House State Agencies and Govt'l Affairs Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
0:00
December 31st of 2019, I believe, or 2018, let me see what my – December 31st of 2018. So this is strictly a resolution to bring efficiency to government. I think we all know the need to operate as efficient as we can. I had a fiscal impact study done on this, and by abolishing these two offices, we can
save $1,998,616 a year, almost $2 million a year. Let me say first that I have no ax to grind with the Lieutenant Governor or the Land Commissioner. I have not had an opportunity to meet the Land Commissioner, but certainly I've met The lieutenant governor and Governor Dar is very personable and likable. And, again, this is not toward any individual.
It's just trying to bring efficiency to the office. You know, in the last 10 years, the lieutenant governor's office budget has more than doubled. I think 10 years ago it was about $140,000. And this year it's $373,000 and some change, of which the lieutenant governor has pledged that he is going to decrease that budget by 8.8%. The lieutenant governor's duties, as you all are very aware of, are simply two things.
One, to preside over the Senate, and secondly, to serve as governor when the governor is out of state. In order to do that, we have a staff of four and three part-time people. There are seven people in that office, and I'm not sure what they do. And I would challenge anyone here to find out, you know, what it is they do. You all have heard me say before, I'm old enough. I've been around here long enough that I can remember when the lieutenant governor used to go home with the legislature.
In the Constitution, this is a designated a part-time position that has crept into a full-time position with a large budget. The land commissioner's office, under the fiscal impact study that was done, we could reduce a number of positions. We would give the authority to the legislature to place the land commissioner's agency under the proper authority under the state of Arkansas.
It could be DF&A. It could be another agency. But there are substantial savings. We think that we could decrease. There are 45 people that work in the land commissioner's office. That is not counting the land commissioner himself, and we believe that we could decrease that by 13 positions, and again, their capital outlay, the land commissioner's office currently houses people outside of the capital.
They are renting space in what used to be the Comcast building, and we have not been able to get what that rent is. We sort of took a guess that that's probably running somewhere around $100,000 a year out of their capital outlay budget. So when you add up those savings, when you look at the efficiencies that could be created, I think that this brings merit to take it to the people of the state of Arkansas and let them decide whether they want to continue as is
or whether they want to see tax dollars spent in a more prudent, efficient manner. And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
4:11
Okay, Representative Ingram, I've been around long enough, I remember a couple of attempts to amend the Arkansas Constitution or to develop
a new constitution, excuse me. We had a constitutional convention, and I just don't know, and so if you know, I appreciate the information.
How did the convention handle these types of offices, the lieutenant governor and the land commissioner? It seems like I've always recalled that there's been discussions about we have too many constitutional officers, and one of them was the land commissioner's office. That's more of an administrative type of function. But we have a treasurer, we have an auditor, and we end up with several constitutional officers. Do you recall how these constitutional conventions dealt with the land commissioner's office?
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
5:04
No, sir, I don't, but I see some people in the room that might have firsthand knowledge
Speaker 11
5:13
of how it was dealt with. I guess he doesn't remember as well. So,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:18
no, sir, I don't remember. Okay. Now, why do you think that your
proposal should be one of the three that we send to the people over the others?
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
5:30
Well, I think that I'm sure that you all have heard all manner and fine proposals.
I think an opportunity to save $2 million a year is a substantial amount of money that could either go back to the taxpayers in forms of cuts or could be used to do other things to benefit this state rather than as is currently being done. And I guess as a businessman, you tend to always look at your business model.
I think there's no static way business evolves. And we hear many times that we want to run government like a business. And so I think it's time, I mean, I think it's always very good to look inward, review the operations, and see how you can save the taxpayers money. So from that standpoint, I think that we need to give our people, the citizen state of Arkansas, an opportunity to decide whether they want to continue to maintain these constitutional officers in a manner such as
is being done presently or whether we can do it more efficiently.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
6:56
I believe Representative Hutchinson is next
on the list. Thank you. I started to call you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, you've been promoted, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ingram, for your concern on spending less in government. My concern is if a governor would pass away during this session and the president pro temp became governor,
It seems like that would make a mess
of separation of powers and executive branch and legislative branch blending together, the same guy running both branches. So you'd be holding two offices at once? No, ma'am.
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
7:44
No more so than if the president is incapacitated. I don't think the vice president, you know, holds both offices. And in this, the Senate pro tem would become the governor, much as the lieutenant governor would become the governor if there was a vacancy in the office.
And who would be the pro tem then in the Senate? Would they have to elect another
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
8:10
one or what? Yes, they would have to under the Senate rules. I would assume those are already in place if something does happen to the Senate pro tem that there are rules in place to elect another
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
8:32
pro tem. All right. Thank you. Representative Tyler. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Representative Ingram.
It's interesting, I've heard no comments actually from anyone back home about the Lieutenant Governor's Office. I've had a couple of comments about the Land Commissioner's Office in that it is an elected position and they have the responsibility to dispose of real property, can you kind of differentiate that with some other administrative positions who have similar, not exactly,
but similar responsibilities and how you think that not having an elected position in land commissioner's office is the right move?
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
9:18
Well, I think it is more of an administrative job that could be handled under, say, such as DF&A. I think that the argument could be made, and, I mean, I think we didn't want to move too quick into I think there could be the argument could be made that other offices such as auditor
and treasurer, you know, could possibly be combined down the road. But I think that someone might think that there's a little more checks and balances with a separate auditor and treasurer position. And so I guess that's why it just looked like to me that this was such a – it's an important function, as we'll all agree. But it could be done more efficiently, I guess, is just what jumped at me more than anything.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
10:20
Any other questions? Okay, would anybody in the audience wish to comment on Representative Ingram's bill? Yes, sir, please come toward the front of the table on my right. Yes, come on up and sit right across from Representative Ingram. And, okay, I don't think I'm a mediator, but I'm kind of feeling like one right now. Oh, no.
