66% of rapists have also sexually attacked children, and up to 82% of child molesters have also sexually attacked adults. Between 50 and 66 percent of incest offenders have also sexually attacked children outside of their families. This is an important piece of legislation, and it's been brought on, quite frankly, by such tremendous strides in technology that DNA provides.
Now, I've explained to you on one side of the bill how it helps find and arrest the perpetrators. But on the other side of the bill, where I think it has an equal importance is the amount of people that have been arrested through the years that are innocent, that have been let go because of being proven their DNA didn't match up. So I see this as a great step forward in helping our society to not only arrest the people that hurt us,
but free people that are innocent. At this time, I would like to bring forward, if the chairman says it's fine, I would like to bring forward Mary Jean and Bud Buskin, who the law is named for, Julie's Law, for their daughter. At this time, Mr. Chairman, if it's your wishes. Absolutely. Please feel free to bring them forward. But Mary Jean, would you come and join me?
I'm not going to pull the chair out from under.
Speaker 140
30:23
Please don't. Would you all please state your name for the record? I'm Mary Jean buskin, and I'm the mother of
Julie buskin for whom the law is named miss buskin Welcome to your house to share appreciate you
Speaker 141
30:33
being here. Thank you. You recognize I'm going to do this a little different this morning what I usually do I know a lot of you know Julie's story and we've spoken to some of you before this morning I want you to search your heart says I do this with some questions. I've not done this this way before But I want you to really think as I ask these questions and answer what they've done to us
I want you to think about if it was you. Have you ever picked your child up or gone to pick your child up from school, a church event, a sports activity, to be met by a police officer stepping out of the shadows and saying your child is missing? Have you been said proceed to the police department for further information? Police department? Where is the police department? At OU? I didn't even know there was a police department. But we did. It was below zero. The wind was blowing
like a winter tornado, and it was still back in the days of finding a pay phone. So we did that, and we called, and we got the directions. We got there, and they told us that Julie had been missing all day. That's exactly what happened to Bud and I on
Speaker 140
31:41
December 20th of 1996 when we went to pick up our daughter Julie from OU. She was graduating midterm After three and a
Speaker 141
31:48
half years, with a valet degree, she was enrolled at the University of Arkansas to continue her education in elementary ed.
At the police department, you're told that the body of a young female has been found in Lake Stanley Draper in Oklahoma City. Asked for a picture for ID, it was soon confirmed that that was our beautiful ballerina. This couldn't be happening to us. horrible acts committed to Julie couldn't possibly have happened. Kidnapped, raped, sodomy, plus a bullet to her head and dumped in an icy cold muddy lake. Not possible, but it was. Have you ever
planned your child's funeral for December 23rd, two days before Christmas? Have you ever buried your child in the winter in the frozen ground, surrounded by wind and snow everywhere? Have you you ever had to tell your child's siblings or nieces and nephews what happened to their beloved Aunt Juju? Have you ever tried to celebrate Christmas two days later? The whole family was in shock. Maddie, our four-year-old granddaughter, having heard that Julie was found in a lake, asked, did a big fish get Aunt Juju? I mean, what else could happen
to Julie? And then began eight years of wondering who did this horrible act. Are we through with this disaster? No. We are still going through the appeals process and may not live long enough to see the end. A conviction and death penalty were won, but how many years until we see the results? We know where Julie is and we'll see her again one day. Right now, we're missing her. As we watch her friends get married, have children, she's been an
honorary bridesmaid in three weddings, and she has a darling little girl named after her. What about Julie's wedding? What about Julie's children? She had no chance for appeal, and what happened to her was torture and death. Please search your hearts and pass Mr. Ingram's bill. You don't want to go through what we and our family are, and you sure don't want your child, grandchild, wife, sister, anyone you know and love to go through what Julie did.
to help protect all the other Julies out there. No one deserved what happened
Bud Buskin
Unverified
34:25
Thank you, Ms. Buskin. Mr. Buskin, you recognize. My name is Bud Buskin, and I am Julie's father. And I just want to follow up with some points that I have learned through this 14-some-odd years of going through this whole process we've been through.
In the history of the case, from the beginning, the detectives, the day that I, they told me they were prepared to tell me what I wanted to, I needed to know, one of the first statements they made was that DNA would solve this case. I don't think anybody thought that it would take eight and a half years for this to happen, but it did. Over 200 samples were taken around Oklahoma from Arizona, Arkansas, anybody and everybody. And of course, 15 years ago, 14 years ago, the technology was different.
They were actually drawing blood at that time. So since then, it's changed to a buccal swab, much easier to do. And Anthony Sanchez was, after eight and a half years, recognized. He was in jail for burglary and escape and was just weeks from being released when the match was made. Senator Jonathan Nichols from Oklahoma actually sponsored the bill that broadened the umbrella to include that burglary and escape charges that he was already in jail for.
Now bear in mind, those were on convictions, not arrests. And because of backlogs at OSBI at that particular time, his DNA sat on the shelf for two years. But again, the technology has changed. We were in Oklahoma speaking at Tulsa Community College back in November, OSBI reps were there. Their timeline now is within 30 days. And that's, again, to technology.
One of the concerns with a lot of this stuff is privacy issues. I'll be honest about it. When it first came up, we were very superficial about this and said, hey, if you haven't done anything wrong and not going to do anything wrong, what's the big deal? Show me where to go. Mr. Buskin, your truck was seen around the scene of a rape. Will you go give blood? Yes, sir, I will. Tell me where to go. But I understand now that that was superficial, and since that time I've educated myself and a lot of people on the privacy issues.
The facts are, you know, like I said, that you take a buccal swab versus actually bloodletting to these days. I've had law enforcement people tell me they would rather take a buccal swab than try to get fingerprints from somebody that doesn't want to have them done. Forensic DNA analysis does not reveal any personal information other than the sex of that person. Shared DNA databases do not include any personal information. The CODIS profile contains no personal info, only a series of numbers and letters.
And DNA samples are retained for quality control. I think there was an article in the Little Rock paper this morning about some DNA that had been retested, and the guy was exonerated because they had saved that sample. And they are securely stored and protected, and there are actually federal and state laws penalizing the misuse of profiles and genetic information. And finally, DNA analysts do not have the training or the resources, really, to misuse these profiles.
I do want to say a few things about the fiscal issues, because I think Mr. Channel is going to talk about that on a local level, but Indiana spends approximately $1.5 billion for police protection and judicial services. A fact is that 70 percent of the crimes are committed by 6 percent of the people, repeat offenders seven to eight times. So if the estimated cost in their study was $2,000 per case, you actually are saving an average of $15,000 per case.
case. In Colorado, one of the things they did in Denver was they just charged a $2.50 surcharge to those found guilty of most offenses, including traffic violations. So there are ways to get around that, but I don't really think, as I understand, that that's going to be an issue here this year. Why do we do this? Mary Jean and I are often asked, why do we do this? And as I was preparing these notes, I was asking myself the same question. This is stressful, guys and ladies.
To be honest, I don't really enjoy standing up here and talking in front of people, much less about the abduction and murder of our daughter. Nothing's going to bring Julie back. So why do we do it? If Julie was alive today, she'd be having a positive effect on this world, more specifically the young people and handicapped. Fifteen years ago, she planned on me and a grade school teacher having a dance studio that would include classes for the physically and mentally disabled.
She finished her undergrad work in three and a half years and was enrolled at the U of A to get her master's degree. Was she perfect? No, none of us are. But she was good. And we believe that the good should be protected from the evil whenever possible. I think you will agree with me that rape is a bad thing. You as legislators, husbands, wives, parents, and grandparents parents have an opportunity and a duty to protect the innocent and good people of Arkansas. All I ask you to do is educate yourself on the many positive things that DNA legislation
will do to help get the murderers and rapists off the streets. So why do we do this? So that hopefully none of you or anyone that you know will ever have to endure what we have gone through the past 14 years, 2 months, and 16 days. You see, it never goes away. I strongly urge you to add rape on arrest to Julie's Law. I have copies of information that I've gotten this data from. If any of you would like any of this, I'd be more than happy to share it with you, and
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the
time. Mr. and Ms. Buskin, we thank you for being here. You are wonderfully brave and courageous. Our hearts are saddened every time we hear your
Speaker 154
40:58
story. We appreciate you being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingram, would you like to continue? Yes, if I
might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Kermit Channel to join me here at the table. Kermit is the director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab, and I would urge each member of
this body to go out. I had the great pleasure of being given a tour of the Crime Lab by Kermit, and I think that from knowing where we were, which was about one step above bleeding people with leeches, where the crime lab was, and to where it has come today, it's just remarkable. And it's because of Kermit's leadership and his great staff out there, they have knocked down these backlogs tremendously, and he has my utmost respect.
And I want maybe Kermit to talk maybe a little bit on
Speaker 157
41:51
the technical side of DNA swabbing. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I appreciate you taking the time out to hear me. Basically with this law, I think it's the right step to add the addition of rape to Julie's Law. One of the things that I always have to consider as a director is the fiscal impact, what it's going to take to do this. Are we going to lose services? You know, when Julie's Law first was introduced, it was on the table to make it all felony
arrest, which would have cost us about a little over $2 million, which would have hurt our state, would have hurt the business that we do based on our budget. So I think through the years we've been able to add offenses to the legislation from 1997 all the way up to 2009 with Julie's Law. And when we looked at the statistics as far as with the arrest on rape, these are based on the numbers provided to me by ACIC, we were looking at about 454 arrests, and that's
if we had 100 percent compliance with the collecting of these samples. With those figures, that would cost the laboratory about 18 to 20,000 additional dollars. So I think there is no major financial impact to our services. I think it is the right step to make. We don't have a backlog in our CODIS section, so these samples, when they come in, we're actually analyzing them real time, so we have virtually no backlog. And that's critical for the operation of a DNA database, because if you had, if we reflect back to the leeches days, probably
as early as 2005 and even going back to 2002, we had 20,000 convicted offender database samples sitting on our shelf, and that's a very dangerous place to be, but we're not that lab today. You know, we can analyze these things and hopefully give law enforcement a tool to identify a suspect that they might not have on their radar, not only within the state of Arkansas, but, of course, around the country. And we've had tremendous success. To date, we've had about a little over 1,500 hits in the database. Again, and that's not
only solving our crimes, but also helping to solve other states' crimes as well. And like Representative Ingram stated, there's the other side of the coin. It does give the opportunity to exonerate someone who is on someone's radar who probably shouldn't be there. Thank you, Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Ingram, we have any other guests you want to bring
up? I have a representative from the Attorney General's office that is here to support, speak in support of the legislation.
Let's see, is this Ms. Ford, is she a part of your presentation? Do you want I want her
Amy Ford
Unverified
44:41
to speak to the – She's part of the presentation. Okay. Go right ahead. Good morning. My name is Amy Ford, and I'm an attorney in the Office of Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. I'm here today simply to testify in support of this bill. On behalf of our office, we support this bill. We believe it is good legislation. It simply adds rape as an offense for which you can collect the DNA for sampling.
be a good tool in helping solve crimes, and you don't have to wait for a time later to get that collected DNA. As it simply adds the offense of rape, we believe that it is vitally important to pass this bill. The Attorney General supports this bill, and we thank you for your support of this important legislation. Thank you, Ms. Ford. Mr. Ingram, any additional
presenters? No, sorry. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'll
Speaker 154
45:30
be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation.
Members, any question of Mr. Ingram? Any questions of Mr. Ingram? Mr. Wilkins, we will recognize the
Speaker 169
45:47
question from a noncommitted member. Go right ahead. Keith, you
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
45:52
know, I completely agree with this, but why I think some of the most and a friend of mine recently mentioned to me some of the most violent offenders we have out there are burglars. I mean, I've always – I believe that now in my heart and my – so why didn't we include that here?
Speaker 159
46:11
Well, I agree with you, Representative Wilkins. I think it's
sort of taken a bite out of that apple one at a time. You know, we – as Mr. Channel talked, we – Representative Creekmore and I, We had stars in our eyes when we wanted to include every felony arrest, but then when the number came up, $2 million, it sort of brought us back to reality. So I guess Representative Wilkins, the question is we're trying to ease into this thing, and
I think you'll see those additions in the coming years, because in talking with Mr. Channel, I suspect that in a couple of years we will hopefully have some major additions
Speaker 173
47:00
to our crime lab. Yes, sir. Well, a lot of murder and a lot of rape are
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
47:09
a result of burglars. They are. I think almost every burglar that I've ever had anything to deal with has the potential to be there.
I don't know the dollars and cents we're talking about. I don't know if I heard that part, but I
would really like to see something done along them lines. I will certainly defer to Mr. Channel on numbers regarding burglaries. Kermit, do you have a
Speaker 157
47:45
number? Yes, I do. So for burglaries in 2009, it was 2,300 arrests, and arrests in 2010 were 2,300.
And I do agree with you on the burglaries. A lot of our success, you know, the hits that we get are from those individuals that have been previously incarcerated in burglary. And I think that's the next step. But I would say that we want to tread cautiously and do what's financially responsible. And I think this is the best next step. MR. Okay.
Speaker 177
48:20
Thank you. MR. Are there other questions from committee members? Mr. Ingram, are you?
Speaker 181
48:27
MR. I'm closed for my bill. Thank you. MR. All right. We want to turn now to the audience to see if we have additional persons who have signed up to speak for or
against the bill. Now, Representative Dawn Creekmore, we invite you to come forward to speak for the bill.
Speaker 182
48:55
You're recognized. Thank you. First, I want to thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and the chair and the committee.
Speaker 184
49:01
It brings back some good times, me sitting here at the end of the table. But I really want to thank Representative Ingram for doing this. This is needed to be done. And Representative Wilkins, I agree, I wish we could go further, but we'll take one little bite of the apple at a time and do what we can to protect the public. And Mr. Chair mentioned that every time he hears the story, it saddens your heart. And I have followed the Buskins and heard them speak probably dozens of times, but every
Every single time, it grabs my heartstrings, and I just wish we could do more. I came prepared to show you all kinds of statistics. I'm not going to do that. I will say that recently in the news, we've heard with the East Coast rapists, DNA has brought him from hiding, and he can no longer rape anyone else. When we were presenting the bill two years ago, Curtis Vance was linked to the murder
of Ann Presley because of DNA. And the list just goes on and on. I ask you for a good vote, I thank you for your time, and let's do what we can to prevent one family from going through what the Buskins have been
Speaker 181
50:28
going through. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Creekmore. Are there others who are signed up to speak
for or against? All right. Seeing none, oh, I'm sorry.
Please be seated. State your name for
Speaker 187
50:43
the record. John Wesley Hall. I'm a criminal defense lawyer here in town. I'm not signed up for or against. I have no position either way.
Speaker 188
50:51
Well, then I might ask you why you're at the end
Speaker 187
50:54
of the table. Because the statute, as it's presently drafted, which you're trying to amend, omits It's a probable cause requirement. And one of these days, somebody is going to get arrested on an arrest by an officer without a warrant. And they're going to be able to suppress the DNA that was taken from them because there
was no probable cause finding before the taking of the DNA. Something that's easily remedied can be put in this bill now before you pass it. And I could do it before I leave the room. I noticed that this morning about 9 o'clock in my office when I was looking at the agenda. But once somebody's been convicted, well, that's probable cause. They have been found guilty, they're presumed guilty now, and they can take a DNA sample. If you want to take it from them on arrest, you have to have a judicial finding of probable
cause by a judicial officer, not just an arrest by an officer. And that's a glaring omission that's been in the bill all along, not the bill, the act that's already on the books. You should add that in if you're
Speaker 190
51:56
going to amend the bill now. Add that in now. All
Speaker 192
51:59
right. any questions for Mr. Hall, I believe? All right. Thank you. Yes, Representative Ingram. We will
certainly take a look at that, and if that's something I would like to pass the bill out today, and we can come back and amend the act if that's necessary. We've got
a tremendous wealth of legal minds around this table, not only that are employed by the state. So, Mr. Chairman, that would be my wishes.
All right. All right. Thank you. Now, we've got several members who have signed up
to make a motion, but since Representative Wright was first, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
52:39
Vice Chair. Motion do pass at the proper
time. All right. That is a proper motion. Is there any further discussion among the committee?
All right. We'll proceed to vote. If you would favor the motion, do pass. Would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? Mr. Ingram, your bill has gone out. Thank you. On behalf
of the Buskins and Julie, thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you.