Please identify yourself with record and why you're here. My
Corey Cox
Unverified
10:54
name's Corey Cox. I'm a staff attorney for the land commissioner's office. And I spoke to Representative Ingram about this and explained sort of our position. And what we do is very administrative. And he's correct on a lot of that. But as a policy position, number one, we're very happy that he put this past our term so that we appreciate that. But so in some ways it really doesn't involve us because my boss will be term limited.
But just as a policy position, we think that having it elected gives a certain amount of accountability to that office with the job that we do. Our primary job is taking people's land. DF&A does a lot of the same thing, but the way they do it is they file liens, and then it goes through the judicial process. We don't do the judicial process up front.
What we do is we take your land, and then if you have a problem with what we've done, you can sue us. That allows us quite a bit more power than what you find in DF&A. We certainly would agree that there's probably some need to consolidate some of the powers that the constitutional officers currently have. It might not be something that we would be totally against
looking at merging offices in the future. But, you know, just as a standpoint of taking that responsibility to the voters when we have such a draconian job to do that we can go and take your property and we don't have to answer to a court. every time we do it that we think sort of distinguishes us, and that it requires that there should be some direct accountability to the voters.
I know that if it goes to the executive, that it would ultimately be the governor that's accountable if it goes to DF&A or whatever, but it would be such a small part of what they do that it may not get the attention that it deserves if it's with us, which it's 80% of what we do is take your property. The other stuff that we do is maintain the records of the state, some of the old land grants and some of the surveys,
and also we are responsible for managing the mineral interest of the state. And certainly, yes, those could be moved, But we think that it's important that you have somebody that is, you know, an elected official so that the public, you have constituents and not just have citizens calling. You have people that you've got to respond to as an elected official and not as a bureaucrat.
So that's our standpoint, but we certainly understand and certainly appreciate the concern that Representative Ingram has. And I've told him beforehand, you know, we don't really hold any animosity towards him for this because he was gracious enough to give us that period. It's just a policy position from our office that it should remain an elected position. Any members have any
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
14:37
questions of the Lane Commissioner's Office on their position on
this amendment? Anybody in the audience want to speak toward this amendment? Okay. I see nobody that's interested in
your amendment besides the parties who are directly involved. Mr. Ingrams, anything else you'd like to add? Well, Mr. Chairman, I
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
15:02
really appreciate the opportunity to come in front of the subcommittee and present my ideas, and I appreciate y'all's time. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:13
I see we have Representative Klemmer here, and you have an amendment you would like to
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:22
discuss with us. Which amendment is that, a
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:25
resolution? It is H.J.R. 1005. Okay, now, we are passing out amendments, but we do not have the authority to pass on any amendments or anything. You're just passing this out just for discussion purposes in the committee, and this helps us understand. Can you
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:43
help me with the procedure for adding an amendment when it gets to the full committee?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:50
Any other, you can do a member's own amendment on the House floor and take care
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:57
of it that way. This amendment was intended originally but was inadvertently
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:02
left out. The other way would, when the full committee meets, they have the power to deal with your
amendment, but my suggestion would be just take care of it as a member's own amendment on the floor.
On the floor, should it? Well, we'll just go call whoever drafted your Constitution Amendment. Call them and say, do a member's own for me and write it like that. Okay. All right. I'm
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
16:34
sitting kind of at a weird angle. Well, why don't
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:39
you move up a little bit? Sit up there where Ingram was. We like to get close up and personal.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
16:50
Thank you for giving me this chance at kind of a practice run. I think that's an interesting concept by the committee, and I appreciate the opportunity. HDR 1005 would be an amendment, if passed, that would raise the proceeds for the lottery by requiring a percent – I'm sorry, it would include the scholarship portion of the proceeds to a mandated percent.
The amendment that was passed out was to say a minimum of 35 percent. We are currently, depending on whose numbers you look at, either the lowest, which the news media said the other day. I think Channel 11 reported we're the lowest, but I believe they were looking at surrounding states of the nation. we're the third lowest in percent for the lottery's intended cause.
Not every state, obviously, has their lottery designed to go for a scholarship. Some have it go towards education or other state uses. So I'm not sure the clearest way to refer to that, But I guess we could just say the intended project, our intended project is a scholarship. Some states have other intended projects. But we have the lowest, the third lowest, excuse me, return for the intended project of any state that currently has a lottery.
and that percent is right at 21 percent 21.5 we're still getting monthly numbers and because the lottery has been in operation or the scholarship portion of it has been in operation for such a short time those numbers do fluctuate a little every month but they have hovered between 21 and 22 percent since we've had it.
In one state, we have
heard that we've heard some negative comments that Oklahoma has looked at 35 percent and that's, excuse me, they've not looked at, they've had 35 percent. They're looking at changing theirs away from a prescribed number. And Oklahoma's numbers have been somewhat disturbing, I would agree. But Louisiana mandates 35 percent, and they have returned about $50 million more in revenue for scholarships than Arkansas.
And I may have just misquoted that. Excuse me. I believe it's about $30 million. I looked at my number wrong. About $30 million more for scholarships in Louisiana. I mean, that's Louisiana. We're supposed to be able to do better than Louisiana. California requires that 34 percent of their lottery go toward their intended purpose. And Delaware requires 30 percent.