Without objection, we're going to continue to go a little bit out of
order here. Representative Butch Wilkins is here to run House Bill 1359, I believe.
Is that right, Mr. Wilkins? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. You are recognized
for House Bill 1359. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry, it's House Bill 1759. I apologize.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
53:58
House Bill 1759. I thought me or you won misread that, and I didn't have my glasses on, so I thought it might have been me. It was me, Butch. I have with me, I'm going to let him introduce himself, but Scott Baxter, when he begins to speak, He's a lieutenant with the Jonesboro Police Department and a member of the Arkansas Municipal Police Officers Association who are the ones that have actually brought this bill.
This is a bill that deals with assaulting certain people, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers. It praises it. I'll tell you what, I'm going to let Scott
explain this bill if you all don't mind. MR. Go right ahead. Please identify yourself.
Scott Baxter
Unverified
54:48
MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. My name is Scott Baxter. As Representative Wilkins stated, I'm a lieutenant with Jonesboro Police Department and also a member of the Arkansas Municipal Police Association where I chair the legislative committee.
This bill was brought to the legislative committee, the AMPA, by members from all across the state, Several of whom all kind of had the same sentiments on we currently have enhanced penalties for battery on certain people, on certain persons, but there are no enhanced penalties for trying to hurt them, which is the assault, is what we're trying to change here. Society basically puts certain people out there to take care of things for them, like
police officers and firefighters and I think it even includes teachers as far as a certain persons we basically copied what was already in statute in the battery over to assault and what we're asking for is to increase the penalties by one degree for instance if it's a class C misdemeanor it would bump it up if it's only certain persons it would bump it up to a class B misdemeanor it's It's a Class B misdemeanor. If it's on these certain persons, it would bump it up to a Class A misdemeanor, and so on.
Speaker 101
56:14
And that's basically the gist of the bill. Mr. Wilkins, would
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
56:25
you – are you finished with the presentation? Mr. Chair, I've been advised that the impact statement is not ready for this bill. And so it's your call, what we do from here. Well, considering
that our rules say you need an impact study, and it's a House rule, not a committee rule, I can't – this committee can't suspend that rule.
I'm sorry that we don't have that impact study, but
when you get it, we'll be sure to get you up first so you won't have to spend much time waiting on us again. I apologize. Okay. I apologize,
Mr. Chair. No problem. Thank you. Members, we apologize for that. A few housekeeping matters, because I know
we're getting toward the end of the session. Folks have got to go a lot of different places. Let me tell you some of the things we're going to do without objection. We've got a number of shell bills that are sitting on our agenda. We're going to move those shell bills to our deferred list, and if anyone wants that bill
off the list, let us know. That prevents us from having to copy that and bring it back every time in your packet, so that saves staff
some time. With 48 hours notice, we can bring it back or, like we did today, with the permission of the committee, we can
take it off the deferred list. Representative Wilkins is requesting a special order of business on House
Bill 1414 for Thursday. And we're going to do that at 11 o'clock or as soon as we can after 11 o'clock.
We're going to take care of a little business. He's got several people coming, I believe. And so without objection, we'll have a special order of business on Thursday at 11 o'clock. As you all have probably seen, our bill load has increased significantly. I think there are about 40 bills that were signed to our committee. We're going to, as I told you at the beginning of this committee, we're a pretty active committee. We're going to, when possible, work through lunch. Lunch will be brought in like it's going to be brought in today about 1130. We'll take a break, eat quick, and eat at our desks. If you've got to go to different places, we understand that.
But in order for us to get our bills out, we're going to have to spend a little extra time here. And if it's a House bill, of course, in order to get it out of the Senate, which is sometimes more difficult than over here because it's hard to get a quorum on that side sometimes in the committee, you want as much time as possible. So as soon as you can get it out of here, the better chance you have of getting that passed. So we're going to have some days where we meet pretty aggressively and long. So that being said, just govern yourselves accordingly. Representative Stewart is here to run House Bill 1631. Is that right, Representative Stewart?
Representative Stewart, you are recognized for House
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
59:10
Bill 1631. Thank you. 1631 is a concealed handgun bill, but it's just a technical cleanup.
Kind of walk you through it, on line 20 and 21, we're just changing the code. It's the definition of a restaurant, licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages.
In the current law, we have changed it over the years, and it was not picking up the correct code. So those first two changes are strictly just a code correction. Down in Section 2, we're changing, right now a sheriff or chief of police can provide information to the state police on the application of a person for a concealed license. If that sheriff or chief of police has information, they provide a statement before it asks for an affidavit. We're changing that just down to a statement saying that this person has been or likely
could be a threat to himself or the community. It's just real simple, changing it from affidavit to a statement and taking out the part about as a result of the applicant's mental or psychological state. We didn't want the police officer or the chief of police having to be a psychologist. Now it just says if he has demonstrated past patterns of behavior or participation in an incident involving unlawful violence or threats. So it makes it a little more simple. On Section 3, in the beginning, the concealed handgun law required you to register your
guns. The gun you were going to carry had to be registered on your card. And if you lost a gun or disposed of a gun, you had to notify the state police that you changed guns. And they found out that people change guns fairly often. So that has been taken out of the law, but in one section, it was retained. We're just taking that part out about disposal of a handgun. Now it just talks about loss of a license. If you were to lose your license, somehow you can get a license reissued by just writing
a letter to the state police, and they have a form on their website just for that purpose. Fill the form out. And I'll be ready to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Members, any
questions for Mr. Stewart? And this bill
Speaker 169
1:01:39
was written by the state police as a cleanup bill.
Ms. Linkert, you recognize? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Stewart, in Section 2, where
you changed the word affidavit to a statement,
does that statement need to be a written statement? Or can it be just a verbal statement?
I guess it could be the one
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:02:03
since it does not stay I think before it was a written statement and we're just changing from affidavit
to a statement so it doesn't have to be notarized or anything should it contain
the word written well I'm not sure And this is one of those where you're only seeing part of the, since it's a cleanup bill, it's only showing you that little snippet of that section. And I don't see the state police in here to help me this morning. But I can check on that for you and see if the other parts of the statement clarify as a written statement.
And if we need to do that, we can amend it on down the line to get
that part. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:12
Thank you, Ms. Slinkert. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, Mr. Walker. I have
a question for the Chair. Yes, sir. In view of Representative Slinkert's question, is there a process whereby we may, as a committee on something like the point she raised this, make it an amendment by insertion, by unanimous
Speaker 229
1:03:32
vote? Can't do oral amendments, Mr. Walker. Have to be written amendments.
Thank you. No problem. This is the Chair's reading of the bill. Since the statement is submitted, I don't know the matter if it's written or oral because obviously someone has taken that down, so I don't think that it damages your bill either the way, but you're welcome to check
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:03:53
on it. Okay. I would check on it. But I think this is the standard way they've been doing it for 15 years. Thank you.
Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against House Bill 1631? I don't see anyone signed up. So Mr. Stewart, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a
proper ñ Ms. Slinkert has made a motion do pass on House Bill 1631. Proper motion. Seeing none, all those in favor of passing House Bill 1631 indicate by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Stewart. You've passed House Bill 1631.
Members, I'm going to yield the chair to run a bill that
Bill 1438. Chairman Williams, you're recognized for 1438.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is the arbitration cleanup bill that we talked about last week. Mr. Walker had one concern regarding the immunity of the arbitrator. We have added an amendment to clean up that issue. That was actually a good point that he brought out. If you look on page 14, lines 6 through 10, and then again on line 14, you will see that the arbitrator does not have, as we talked about last time, complete immunity, but has qualified immunity. If the arbitrator willfully or wantonly acts, then that person is subject to a suit.
So with that, we explained the bill last time. I'd be happy to take any questions
Speaker 236
1:05:54
if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. Are there
any questions for Chairman Williams? Representative Steele, you're recognized for a
motion. Move, do pass. All right. We have a motion before us. Is there anyone in the committee, in the audience, that wishes to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, our motion is before us.
If you would favor, do pass. Would you say aye? Those opposed? Thank you. Chairman Williams, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If
I might while I'm down here, may I run Senate Bill 242 and Senate Bill 247 also? All right,
Speaker 239
1:06:38
242. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 241
1:06:53
Do you mean another number? I don't see. It's Senate
Bill 242 by Senator Madison and Senate Bill... I think, could that be 247? It's 247. I pulled the wrong one. I apologize. I have to come get the right one. 252 is the other one, and I didn't pull it. I'll take 247 first since we're here. Members, Representative Edwards and I on the House side are members of the Code Revision Commission. You're going to see a number of bills coming through.
Start with Senator Madison. They're all code revision bills. These are just technical cleanups of the code. Our job at Code Commission is to find simple errors in bills that do not change the substantive nature of the bills, but really are technical corrections. And so in 247, that's exactly what you see happening here. We are repealing, revising the statute, repealing references that have been outdated and deleted. So the changes you see often refer to where we have updated the code section.
occasionally you'll see some clarifying language but it's all stylistic changes that have no effect on the substantive nature of the bill alright are there any questions
Speaker 190
1:08:05
for Chairman Williams alright is there anyone
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the bill alright committee it's before us All right, Representative Gillum moves, do pass.
Any further discussion by the committee? If you would favor the motion, would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? Chairman Williams, you have moved your bill out. Now we'll turn to Senate Bill 252. If the chair will
indulge, I need to run up there and grab my bill. I'm sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Senate Bill 252. Again, it's a code
revision bill. These are just technical changes. For example, the first change, we changed the name to make the name correct. The correct state agency's name, there's some style-exex changes. The definition in Section 2 has been moved to Section 4. And I think that's basically all the changes. These, again, all style-exex changes, no changes to
substantive law. All right. Are there questions for Representative Chairman Williams?
All right. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against Senate Bill 252? What is the pleasure of a committee? Representative Slinker. Yes. You recognize? Motion do pass. All right. We have a motion do pass. Committee, the motion is before us. If you would favor the motion, would you say aye?
Aye. Those opposed? Thank you, Chairman Williams. You have passed your bill.
Representative Catlett, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
1:11:01
Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present a bill to 1873
to allow a concealed handgun licensee to keep a handgun in his or her locked vehicle on his or her employer's parking lot. A public or private employer shall not prohibit any employee who is a valid licensee from
possessing any legally owned handgun when the handgun is lawfully possessed and locked inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot. Members, probably one of the biggest reasons why I felt compelled to run this bill is for safety reasons. So many times, Arkansans drive a considerable distance to go to work. And when they get to work, if they have a concealed handgun license to carry a firearm,
when they get to work, they get to the parking lot and realize their company or factory, wherever they may work, has a policy that they can't carry on the premises. So, I'm sorry. I think I lost you. I think I, there he is. But anyway, what this bill does is it disallows private industry,
parking lot areas that employ Arkansans to prohibit them from carrying their concealed, handgun on the parking lot premises, and it outlines
exactly, you know, my wife
says I don't need this thing, so test, test, okay. Anyway, it disallows manufacturers or private business, when they employ Arkansans and they
have a parking lot that they can disallow them to carry a firearm on the parking lot premises. And in the bill it outlines, you know, that it has to be concealed, out of sight, locked up in the vehicle. That's the gist of it. I'll take any questions. Thank you for that
Speaker 254
1:13:21
explanation, Mr. Catlett. Members, any questions for Mr. Catlett? No
questions from the members. Anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against House Bill 1873?
Mr. Catlett, we'd like to close for your bill. I
appreciate a good vote. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a motion? Do pass. That's a proper motion. Motion is do pass, House Bill 1873. Any discussion or questions? Seeing
none, all those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Thank you, Mr. Catlett. You passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you, members. I
will say that's faster than we pass any two gun bills in the history of time that I've been here, for sure.
Members, one other housekeeping matter. At 10 minutes after adjournment or today,
here in this room, we're going to have an informational meeting only on the Prisoner Reform Bill, Senate Bill 750. This meeting, we will not hear from any testimony for or against the bill. We will hear from members of the working group and agency officials if you have any questions. This is going to be a question and answer session only. There's not going to be any presentation.
We will not be voting on the bill, but if you have any questions, please bring your questions. We will have bills here for you and some other additional information. We will make sure we hear all the questions from committee members, and we'll also open it up to any member of the House who may have a question, but we're going to make sure we get all of your questions and answers first. We're hoping that by doing this, we will expedite time when we actually do hear the bill. Our anticipation, if the bill comes out of the Senate, is that we will hear it on Tuesday of next week if all goes well on the Senate side. So please be here with your questions. It is a large bill, and we want to make sure
every member has an opportunity to ask any question and to get that question answered before they have to vote on the bill. Going back to our agenda, Mr. Hammer, are you running your – oh, he left. Okay, let's see. Mr. Vines, are you here
to run Senate Bill 423? Absolutely. All
right. There's a physical impact attached to this bill that's already been handed out, members.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:15:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. I'm here today. This bill is Senate Bill 423. It deals with adding some substances to the controlled substances list. This bill is a Senate bill and passed out of the Senate unanimously. The primary substances that this bill deals with are the bath salts.
Mr. Vines, I think we have an amendment. I apologize. Were you expecting an amendment for that bill, for this bill? Adding sponsor. Adding
Speaker 260
1:16:42
sponsor. I guess I think it only adds sponsor. Yes,
sir, Mr. Chairman. Let's pass that out and get that amendment on the bill real quick here.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this amendment simply adds co-sponsors without objection
Let's see if we can't get this amendment on the bill. Mr. Gilliam makes a motion to accept this amendment. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. All right, Mr. Vines, now you're recognized
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:17:37
for Senate House Bill 423 as amended. Yes, sir. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. As well stated, this amendment
just adds sponsors that we got after the effect, and I appreciate the positive vote on that. The three items addressed in this bill are basalts, K2, and, forgive me, my East Arkansas dialect, salvia divinorum.
These are three substances that have been banned in numerous states. They've been banned by the state health department. they are easily obtained substances that have not been controlled or regulated simply because they fall outside the purview of normal food and drug-type regulations. We bring this bill as part of the Attorney General's package. It's supported by the Department of Health and UAMS, amongst others.
Just to briefly run through each of the individual substances, the bath salts bill is not all bath salts. There are certain bath salts that are now on the market, as you may or may not have seen. I have an article from USA Today. There's been some national press that deals with a certain set of bath salts, and as you'll see from the bill that contained the various substances there in 564-204,
there's a list of those substances. So it would not ban all bath salts. It would just ban certain baths. It wouldn't ban. It would add to the controlled substance list certain bath salts that contain those products. They have street names and store names as Ivory Wave, Purple Wave, Vanilla Sky, and Bliss. And there's even a street name of Meow Meow. So they're getting street cred, if you will. These chemicals are not used as bath salts.
They're being used to smoke, snorted, injected, very harmful substances. Doctors throughout the nation believe these can lead to increased blood pressure, heart rate, agitation, extreme paranoia, and delusion. And in some cases, they've led to suicides and other fatal felonies. Really, it has just come about in the last few years.
It was not on the radar or screen, if you will, until probably the last year to 18 months when the amount of calls to poison control and different law enforcement has skyrocketed. There was federal legislation introduced last month in Congress to ban these substances, substances, and several states are moving quickly to ban these substances also. Among those, our neighbors, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have legislation in the process
of banning these bath salts. This portion of the bill simply adds the six compounds that you see there in that first section that I referenced to the controlled substances list, and I think as you've seen from the Sentencing Commission, it simply has no impact at this time on prisons or sentencing as we're simply adding the substances to that controlled substance list. Moving on in the bill, we also addressed the K2 or the synthetic marijuana.
Again another issue that has greatly arisen in the last several months to a year. It's sold as incense or potpourri, but is now being smoked in lieu of marijuana or other type of materials. It's known as synthetic marijuana, spice, K2, and has other names such as Yucatan fire, skunk, and moon rocks. These substances fall onto the screen of the food and drug because they're manufactured
and brought in the country from China, so there's little, if any, regulation on those. In December 2010 alone, the American Poison Control Center has documented more than 2,500 calls. This is up from 14 total in 2009. The federal DEA has used its emergency power to ban the substance, and 23 states, including hopefully Arkansas, have taken or have pending litigation, not litigation, excuse me, legislation against this.