Those lotteries have done very well in those other states. California's 34 percent has resulted in I have to check my numbers there's so many numbers here and I want to make sure I get it right over a billion dollars that go toward their intended purpose out of the 34 percent so it hasn't seemingly reduced and that's the big argument if you reduce the amount of money going for prizes which is essentially what we will be doing by
having more go towards scholarship, will it reduce play? And so in the end, will it reduce what can go towards scholarships? We haven't seen any evidence with that with Louisiana. And Louisiana also has other forms of gambling in their state, so the lottery isn't even the only place to go play with your money or risk your money. But the lottery is won.
California not only mandates 34% for schools, but they have basically a whole formula that is required. And 50% go to proceeds, 34% to schools, and 16% to administrative and marketing causes. I think that I can say more, but
I would think I would rather respond to questions, if you'll
bear with me as I look up some of
Chair
Unverified
21:54
the information. Okay. Representative Cheatham, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
21:58
Ms. Clemmer, I think you may have touched on this, but, of course, how many scholarships among the states are identical to what
we do as far as a scholarship is just strictly for scholarships for
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
22:12
college students? I don't know what – we just called it intended purposes. I would probably need to do some more research to find out how many go for scholarships.
But I do have a list of lottery states in front of me and what each state spends on administration, what each state spends on prizes, and the proceeds available for the intended cause available. I have that in front of me. Okay, I'm just curious about if
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
22:43
there were others, very similar to ours,
and if there were, what their numbers were compared to ours. But also, you have a list in front of you.
I don't know whether you have this or not, but you mentioned, I think, California's a
billion dollars. I'll be curious. I just thought about this. What amount per capita do we have? I mean, they've got
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
23:07
a much, you know, more or four people. That's a hard number. Well, that's why I like Louisiana's number. the best because louisiana is probably the most similar to us um
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
23:17
but there's not all scholarship they go to two or three different areas
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
23:21
if i remember rightly right um in louisiana less than
ten percent of let me just say this about louisiana less than ten percent of their revenue is for operations um let's see i've got louisiana's information Louisiana statute has 35% of lottery go to just the state treasury. And really that's the same thing we do, except we say, well, not general state treasury. It comes to the state, but we reserve it just for scholarships. So regardless of what we're spending it on, it's still the same principle that a mandated amount goes towards the state,
go to whatever purpose the state has set aside. Yeah, they use theirs for K-12, and then 500, half a million dollars goes towards Department of Health. Sorry. As of January 2011, the lottery has transferred more than $203 billion. And so they are doing, as of fiscal 10, $133 million. And we're at $106 million with ours towards scholarships.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
24:33
I live right close to the Louisiana line, and they like to have a good time down in the road of the line, I think. But also... You're not implying that... They like to gamble, is what I'm implying. But also, it seems like, and we get
a lot of Louisiana news, have they not cut their scholarships in the last
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
24:55
year or so? Aren't they not trimming some of their scholarships? But their lottery isn't for scholarships. Their
lottery is just for K-12. I'm just saying, their designated program from their lottery is K-12.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
25:07
I thought they had some college stuff, too. Well, yes,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
25:13
they do have a really neat college. They're the name for it, but it's not funded by their lottery. It's not funded by the lottery. It might be funded by
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
25:20
casinos, but it's not funded by lottery. I just noticed a while back they were cutting some of those back,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
25:25
I think. Anyway. I'm sorry. I don't I don't know what funds that scholarship my brothers and my nephew live in Louisiana,
Speaker 74
25:30
but Okay, thank you. Mr. Klemmer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I guess that's why you said we could do better I
Speaker 51
25:36
think we ought to be able to get Delaware
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
25:40
also had some interesting there's so much data and and NCS a lot of this came from NCSL Well, Delaware requires 30 percent, and theirs has gone just to pay for state services in general. Rebs of Roebuck, you're recognized. I'll try to get back
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
26:00
to my good chart. Thank you,
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
26:07
Mr. Chair. Representative Klemmer, clarify for me what you mean when you say on page 1, line 34,
grants scholarships and grants what would uh let me get
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
26:21
34 you say we used to fund or provide scholarships and grants i think that wording is there
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
26:31
just to mean assistance because some people refer to great i mean i don't think we're trying to change uh that that word That wording, I mean, might could be better just to say scholarships, but for higher ed.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
26:49
Okay, because we do some grants to our out-of-state schools, for an example, veterinarian schools and dental schools and any of the degree programs that we have where we don't have a school. So we have what we call a grants account. So that was confusing to me. And I wonder if that was copied from
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
27:08
the existing language. and I would probably – I mean, in the sense that that was
referred to in another place. Okay. Because we had a long
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
27:19
discussion when we wrote the scholarship bill whether we wanted to do that or not,
and we decided that we would not. So we do not provide grants for any of our lottery money. And it is not my
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
27:32
intention to change the direction. So that might be something that would need to be changed or
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
27:41
to be clarified. Okay. And, Mr. Chair, a couple of other questions I have. I don't have it with me, but
are you aware, Representative Clemmer, that lotteries are ranked in order of their effectiveness and how well they do nationally?
There's a national ranking of lotteries. I know
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
27:59
there are lots of national figures, and I have looked at so many that it
has started to strain the brain a little bit. But, yes, ma'am, I am aware. And that's where, of course, I got the numbers that we're the third lowest in percentage going. But you're saying effectiveness in a
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
28:18
sense. When you take all of the variables
of what makes a lottery successful, then all of the lotteries that we have in the United States are then ranked.
And I will tell you that Louisiana and Oklahoma are ranked the worst of all the lotteries in the United States. So the worst thing that we could do, in my view, is to pattern ourselves after Louisiana or Oklahoma. I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
28:43
really do need to look at the basis for that, though, because it seems to me if Louisiana is giving $133 million for their intended purpose and we're only able to give a little over $100 million, that they've got $30 million more to help a whole lot of kids.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
29:01
I've got that in my office, and I'll get it to you, because we looked very, very closely when we constructed the lottery language at
all of the lotteries, and we stayed as far away as
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
29:15
we could from those two states. Well, and Representative Roebuck, first of all, I know that the work you guys and everyone did on this was a tremendous workload, and I certainly don't mean by bringing this to be disrespectful of anything that was done. It is just my opinion that when the voters approved the scholarship lottery, and it is marketed constantly as a scholarship lottery,
I cannot tell you how many people I have had tell me that they were shocked that only 21, 22 cents out of every dollar goes to the scholarship. So, please, I do know, and a lot of people have said, you know, are you trying to kill this? Let me say straight off the bat, I have a daughter benefiting from the lottery scholarship. For me personally, of course, I had two that finished college without being benefit of this, and they're a little jealous of baby sister getting the scholarship lottery, or the lottery scholarship.
But I do think that we can do better. And that's, again, not to be critical of the lottery commission and their work. I think that when we look at every 1 percent, we can increase giving another 1,000 scholarships. So an increase of 10 percent is 10,000 new scholarships to kids. We had to turn down almost 30,000 students.
And I'm very pleased that we have this. And I would just beseech us to look at putting more money towards scholarships. And, you know, I know that we're very proud, and I'm very proud, that every high school senior that qualified got a scholarship and that we didn't have to turn very many down, as long as they had the qualifications. But I am extremely distressed that we were not able to help some of the lowest hanging fruit, and that was the nontraditional students.
We have a large population out there of people that got close to graduating and for whatever life circumstances were forced to drop out. Those folks are almost just not in the picture at all. And, you know, I can't help but wonder if we changed the percentage if we couldn't be reaching, well, we'd be reaching 10,000 more students. And we also funded every concurrent.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
31:52
Yes, ma'am, which my daughter was that
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
31:58
concurrent. Again, I have to be very careful here.
My family is currently benefiting a great deal from this scholarship. I just wish more
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
32:06
were. Last question, Mr. Chair. So if we increase the percentage going to scholarships,
where will we decrease to get the money to make that up? I would say prizes primarily. So you would reduce the amount that we're putting in prizes and put it into the scholarships? Yes, ma'am.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
32:24
I mean, that's what California does. They give 50%, and I don't know, in your efficiency ranking,
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
32:33
how is California ranked? I'll get that for you. I normally carry it and miss a little book that we get from somebody, but it ranks our state only in all indicators. It might come from NCSL. I'll get that to you so you'll have that information because there are variables that they use to rank. Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Representative Hutchison, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Klimard, did I miss it?
Did you tell us if we had already established this? I guess I need to get closer. Representative Klemmer, I may have missed this. Did you tell us that if we had already had this established, how much money would go to the scholarships this year if we had?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
33:24
Had we established this this year, and, of course, we have to assume that the same amount of proceeds would come in. I mean, that's assuming that.
then there could be a problem with that. But that we would have had this year, let me look, it's right here in front of me, we would have awarded 39,455 scholarships, and we this past year were able
to award 24,455. So it would be another 15,000 that could have been awarded this year Because essentially, we're talking about raising it from 21.5% to 35%.
So I'm just using a rough figure of an increase. Every 1% increase gives a scholarship to 1,000 more kids. So if you raise it about 12%, 13%, or if you raise it 14%, you're going to get 14,000 more kids in college or money for college. Representative Cheatham, you're recognized Thank you, Mr.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
34:28
Chairman And Mr. Clemmer, I'm sorry It's going to be too personal here I don't mind my first name
We hear a lot about And I really think it's a minimal part of the amount of money But we hear a lot about The high salaries In the Arkansas lottery All your finagling and figuring Have you looked at any comparisons among what salary
expenses might be compared to other states, similar size? I probably need
Speaker 59
34:59
to be able to quote that. I mean, I have advertising
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
35:03
and salaries for our – I mean, advertising and salaries are lumped together.
And that – I wish that we would have those reported separately. Because I do think advertising and salaries are two different things. Together, our advertising and salaries are 4%. Four percent.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
35:19
I'm just curious. And, of course, salaries probably really are, even though they seem awful high to us, are probably a small piece, small percentage.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
35:29
Right. And, yes, you're right. I mean, frankly, I always hate to say things on streaming video,
but I guess I've said them to the media. But we hired the very – I mean, we said we were hiring the very best to bring in this scholarship, and I appreciate them getting this scholarship up and running. And I do know that, or I do believe that first-year expenses are going to be a little bit higher than subsequent years. But I think if we're bringing, you know, we brought the best in and we wanted to
have a world-class lottery, I think we ought to rank higher than three, the third worst in the country as far as, and again, that's percentage, not dollars.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
36:15
And I think the comment you made a while ago, it's not the advertising or salaries that we differ so much at. It's the prizes we award.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
36:24
Well, I mean, I'm not saying that we couldn't trim a little off of salaries and
a little off of advertising, too. I mean, I'm not saying it has to all come from prizes. I know I hate when people do this, but I'm about to do it. You know, every time I turn on the TV, there's a lottery scholarship commercial on. It seems like it doesn't matter whether the TV is on for 10 minutes.