The State Health Department issued a permanent ban in July, excuse me, a temporary ban in July, and then followed up in October with a permanent ban. And what this bill does in addition to the bath salts would add these K-2 substances to that list of controlled substances. on the controlled substances. The last part of this bill deals with the Salvia dinarinum. It's a plant native to Mexico that is brought in and again is smoked, inhaled,
causes numerous health issues and hallucinations, surge speech, slurred speech, dizziness, kind of a psychedelic effect, I guess, if you will. As of this past September, 24 states had added this substance to the banned and controlled substance list. With that brief overview, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'm happy to have Ms. Laura Shue from the Attorney General's Office here with me, as again, this is part of the Attorney General's
package, and I would yield the microphone to her for
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:23:34
any comments she might have at this time. Thank you, Representative Vines. My name is Laura Hsu, and I'm an assistant attorney general in the criminal department at General McDaniel's office, and we appreciate Representative Vines and Senator Malone and their work on this bill. We also worked with the pharmacy services and the health department and the poison control people at UAMS to help us get the proper language and make sure that we had all the exact chemical names and all the exact wording that we needed for this bill.
The experts at the Health Department and Poison Control all agree that we need to schedule these substances as quickly as possible, and that's why we also have the emergency clause on this bill. And if there are any questions, I'll be glad to try to
help. Thank you, Ms. Hsu. Mr. Vines, members, any questions for either one of them? Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:24:27
Walker, you recognize for a question? I'd just like to know how the concept of salt can be applied in view of the fact
that salt is so universally used in our society. And I don't see a definition that would separate ordinary salt that we use in ordinary food preparation and consumption from the salt here it simply says salts and that's on line 33 I guess the other concern that I have is that at one point when I was much younger just glue and shoe polish
would produce a high and I guess what you're trying to do is have everything that would put a person in a position where he or she may be able to be high or inebriated would be subject to control. Is that what you're trying to do? Let me take
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:25:27
that first part on the salts. This is not stuff you'd want to put on your French fries. These salts are limited to the six compounds there that are listed. And to my understanding, again, I'm not a physicist or a chemist or anything.
I don't think these compounds would be akin to, you know,
regular table salt or anything like that. The second question I will defer to Ms. Shua. And with regard to the second
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:25:54
question, I think this bill, we're not talking about glue or paint thinner or other things that are legally sold. We're talking about substances that are currently sold legally that are being marketed as bath salts, but they're really not for bath salts. They're for hallucinogenic purposes, and they get around the FDA requirements
by selling them as bath salts or plant food, but they're not used as plant food or
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:26:21
bath salts. Could I get these salts at a place like Bed Bath & Beyond? It's
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:26:28
my understanding that these are being sold as bath salts online, at head shops, and at convenience stores. What
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:26:33
about a place like Bed Bath & Beyond where they have all kinds of salts?
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:26:39
I don't believe so. We haven't been notified by any of the retail establishments other than convenience stores.
All right. Ms. Linkert, you recognize for a question? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess following along with what Representative Walker said, how would I know as a consumer? I received a gift basket, and it contained bath salts and some other things that was made in China. How would I know, because I don't read labels very well, how would I know as a consumer if that was the wrong kind of bath salts?
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:27:23
Well, I guess what we're trying to do here is to ban these substances, and these are just now reaching Arkansas, So hopefully they're not currently in the gift baskets that you're buying at Bed Bath & Beyond. They're not being sold as bath salts in traditional places where you would buy bath products. They're being sold in convenience stores and online. And we're trying to ban these before they become a problem. We're trying to be more proactive as these things are coming from the Gulf states and becoming a problem.
We've received calls from law enforcement that they're starting to see these here in Arkansas. all, and so we're trying to be proactive and ban them before they
get into other products. I have one more, if I may, Mr. Chair. We were talking about salts, and I don't know all the chemical names and things, but now this does not include Ebsen salts that are sold on the shelves of Walmart or other places. And one other one regarding, I don't know all the chemical names, as I said,
but about the salvia, you know, there's salvia plants. I don't know that I could plant in my
flower bed. This derivative or whatever this is, what is that? Salvia
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:28:46
is a part of the mint family of plants, and within the genus salvia, there are over 900 species. of salvia, this is just one particular species. It's only found in Mexico, as far as we know.
This isn't the type of salvia that is in nurseries or landscaping. And so anything that's currently in people's yards or at nurseries is not this type of salvia that we're banning.
Speaker 268
1:29:15
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Eubanks, you recognize for a
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:29:20
question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stepped out for a moment, so I don't know if I've missed this, but is there any chance that an unsuspecting consumer could actually buy this and put it in their bath and have
any ill effects from it, or does it have to be smoked or injected or snorted
Speaker 285
1:29:37
or whatever for, or do we even know? And I would
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:29:41
have to defer to someone from the health department or poison control as far as specific questions about the effects of it if it was put in their bath as a bath salt, but I assume that if it's giving people hallucinogenic effects by being ingested, it's probably not good for you in any fashion. Thank you. There's someone from the
health department here. Would you please state your name?
Speaker 286
1:30:03
Yes, Jerry Jones, Department of Health. To address you the issue, it has to be ingested into the system. And for your concerns about bath salts, these people are smart. They just put this as a proprietary bath salt. But this is not something you're going to buy at the grocery store or Bed, Bath & Beyond or at Dillard's. It's going to be at the convenience store, the head shops. That's who they market it to, Internet. You don't have to worry about it. If you get a gift basket for Dillard's, you're going to have any of this in it.
Thank you. Any additional questions? Any questions, members? Ms. Stinker, you look like you've got another question. We can come
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:30:54
back if you want to think about it. Okay. Mr. Walker, you recognize? Now, if one accidentally has some of these proscribed ingredients in his or her possession, is that person subject to search and seizure, or is that person subject to some criminal
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:31:09
punishment? Now, Mr. Walker, all this is doing is the intent and purpose of this bill is just to add those substances to that controlled substance list. There's no criminalization
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:31:25
or sentencing or anything part of this bill. Well, as I understand it, do you agree that a person in possession of a controlled substance is subject to criminal punishment? Sure. So if I accidentally come into possession of some of this, then I'm
subject to an arrest for being in possession of a controlled substance.
Laura Hsu
Unverified
1:31:48
Is that correct? Yes. But what we're trying to do here is to ban these substances so they're not even coming into our state. If they're already here, we're going to get them removed from the shelves so that they're not being sold at head shops or convenience stores. And so while there may be some criminal liability, if you do become in possession of it, I guess if you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:32:12
accidentally become in possession of it, you would have a defense. Well, wouldn't it be better to have a law which prohibits the commercial transfer into the state of this kind of property?
I don't know if you can do that under the comers' cause, but, I mean, why put citizens at risk for being in control of these substances when they may not be on notice of their being on a controlled substance list? Well, I think that's what we're trying
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:32:42
to do with this bill, is bring attention to the fact and ban them on the front end. And these are not substances, to my understanding, that are being brought in from your major retailers being trucked into the state to various places.
These are the type of substances that are, for lack of a better term, sold in back alleys and behind clothes, you know, I guess now over the Internet, those type things. And we're just trying to be proactive on the state's end and ban them on the front end. So I understand your question, but I
Speaker 292
1:33:12
don't think we're to that, and hopefully we'll prevent
that with this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Does that mean when you're talking about the ban, does that mean that the Department of
Health can ban these substances from the shelves? I mean, who does that? And how are these things brought in? I mean, I don't understand how a store could put these things out there on the shelf for sale if ‑‑ I guess my question is, can that ban be done by the Department of Health, the ban for the sale of these types of things?
Speaker 286
1:34:01
I don't know if I made sense. We already have them banned, but I think what the Senate and Representative is trying to do is to fetch this in law, which gives it more force, would be subject to criminal penalties other than just a misdemeanor or whatever the criminal penalties are for that possession, for that amount of the controlled substance. So I think this just gives it more force and gives it more bite into the law. Thank you.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:34:33
Mr. Hammer, you recognize? Thank you, sir. I just wanted to clarify something. On page one, down at line 34, because I don't want my salt taken away either. I just want to make sure of something here. On page one, line 34, it says, with the following structure. In other words, all that above that and everything that's about to come behind it narrows the scope of the product that we're we're talking about because it has to fit within that tightly defined group on the basis
of that statement right there, right? Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And
Speaker 294
1:35:11
then over on page 2, line 35, that whole line right there reiterates that everything that follows that statement on
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:35:22
page 3, again, narrows the scope. So we're not talking about your basic salt here. We're talking about salt that is intended to do harm, which is what we're trying to achieve by this bill, to limit it down to that narrow item or relatively few items that's doing the harm that's out there.
Am I correctly interpreting that? You bet. You are. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Members, any additional questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for
or against House Senate Bill 423? I don't have anyone signed up. anyone in the audience? Seeing
no one, Mr. Vines, would you like to close for your bill? I'm
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:36:04
closed, I guess. We have a motion. You don't have to
worry about it. Mr. Wilkins has already indicated he'd like to make a motion.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move do pass on Senate Bill 423. That's a proper
motion. Any question or discussion? As amended. As amended. Seeing none, the motion before us is passage of Senate Bill 423 as amended. All
in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Representative Vines. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:36:33
Chairman and Committee. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Members, let's have a little roll call here. Let's see who's here. We're trying to get an idea.
I know we've got Senator Flowers and Senator Landrieu here to run a bill. Any members have a bill on our calendar that you want to run today? Mr. Hammer, would you
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:36:54
like to run your bill today? Mr. Chair, I requested yesterday that that be moved to the deferred list.
There's a couple other bills coming behind it. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Any member have another bill after this one we want to run today? Senator Flowers, you can make your way
to the table. We're going to recognize you next. We have an amendment on this bill.
Oh, that's right. I got a bill, don't I?
Okay. Members, this is Senate Bill 307. Members, we have lunch that's ready
for us, but if we don't have one additional bill after this, you're still welcome to have your lunch, but we may not have to
Speaker 303
1:37:51
work longer after that. Mr. Chair, may I please get a copy of my bill?
Oh, sure. We'll get that for you. Staff will get that for you. Thank you.
guys ready to run your bill? MS. Yes, Mr. Chair, we are. I understand that there are at least one, maybe two amendments that will be presented. The amendment, though, that has been passed out is not the one.
That's not the correct amendment? Oh, let's see if we
have another one. I'm sorry. Let's see. And I believe one is coming over from the House within minutes.
Speaker 308
1:40:22
We're checking right now, Senator. Members, let's do this.
While we get these amendments correct, why don't we pause? We've got lunch back here. Why don't you guys grab a sandwich, and we'll get right back at it. Just a minute once we figure this out. Sandwiches are
in my office, guys. I'm sorry. I was trying to find one myself.
The one I was thinking of was the other day, and then this one, after talking to Robert last night,
Speaker 309
1:41:27
he told me this is not good because it should not be an exaction of money. Is that the one y'all
Speaker 321
1:41:34
want? It shouldn't be an exaction of money. This is stated 3-1, but the one we
Speaker 306
1:41:39
handed out stated 3-8. Yeah, but this is the one, but we have another one that's coming from the house that I just, within the last 20 minutes, asked Brent Gasper.
So you don't want him to tear that one at
Speaker 325
1:41:53
all? Okay, right. Thank you. Oh, God. .
Unknown speaker
1:42:45
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
you.
But if we can reconvene, I'm sorry. We now have the proper amendment on Senate Bill 307, I'm sorry. Let's see if we can't get the amendment on the bill. Representative Steele,
I recognize you, since it's your amendment, would you like to make a motion? Which
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
2:03:37
one? I think we've finally decided on the proper amendment.
This would be – well, we don't have a number on it.
Mr. Rawson, does this particular amendment have a number? Look at the time at the bottom, guys. It should be – BPG 369. Yeah, 369. BPG 369, very last
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:04:08
line, bottom left corner. Other two. Other two you can put in the trash. That's right. This simply amends – should I be recognized to explain my amendment? Go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This simply amends a few aspects of the bill. it changes a violation to a Class C misdemeanor, as we were concerned previously that a warrant
couldn't be issued for a violation, following a violation. It also changes a Class B and C misdemeanor. If you fail to appear for a Class B or C misdemeanor, it would now make it a B misdemeanor. And it leaves the Class A misdemeanor failure to appear as a Class A misdemeanor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, you heard
an explanation of the amendment. Any questions for Representative Steele? Seeing none, Representative Steele moves adoption of Amendment No. 1 to Senate Bill 307.
All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Senator Flowers, you are now recognized
to present Senate Bill 307 as amended. MS. Thank you,
Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members. I welcome Representative Steele's amendment. I appreciate that and say thanks. He explained it very well, and I think it's pretty clear that what I was attempting to do to lessen the severity of an individual who gets a Class C misdemeanor who fails to
appear in court from a lifelong problem of getting employment, even with a minimum wage job has now been sufficiently addressed. So I would ask for your support and your passage of this bill, and I'd be glad to answer any questions. MR. Thank you, Senator. Would Senator Landrode like to add
anything? SEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Only, if needed,
I'd be happy to answer questions, but great. Thank you. Members, any questions for either Senator?
Seeing no questions, we're going to go to the audience. Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill as amended? Yes, sir. You may. Please state your name and tell us who
you're with. I'm Judge. Judge for Hot Springs County. Judge, welcome to the committee. Thank you. Judge, wait a minute. Let's see if we can get your mic turned on. If you push that little button that says push right there, we can all hear you better.
Speaker 333
2:06:35
I'm sorry. There you go. Thank you, Judge. I'm sorry. I'm here also on behalf of the District Judges Association and the District Court Clerks
Speaker 334
2:06:43
Association, who both, by conference call yesterday, made a determination that they oppose this bill. Gentlemen, I wanted to just throw out some items for your consideration. Look, I told the senator, we're going to do whatever you all tell us to do. I mean, that's the way the system works. But the first question that we have is, is why do anything at all? I understand the principle of proportionality.
I teach proportionality, but we have to examine the reasons why we punish people and what purpose is being served by this change, first. Secondly, if it isn't broken, then generally there's not a good reason to fix something. And unless there's some determination that this is broken, why would we be wanting to fix it? Now, I understand there can be abuses in any system at any point. You should bear in mind that in Hot Springs District Court, we have 6,000 pending, active, failed-to-appear warrants out of the year 2010.
So it isn't like this is some 10% of our cases. We hear 60,000 cases a year. It isn't like it's some minimal problem that we're dealing with. Secondly, I believe, and this is based upon, I think this will be my 27th year as a judge, the less discretion you give the court, the more problems that can create. Sometimes it can make the problem more difficult and perhaps even more harsh when you deprive the trial judge of discretion.
Most important of all, though, is it's like the analogy I thought of on the way over here this morning was if I tell my children to be home by curfew, be in by midnight Friday night, or you're going to be grounded for a month. Now, that doesn't seem to be in proportion, but if I tell them then as an alternative, be in by midnight or for every minute you're late, you're going to have to be in a minute earlier on Saturday night and the big party is Friday night, they may make a choice that it is worth doing one as opposed to doing the other.
For example, being here this morning, it would have been cheaper for me to miss court and pay my fine and come over here and do something that I believe to be more important, and I'll face it when I get back. So it sounds like we're trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken. I might also mention that the cost to implement this, there are 177 district courts right now. Six of them have state-run computer programs, state-provided. And I assume if this goes into effect that someone's going to pay to modify at least those six. The question would be for the other 171, they're either going to have to be,
The warrants will have to be modified by hand, or someone will have to go in and change those computer systems to print those warrants. This isn't like it's one or two warrants a day. I get stacks of these a week of people that fail to appear. Potential loss of revenues, whether that's important or not important to the state and the city and the county, it all comes back to this. The whole thing can be avoided by merely being in court when you're supposed to be. just like all of us have to do.
It isn't a problem if you meet your responsibility. Now, as far as Class A or Class B, you know, the difference in the fine, the difference in the potential jail time, other than that, I don't know that there's any particular reason why it makes a difference. It's Class A now. The proposal, as I understand the amendment that we just received, is that it would be a Class B. Well, if that's the case, it begs the question, why do you fail to appear at all?
Gentlemen, I think that's really all that I – the only issues I wanted to give for your consideration is if it isn't broke, we ask that you not fix it. Thank
you, Judge. Any questions of the judge? Representative Hammers, your question for the judge? Go right ahead. Your Honor, if
Speaker 294
2:10:49
somebody is not able to appear either in your court or another court in
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:10:54
the state, what do you consider are legitimate reasons for them not to be able to appear in your court?
And what measure of leniency do you show on somebody if they were to call and say, I can't make it to court because, can you educate us, please, on what those are?
Speaker 334
2:11:13
It happens all the time. In fact, I happen to have gotten the numbers. We recalled 500 and some, and I can give you the exact number, 500 and some fail-to-appear warrants that were issued. Now, that's not including the people that contact us beforehand and say, I have a health reason. I have to be in a superior court.