There's a scholarship ad. I mean, excuse me, not a scholarship ad, a lottery ad. But it is always the scholarship lottery, the scholarship lottery. I mean, we're selling it for scholarships. They must do more up here down in south
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
37:00
Arkansas or lower Arkansas. They don't do very much. I see one every now and then, but I'm sure in
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
37:06
the area here. Probably in central Arkansas it's more.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
37:12
You're probably right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, seeing no further questions from members, I'd like for representatives from the Lottery Commission to come up and present their information on the amendment.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
37:27
And come up toward the front
here. Could I just say something real quick while they're coming to the table? Sure. My student intern, very sharp one that she is, did find that grants and scholarships are currently in the wording. If you look on page 2, lines 9 and 10, that's not a change. The existing language uses the word scholarships and grants.
That's why you have good student interns, and I didn't even ask her to
Ernie Pasol
Unverified
38:14
grade who do we have from the lottery commission Mr. Chairman my name is Ernie
Speaker 117
38:18
Pasol I'm the director I have Julie Baldridge I think probably everybody knows Julie okay I'm getting
Speaker 27
38:24
ready to duck you could join me with your introduction well
Speaker 119
38:28
with Julie sometimes you need to duck
and then I have Bishop Woosley and Lance Huey We
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
38:34
have a short PowerPoint, Mr. Chairman, because what we want
Speaker 117
38:40
to make sure folks understand is the fiscal impact of this proposal because we understand that you and eventually the voters of Arkansas would have a chance to vote on it if it went to the constitutional amendment. But this is our professional view of the fiscal impact, and you can make a decision whether
Do you think this is
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
39:05
good or bad? And what we've done is over a period of time, we have – Julie, where are you? Okay. Over a period of time, there's been a lot of – he says lotteries started back in 1964, Representative Roebuck, in New Hampshire, and they've grown to 44 lotteries and the District of Columbia. So they're only six states that do not have lotteries. And there's a lot of empirical evidence that indicate that there's a direct correlation of prizes,
the positive correlation to prize payout and to the amount of
Speaker 117
39:47
gross sales. It would be sort of like, and I think Representative Klemmer brought in a cup of coffee. Just to use that as a little prop. Diet Coke. Diet Coke, I'm sorry. Good, good. if you took that, let's say, as a cup of Starbucks coffee and you were going to charge $4 for it, I guess that's what it's
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
40:09
going for now, probably in a good day.
And then you decided that you were going to charge $8 or $6 for the same level of coffee, same cup of coffee, there would be a decrease in the amount of demand for the coffee. Because players play lottery for two reasons, two principal reasons. First, they play because they think they have an opportunity to win a prize and that prize would be, quote, a nice prize. A nice prize being each player might, some people might view a $355 million
jackpot as a nice prize. Some people might view a $10 prize as a nice prize. So you have to have enough positive reinforcement and you have to attract the players to play that not only are positively reinforced every so often, but also in the prize level, what determines to be nice. So what we have, Mr. Chairman, is empirical evidence of prize payout increases across
the country and how they affected lottery sales. And I'm not going to – I'm going to leave this for you. I think there's some handouts here and so forth. So I'm going to go through these fairly quick. I can take as much time as you need to on these. But basically, if you start, Julie, California increased their prize payout from 50% to 60% on their scratch-off ticket sales in 1998. You can see what happened to lottery sales, the scratch-off ticket sales. There are two types of lottery products.
There's, I think Representative Robot knows this from the LOC. But there's instant ticket sales, the scratch-off ticket sales, and so forth. And then there's what we call the online ticket sales, which are the number of games, like Powerball or Castree. And so you can see what happened. Prizes went up. Lottery play went up. Go ahead, Julie. Colorado, they increased it to 65%, 92%. What happened when they increased the payout? Sales went up dramatically.
Connecticut introduced a $20 ticket. I think the first $20 price point ticket, 94, they increased their price payout from 65 to 67%. They saw an increase of 34% in sales. Florida, before 02, they mandated 38% of gross lottery sales to be transferred for appropriation for the causes that Representative Klemmer mentioned. The mandate was repealed by the state of Florida. the prize payouts went from 59% to 67% in fiscal O2.
And what happened to sales? They dramatically increased. Kentucky went from 58% to 65% in 91%. What happened to scratch-off ticket sales? They dramatically increased. Massachusetts, from 50% to 55%. They probably have a lower payout than Arkansas, but they also have the highest per capita ticket sales in the country. Prize payouts have increased to 72%. You can see what happens when those features occur in the lottery sales.
New Mexico, from 55% to 63% in fiscal 1999. You can see what happened, a positive increase in sales. Ohio, 48% to 63%. Look what happened in the sales. Washington, same thing, you know, basically. This is sort of a redundant theme, but one that shows you that there is evidence, empirical evidence, that your committee and the members of the House and Senate can look at to see the correlation, the positive correlation, between prizes and sales.
Texas, their prize payout was reduced from 60% to 50%, and look what happened in their sales. They went down dramatically. In fact, I think Texas changed that law as a result in 1999 the legislature reversed that mandate and then what happened to sales that started going back up dramatically look at the slope of that line go ahead Julie so states that have increased price payouts to witness a significant increase in both sales and net profits because every lottery ticket as long as
you're not paying out a hundred percent has a positive net profit okay the states that have artificially low mandated gross margin requirements have much lower sales and net profits because of market-driven forces. You have to remember, lottery is, in the private sector market, competes for a dollar just like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola and so forth. So you have to have, you have to always understand who your consumer is.