We're district, so if they have to be in circuit, that would take precedence. If they have to be in U.S. district court, obviously that's going to take precedence. uh so not so first those that contact ahead of time and do what is normal ask for continuance and here's my reason it's in the sound discretion of the judge to grant that continuance and you never get to this point these are the people that simply don't appear now of those that simply don't appear if they present a valid reason i mean if your wife's having a baby i remember one time
the only time i can remember missing a court appearance my wife was having a baby and the Judge asked, but there are always going to be good reasons not to, you know, that things happen. We understand that. You must use your discretion. And I would say, coincidentally, we always do. I might mention in Hot Springs, failure to appear is a standard fine of $240. If you're found guilty, we fine you $200. It's a class A misdemeanor. It's punishable by up to a year in general, $1,000 fine. I don't, that's unheard of.
I mean, no one does that, but we have the potential. It's that you're facing something serious if you don't appear.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:12:50
Nichols, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Switzer, I think you're saying there's not a problem, so why fix it? But I think if your organization had been active on the Senate side or even at this committee
when we first considered this bill, we have heard of problems that are associated with the failure to appear. So I think in respect for Senator Flowers, she had laid out what I think is good justification for a change in the law, and then you guys come in at the last moment not wanting us to change anything. So, anyway, I'd just like to bring that point out, but wouldn't you agree that if you have
a problem with this law that you should have been involved on the Senate side in our last hearing because what we've tried to do with these amendments is to improve this law, and I think we have. And you can comment on that if you desire. Well, yes, sir. I mean, it's always
Speaker 334
2:13:57
better to be on the front end than it is to be on the back end. The truth of the matter is I didn't get the amendment handed to me until I started walking up here just a few moments ago. So that's the first that I even saw or heard of it in the first instance. In the second instance, so truth of the matter is, Representative, I got a call yesterday afternoon
and asked if I could come over this morning and speak on this. So I am here. You're right. It would be much better to be on the front end. In fact, I would ask that you ask your district judges and see if they believe that there's a need to make any modifications. And two, representatives, there are always going to be, you know, I'd be less than honest if I didn't say there are going to be abuses of discretion on occasion. It happens. I know it happens.
I've been a judge for a long time. There are also remedies for those abuses of discretion. If someone is harmed by this law, there are remedies for that. For example, if it was as a result of a background check, I'm suggesting perhaps modify the ACIC rules. Don't change what's been an existing law for quite some time that appears to work, that is going to be expensive to make changes in, when there may be other alternatives for addressing that isolated instance of an issue, you know, that may have been a problem.
And remember, too, gentlemen, if you go to court when you're supposed to, this isn't a problem. And that's kind of what we're missing in part of this is just show up when you're supposed
Speaker 346
2:15:35
to. Take care of your business, and this doesn't become a problem. Mr. Nichols, do you have
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:15:45
any additional questions? No, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wright, you recognize? Thank you,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
2:15:51
Mr. Chair. Judge, isn't it true with this bill, you're still able to punish somebody for failure to appear, correct?
Yes. Okay. You're still able to fine them, correct? Yes. You're still able to issue a warrant for them, correct? Yes. You're still able to suspend their driver's license, correct? Yes. Okay. Isn't it also true that district courts have discretion whether or not to grant a continuance? Yes. Okay. So if somebody is caught up, out of state, has car trouble, good legitimate reasons, a judge can still say tough and issue a warrant. Is that correct? They could, yes. Thank you. So I'll have it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Walker, you recognize?
Not after Mr. Wright's questions. Mr. Wilkins, you're recognized. Representative Wright asked 95% of my questions. Judge, I just heard you
say no one does this, talking about the, I guess, the extent of, I'm up here. Oh, I
Speaker 355
2:16:50
kept looking for the voice. I'm sorry. I'm the
tall, dark, handsome one up here.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
2:16:59
Judge, you're used to sitting up here looking down. We understand.
You said no one does this in your
earlier testimony. So why do you need such harshness, I guess, would be the question I would ask. You talked about proportionality, but then the statement that you made about the ability to be harsh suggests to me that, in fact, it defeats your own statement about proportionality.
Speaker 334
2:17:32
Representative Wilkins, I understand exactly what you're saying, and it may, at least on its face, appear to be so. All I'm saying, though, is that in the proportionality argument, if you make something serious enough that it gets people's attention,
Speaker 358
2:17:49
it'll keep their attention. If it becomes, I
Speaker 346
2:17:53
mean, you're right, if Class B, Class A, Class C, you know, make it
Speaker 334
2:17:58
a pat on the back and a $50 bill. You know, you make it whatever you all choose to make it, but the more significant and serious it is, the more likely it is that not only us, but everyone that we're involved with in district court, which I've noticed sometimes they don't seem to think and act the same way that a lot of other people think.
And I'm not talking about traffic court, I'm talking about district
Speaker 346
2:18:25
court, will get their attention and hold their attention and not appear now as serious.
Speaker 238
2:18:32
And it should be. All right. I won't
belabor this, but maybe over tea and crumpet sometime I'd like to talk to you about the statement you just
made. Because I'm sure that it's well-founded, but it sounded a little scary. I teach tonight, and Representative, come
Speaker 337
2:18:47
and you can tell my class anything you'd like. I know they'd love to learn it.
Speaker 247
2:18:53
All right. And you teach what now? Criminal law and business
Speaker 128
2:18:59
law. I teach theology and Old Testament. Maybe we ought to swap for
Speaker 330
2:19:04
one night. Thank you. Mr. Branscombe,
Representative David L. Branscum
Unverified
2:19:06
you recognize? Thank you, Chair. This is probably for
Speaker 229
2:19:11
Senator Flowers. With the amendments that are added, tell me what we're changing in your bill and leave out the alphabet. I don't need the A, B, Cs, and Ds, just
Speaker 306
2:19:22
simplistic terms. Thank you, Representative Branscombe, for that question.
Basically, what this bill proposes is changed with the amendment is the severity and the harshness that presently exists in the law on somebody who fails to appear in court, say, for example, on a speeding ticket going 15 miles over the speed limit. Under the present law, what happens or what can happen at the discretion of the court or if they, after being issued a failure to appear or picked up on a warrant, taken to jail and simply pay the fine associated with first the speeding ticket and the failure to appear, what happens is it goes on their record as a conviction.
And so with that, the harshness sets in, and a person who has simply a minimum wage job, depending on what it is, in the case that happened with my constituent, he was a security officer who had to have a certification, and he lost it. So he lost that minimum wage job because of the severity that comes with the classification
of a failure to appear on a speeding ticket. So I'm changing that to
make it less severe, less harsh, just by one degree.
MR. Mr. Braskin, does that answer your question? Mr. Hammer, you
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:21:04
recognize. MR. Thank you, sir. Senator Flowers, two questions, if you don't mind. You cited something as, and this is not your word but my word, minimal as a speeding ticket.
What is the worst thing that could happen that somebody could also exercise what you're asking us to do in failure to appear? If a speeding ticket is down here on the low end, what's the worst thing that could happen up here on this end that somebody could fail to appear and they would get the same treatment as somebody who's being asked to be
Speaker 360
2:21:43
forgiven because of a speeding ticket?
Well, okay. And I hate to refer to the alphabet, but when we talk about classification of offenses and misdemeanors, a C is the lowest misdemeanor.
So we're talking about the most minimal offense or infraction in the law, save and accept the violation that is lower than that. And I don't want to confuse you with the D misdemeanor because most people are not aware of it, but there are in our law, in our code, a couple of citations and misdemeanor class Ds. But anyway, a C, let me see what else might be a C.
It could be littering, maybe, except that that punishment might be higher. The fine may be higher. It could be maybe a noise ordinance. Most of your city ordinances, and I just can't, spitting on the sidewalk, I don't know. Or it would not, I think maybe running a red light possibly is a class C, but it won't be the DWI.
Let's take for comparison a DWI, first offense. That's a class A misdemeanor, okay? Now, under this statute, that DWI offender who fails to appear in court, the failure to appear for that person is a Class A misdemeanor, the same as the original offense. So there is no more severeness to that person being cited for failure to appear, but it is for the person who's charged with the speeding ticket.
And that is what I'm trying to correct, because the DWI, of course, is a more serious offense, you know, by our public policy, by how we have classified our penalties. And so it makes sense to me that our public policy should not take one of the least infractions of our law and have the effect on a person who fails to appear in court of some liberty that's taken away from them for the rest of their life.
Because right now, even if we say, and I talk to the judge about expungement or sealing a record or either pardoning an offense, right now, under our law, we don't know what that really means. Okay. And so, you see what I'm saying? And all I'm trying to do is take – to
make sense of our law.
Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Mr.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:25:12
Nichols, you recognize for a question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Flowers and Senator Lamoureux, were you all aware that the Municipal League is
not opposing your bill? Well, right, because when Mark Hayes was here the other day, The only problems
they had with the bill, we've corrected by Representative Still's amendment, which was to keep the violation offense when one fails to appear on it as a Class C.
Speaker 306
2:25:42
We fixed their concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 101
2:25:44
Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Still, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This isn't
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
2:25:52
one of those questions that I'm asking just so the committee can hear the answer. I'm actually curious to know the answer. Within the confines of, say, a Class B misdemeanor, could a district judge still assess the same fine that they're currently doing under the Class A? In other words, is a B capped too low to where you could not assess the same fine
as you're assessing now in your district court for payers to appear? In fact, we could actually do more. Okay. So you could – even if this bill is passed, if someone gets –
Speaker 365
2:26:24
runs a stoplight, you could actually assess the same fine you're currently doing or more?
Yes. Okay. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Seeing no additional questions
from the members, we're going to go to the public. Anyone else here want to speak for or against the bill? Roger, you? No. All right.
Seeing no one in the audience, Ms. – oh.
Speaker 334
2:26:48
I just mentioned two things. Sure. Go right ahead. One is DWI is actually an unclassified misdemeanor. It's really not a Class A. It has the same effect as a Class A, but in the statute it's unclassified.
Speaker 338
2:27:00
And Class As are reported to ACIC, but Class Bs are not. Thank you, Judge.
Senator Flowers, would you like to close for your bill?
MS. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Thank
you. MR. Members, we have a motion by Vice Chair Wilkins of do pass. Yes. MR. As amended, any additional question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing Senate Bill 307 as amended indicate by saying aye. Aye. MR. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator. You passed
your bill. Members, we're going to hear House Bill 1859 by Representative Slinkert.
Oh, yeah, we'll take time for you. We've got an amendment that we're going to pass out right now.
Members, while we're passing out the amendment to House Bill 1859, let's see if we can't get it on. She represented Slinkert's amendment, so I'm going to recognize her, and I'm going to
– Representative Slinkert, would you like for
us to go ahead and add this amendment? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. All those in favor of Representative Slinkert's motion of amending House Bill 1859 with amendment number one indicate by
saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right. Representative Slinkert, your bill has now been amended. You are recognized to present House
Bill 1859 as amended. Okay. Whoops. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. And members of the committee, this bill was brought to me by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and I have with me Keith Kavanis, who will help me answer any questions you
may have. This bill does have several technical changes as well as some other law changes regarding the district courts in Arkansas, and I would yield to Mr. Kavanis to answer any questions for you. MR. Thank you, Ms. Slinkert. Members,
do you have any questions for Mr. Kavanis or for Representative Slinkert? I'll give you a few minutes to
Chair
Unverified
2:30:17
look through them. Representative Nichols, do you recognize?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:30:21
MR. Just a very quick look. We're not dealing with the same issue we just dealt with
Speaker 376
2:30:29
with Representative Flowers, Bill, are we? MR. Nothing about failure to appear
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:30:34
in here, Representative Nichols. Well, I see line 28. That's what led me to that. Line 28 on which page? First page. Well, on the right bill is it 307. Make sure
you're looking at House Bill 1859. Oh, I was looking at, excuse me.
Yeah, that's all right. 1859. Members, any additional questions? Seeing no questions, or is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1859? We don't have anyone signed up.
We'll come back to the members. Any additional questions? I know
we're – I don't want to move too fast so you don't have your questions answered.
Speaker 330
2:31:25
Seeing none, Representative Schlinker, would you like to
close for your bill? Based upon that, I'm closed. Thank you for
a good vote. Thank you. I have a motion by Representative Rogers of Dupas. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing House Bill 1859 to indicate by saying aye. Aye. Congratulations, Representative
Schlinkert. You have passed your bill. Members, we're going to hear now Senate Bill 310, and I will yield the chair to run Senate Bill 310.
Speaker 290
2:32:03
Chairman Williams, you're recognized on Senate Bill 310. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Members, Senate Bill 310
is another bill offered by the Administrative Office of the
Courts. When we passed Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, we found that the provisions with regard to paying special judges were in conflict with current law.
So this bill is simply to amend the statutes to bring the special judges' salaries into compliance with Amendment 80. And I have with me J.D. Gingrich with
the Administrative Office of the Courts who can help
Speaker 177
2:32:55
me with any questions she may have. Members,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:33:01
are there questions? MR. Representative Walker. MR. Mr.
Gingrich, let me understand this. The Supreme Court may appoint a special judge who is retired in a special circumstance where
there is either no judge or a judge is incapacitated for one reason or another. Is it the intent of this bill to compensate that special judge in the amount authorized by law? Mr. Walker, the
Speaker 383
2:33:38
provisions that relate to compensation for special judges are already in place, And so this keeps the exact same level of compensation for all of those current scenarios.
It could be active circuit judges or district judges who receive no compensation. It could be a retired judge or it could be an attorney who is elected by the bar at the time no judge shows up for court. That's a provision allowed in Amendment 80. So all of the language in the bill that makes corrections attempts to clarify the seven different statutory provisions that relate to this. And the only substantive change is on page three at the top, and that relates to the compensation paid to attorneys who are elected.
And what it does is make that salary, that compensation level, the same as that which is paid to retired judges. So it clarifies that everybody that's going to be serving who's entitled to compensation will be paid at
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:34:50
the same rate. Well, I guess that's what I
was leading. Maybe I don't read well. It says a licensed attorney who has elected a special judge may request compensation at one-half the rate as fixed by law
for a regularly elected circuit judge. Yes, sir. So he doesn't get compensated at the same rate as a
Speaker 383
2:35:12
circuit judge. No one does except the elected circuit judge. But what this will do, if you'll look back at Section 3, in Section 3 you'll see the compensation that's paid to a retired judge, and it says one-half of the rate as fixed for a regularly elected judge. So it makes them the same. A retired judge and attorney would be paid at the same rate, which is one-half of the salary of an elected circuit judge.
That's really the intent of the bill is to make them be
Speaker 241
2:35:49
paid the same. Are there other questions? All right. Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to
Speaker 252
2:36:04
speak for or against the bill. Committee, what is your pleasure? Do pass, Mr. Chairman. All right. Chairman Williams moves, do pass.
It is before us. We're ready to vote. All those who would favor, would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? Thank you. Chairman Williams, you have passed out your 13th bill for
today. Members, unless someone else has business before this committee, we are adjourned. Thank you for your extended stay with us. We appreciate you being here.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1006
HB1563
HB1759
HB1631
HB1438
SB247
SB252
HB1873
SB423
SB307
SB307 Continued
HB1859
SB310
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 28
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 51
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 64
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 80
Speaker 86
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 128
Representative Keith M. Ingram Chair
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 141
Speaker 5
Bud Buskin
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 157
Amy Ford
Unverified
Speaker 169
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 173
Speaker 177
Speaker 181
Speaker 182
Speaker 184
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Speaker 190
Speaker 192
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Scott Baxter
Unverified
Speaker 101
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 94
Speaker 229
Speaker 233
Speaker 236
Speaker 239
Speaker 241
Speaker 234
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
Speaker 254
Speaker 260
Laura Hsu
Unverified
Speaker 268
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 285
Speaker 286
Speaker 292
Speaker 294
Speaker 303
Speaker 305
Senator Stephanie Flowers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 308
Speaker 309
Speaker 321
Speaker 306
Speaker 325
Speaker 232
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Speaker 333
Speaker 334
Speaker 346
Speaker 355
Speaker 358
Speaker 238
Speaker 337
Speaker 247
Speaker 330
Representative David L. Branscum
Unverified
Speaker 360
Speaker 365
Speaker 338
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 376
Speaker 290
Speaker 383
Speaker 252