Lower payout to players does not equal more lottery revenue. Profitability should be measured in dollars, not percentages. Now here's the thing, and we'll get into this slide in a minute. Representative Klemmer mentioned a number of lottery states. In fact, I think Louisiana has a population around 4.6 million. I came from South Carolina, which had a population of about 4.6 million. We did in South Carolina over a billion dollars in lottery sales.
I think they might do $350 million, something like that, $375 million in gross sales. South Carolina at one time transferred $313 million in their best year in fiscal 06 for good causes. Because
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
46:01
just to ask you? So is Louisiana, I'm sorry, is South Carolina structured like Arkansas's
Speaker 117
46:07
is currently? Yes. There's no cap on sales, on net process, no cap.
Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you. Sorry for that. So what you
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
46:21
get is when you put a cap on, Julie, go to the slide with a pie chart. As Representative Clement mentioned this, this is through January 31st. I just did the February. What I like to do is do a pie chart to show you in dollars and percentages about lottery because percentages do mean something, and Representative Clemmer is focusing on the net proceeds percentage.
Now remember also that we are only 18 months old. Louisiana is probably 18 years old, and that matters in this respect. You don't have all your lottery games running as you do a mature lottery, and there's other things with unclaimed prizes. But if you look at this pie chart, what you see is the majority of what we pay out is 65.5%. That goes to Arkansans, who play the lottery. So it's a cycle back to the player. We have a lot higher prize percentage, and there's a reason for that.
Most of our sales, about 84% of our sales, are the scratch-off tickets. The other 16% are the online games. And what matters there is the online games, like Powerball, have a higher gross profit than the instant tickets, which have a lower gross profit. So our prize percentage is going to be somewhat comparable to another state. Let's say like South Carolina is around 25%. But in South Carolina, when I woke up in the morning on a weekday, there was $600,000 in sales in cash three and cash four.
Here, there's $25,000. And that has a 50% gross profit margin. So when the majority of your sales are instant ticket sales, which have a lower profit margin, then you're going to have a higher prize percentage. And it's not like, I'm sorry, I need to know your name. I apologize. Yes, sir. Representative
Speaker 117
48:15
Cheatham. And I apologize for not knowing your name. I don't know what your name is.
Speaker 124
48:23
All right, I like that. It's not like we can go out and say, I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
48:29
want all my sales to be cash-free, cash-free, and Powerball because that's a higher gross profit. That is determined by the consumer, not us. It's in the free market. That's determined by the consumer. But if you look at this pie chart, and one thing that's instructive on this pie chart, Our advertising and marketing budget is about nine-tenths of one percent, and this is this fiscal year.
That's seven months of this fiscal year, but it's consistently run about that. An administrative budget is about 1.9 percent. I think somebody you asked about salaries, and we publish all this information monthly and also turn it over to the Legislative Oversight Committee, but our salaries is around a little under $5 million and then about 30 percent for fringe benefits. We have about 85 or so people employed. But we can give you all these figures if you want them. But when you look, the reason I'm focusing on this pie chart is this.
When you look at having to increase that 20.9% net proceeds to 35%, you've got to get it from somewhere. So where do you get it from? Well, the commissions, that's what we pay our retailers, about 5.6%. That's what we pay the convenience stores and the liquor stores who sell the products. We can't get it from there. In my opinion, we can't because we'll lose our retailer base. The gaming costs or the contract costs with Intralot and Scientific Games, they run about 5.1% of sales. If you eliminate it, if you assume that the lottery could operate with no advertising
and the administrative costs, I mean, you could just put it on automatic pilot, you still only get 2.8% from this. So it's got to basically come from prizes. And what you're doing, again, is when you reduce the prices, guess what happens? It collapses the sales. And when it collapses the sales, you get Oklahoma. And I'm not saying anything bad about Oklahoma because it's a great state and they've got a fine director. But originally when I was hired here, the lottery, if you looked at the DF&A estimates,
the lottery for Arkansas, do you know how much it was, net proceeds a year? It was $55 million a year, $55 million a year. The first 12 months of lottery operations, we turned over around $106 million, okay? So let's just go back to Oklahoma, or we can take Louisiana, because I know a lot about Louisiana too, but go back to the slide before that. What is Oklahoma doing? Well, they're 35%, okay? This is a headline from December 8, 2010, Oklahoman, and it has a few snippets there about what's going on in Oklahoma.
First of all, I could get the Oklahoma lottery director here, and he would be testifying that he wants to change his bill to our law. And so you can see Oklahoma has a population of around, and that's in another slide, about 3.6 million. We have about 2.9 million. And they have about 700,000, 800,000 more people. They're projected the net in fiscal 2015. This is the Oklahoma lottery figures, $47 million.
Because their lottery has collapsed. The only people that play the Oklahoma lottery are Powerball players. Okay? So it's basically the collapse in the Powerball Mega Millions jackpot lottery. You mentioned Delaware. Delaware, one of the things about Delaware, where it's a video lottery, and I'm sure some people in this audience don't want to have Dover Downs and video lottery terminals in every bar and restaurant in Arkansas.
But here's where, Julie, go to the next slide. Here's our opinion, and then you all make the decision about what you want to do. But what we would tell you is when you look at Oklahoma's population of 3.69 million, and you look at Arkansas, which is a shade under 2.9 million, it's 800,000 people difference, and you size adjust it for the 35 percent, okay? Our opinion is you cut the scholarship funding from 107 million to 55 million.
So if you think you've got a problem, this is probably editorial, But if you think you've got a problem now with talking about reducing the scholarship funding here right now, if you want to cut it in half, 35% gets you there. And I think that would be minimum because you basically have collapsed the instant ticket part of your lottery, which makes up 84% of your sales. You'll never get those people back. Now, North Carolina had this law, 35%, when I was in South Carolina when they started up.
And finally, they got it repealed. And their sales went up, I think, $400 million the first year they got it repealed. And their transfers to scholarships went up. If we could just snap our fingers and make this 35%, we would. But it's dictated mostly by the players. We could get a lot higher percentage if we could get players playing cash three and cash four as opposed to scratch off ticket sales, but they don't like it here, and we can't make them like it.
So are there efficiencies that we're trying to get in our lottery? Sure, we look for efficiencies every day. I know you're familiar
Ernie Pasol
Unverified
54:16
with the audit reports we've got, and
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
54:19
I'm not saying that in a demeaning fashion because the auditors are with us, All the time. We have an internal auditor. We have the legislative audit group that comes in. They're coming back for their second two-month stint, March 14th, I think. And they're with us all the time. And they're looking for efficiencies.
And our staff is looking for efficiencies. But if you go back, Julie, go back to the pie chart, if you can go back that far. Look at our administrative costs and advertising and marketing costs as compared to Louisiana. I bet you Louisiana is a lot higher because what you have is when you're looking at Louisiana probably has a population of 4.6 million people, they're turning over $30 million more, sure.
But here's the key statistic for lottery that I would ask you to look at. It's sort of like earnings per share in a corporation because earnings per share in a corporation, you can compare IBM with a smaller company, a smaller tech company. The net profit per capita, based on our population of 2.9 million people, we're doing very well in profit.
And here's the thing, the final thing, is when you deliberate on lottery funding for scholarships this year, and you're all going to do that, you're going to have two factors. You're going to have what the lottery turns over and net proceeds, and you're going to have the number of students that are qualified. One of the problems, I think, that needs to be said is, and I think if Mr. Purcell, Dr. Purcell was here, he's not here any longer, I guess. But we had a slide presentation from them, Representative Cheatham,
and before the lottery started, we were rocking along here in Arkansas with 5,000 or 6,000 scholarships a year. And all of a sudden, the lottery started. We had 58,500 applications, and we serviced 30,500. So when you divide a figure of lottery proceeds, which should have been, according to DF&A estimates, at $55 million, we generated 106, our first 12 months of operation, by the number of students who mushroomed in probably the most successful lottery story in the country
because of the pent-up demand for getting these scholarships. The scholarship amount per student has to be lower because the lottery can't keep up with the demand for the scholarships. I don't know whether we'll meet our financial goals or not this year. It's a challenging environment. Our goal was to net around $105 million in this fiscal year. And I will say this, 80% of our sales take place at convenience stores that sell gasoline.
And everybody understands what's going on with gasoline now. And this is not the only reason, but that's a challenge environment, believe me. Just like Walmart's challenged by gas prices, so is lottery. And so, you know, we'll be happy to get with you and go over anything that you have on your mind or any member that they want to talk to us about how we can get more money out of the lottery. If you've got a way to invent a better mousetrap, we're here to do it. But I think
Speaker 117
57:59
what this does, this assumption assumes that you keep a constant sales level
Speaker 128
58:03
and consumers don't act that way. I don't know
Speaker 129
58:10
where our ruling body went. Clever, I am appointed. Are you
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
58:14
the de facto? I'm not sure we even have a quorum any longer with just two people, I guess. I
guess we sort of do. We have 50%. I don't know what quorum is. But what is the difference between the payout for a scratch-off versus the other games? Great question.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
58:32
Most of the other games, what you call online games, like Powerball or Castery or whatever.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
58:39
Not the instant, anything that's not an instant win? Yes,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
58:43
ma'am. Okay. It's traditionally around 50%. On scratch-off? No, ma'am, the online games. Scratch-off, the higher the price point, the price of the ticket, the higher the payout. So a $1 price point ticket might have a 60% payout. But a $20 price point ticket may have a 75 percent payout. And the only thing we can control in that we can control the percentages in the prizes
for instant tickets, we cannot control the percentages in the payout for online gains because it's based on a statistical factor of how these gains
Speaker 117
59:19
will act over a period of time. But the payout is better for scratch-offs. A lot better. And what was that
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
59:25
number again? I mean, I know you said it varies, but what's the average? Probably in the high 60s right now because we
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
59:33
have a $10 ticket at it. Okay. We had a better month.
Here's the thing that I just, and I was doing this chart from our commission. February, we had sold $41.1 million in sales. In January, we sold on 28 days, including three snow days, I think, or two snow days. In January, we sold a little under $40 million, yet we grossed more. Our net profit was more in January than in February. Why? Because we had a $355 million jackpot run that occurred with Mega Millions,
and we sold a lot of those tickets at a higher gross margin. Would you repeat that? Yes, ma'am. We sold more in February in 28 days, gross sales, than we sold in January, but our net profit was greater in January than February because our percentage of online ticket sales, attributable to mega millions, was higher. It was like 19 percent. In February, we had about 14 percent.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:00:44
I think I got those numbers down partially from before in your presentation.
Speaker 117
1:00:53
I can get you that. That's the presentation I'll make to our
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:00:58
commission on Wednesday. Yes, ma'am. But you're saying Powerball is 16% of sales. Is that correct?
Speaker 134
1:01:05
No, ma'am. I'm saying the online sales, which are
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:01:09
Powerball, Mega Millions, Cash Free, Cash Free, and Raffles. Powerball, et cetera, is in my notes. Online. It's run to date for the first 18 months
Speaker 117
1:01:19
around 14% of sales through February.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:01:22
Okay, but something was 16% and 84%. What was that? Well, I was
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:01:27
comparing months to months. And one month was hot. January was a lot higher percentage. I think it was 19%. I'm trying to do this from memory now, but 19% of our total sales in January was online games, which means we had a higher gross profit in February. Even though we had more sales in
Speaker 117
1:01:47
February, we had a lower net profit because we paid out more of our business with instant ticket business.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:01:54
I guess, and I'm just wanting to ask the questions here, too, just as a legislator
and a consumer and not a full-time employee of the Lottery Commission.
If the payout is lower on the online
games, granted we have fewer participants, but you're saying it does go up. I mean, we had a pretty good volume in January.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:02:26
Yes, ma'am, but those are jackpot-driven games. We had a $355 million jackpot in Mega Millions at the beginning of January. And how often are the jackpots awarded? That's one of the highest in North American history. Did it get a winner? We got two winners, one in Idaho and one in... Did they split $335? Annuity of $355 million. They were very rich people. One in the state of Washington and one in... And if the jackpot wouldn't hit that roll,
it would roll over a half-billion-dollar jackpot, and it would be like running a printing press in
Speaker 139
1:03:07
the United States. I wonder if the government can buy lottery tickets to the federal government.
Speaker 51
1:03:13
I guess, I mean, I hear all your data,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:03:17
and I am not arguing with some of the validity of the information you're giving
us. But we're 10 percent lower than
the national average. Leave Oklahoma, leave Louisiana, leave.
But we're 10% below the average in the nation. Right. To
what do you attribute? Well,
Speaker 117
1:03:38
it's part of a startup because the start of our business for the majority of the calendar year,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:03:45
we started in September 28, 2009. So we started off only with scratch-off tickets was 100% of our business. But that's supposed to be the best. Well, it's a step program rollout lottery.
So you roll out your scrapbook tickets first. You start off with them. We started Powerball October 31, 2009. Then we didn't start another game to cash three in December. And then Mega Millions January 31, 2010. And then we had Raffle and Cash Four in fiscal 2011. And let me give you a statistic. In South Carolina, now that's a population of 4.6 million,
but when the sun comes up and the sun goes down on a weekday, South Carolina sells over $600,000 in cash three and cash four, which is the higher gross profit. We sell $25,000. If I had that business, you would have a lot higher gross profit. So part of it is due to startup. You don't have a mature lottery. So you're anticipating, if I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:04:56
can just interrupt you, you're anticipating that next year should be better. It should be.
I mean, I know we've got some high gas prices, but.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:05:05
Well, it should be better for this reason. Now we're starting to get what we call unclaimed prizes. You probably heard that term used, and there's going to be some bills before you about unclaimed prizes. These other lotteries, Oklahoma and Louisiana, Both, all their unclaimed prize money is utilized by the lottery that was taken away from us last year. But we're just starting to get unclaimed prize money because it has to be 100. Anyway, I'm going to make a long story short.
Yes, it should get better. It should iterate to around 23 to 24 percent. And South Carolina was around 25, 26 percent. And mainly because of the difference between the online percentage sales and the instant ticket sales. But we can't tell the consumer what to buy. And when you fund your scholarship, when you get ready to appropriate money for your scholarship and the deliberations you have, you're going to appropriate dollars, not percentages.
And I just ask you as a consumer, like I said, if that cup of coffee, if you cut it in half and had to pay the same price, would you be, if your diet Coke would go from 12 ounces to 6 ounces and you still paid a buck for it, would you still be willing to pay a buck for 6 ounces? With
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:06:28
all due respect, I don't think that's the
same principle at all. I mean, you've made some very good points, but I don't think that's one of them, if you'll just let me say that. Because this is a known price and a known quantity.
You're playing a game of chance. I would only argue, and I would, well, I might make some other arguments, but the main argument I would make is that the person going to buy a scratch-off ticket does not know his percentage of winning. I would almost be willing, since
Speaker 117
1:06:57
we're talking about lottery, to bet money on that. They know a lot about lottery because you have a core player base. They're turned off or
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:07:06
turned on by reinforcement. Yes, they know from their anecdotal, but I guarantee you they do not know whether it's 50% or 62%.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:07:13
When they don't have enough positive reinforcement to buy a lottery ticket, they stop playing. They get turned off. Maybe that's why I haven't played. Right, but that's what happens. Make me a big winner, Mr. Pesler. Well, I think your daughter, you say, had a scholarship. Yes, she's benefiting. So what I'm telling you, and you can get any lottery professional in the country in here to tell you the same thing.
I'm not saying to you this is a good or bad thing. You have to make a policy decision. I'm just telling you
Speaker 117
1:07:51
what the physical impact of our professional opinion is and why it's that way. Then you have to make a decision
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:07:58
whether you think this is good or bad. Let me ask you another thing, and then I'll, if
Speaker 140
1:08:03
that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. We're not plying old ground. No, I have
Speaker 89
1:08:06
another question. Yeah, we won't go back on
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:08:12
the same thing. Should it be that this does not prevail?
Is the commission looking at, are
you looking at, increasing scholarships without, I mean, just on your own? I mean, when a percentage, 1% is 1,000
kids. Right. Well, you can increase sales, and probably
Speaker 119
1:08:33
some people in this room would say that's a bad decision to make. I mean,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:08:39
there's a – the Arkansas law says that we can undertake monitor games, okay?
But we're not. We haven't to date. I don't have it in my business plan to do monitor games. We could do monitor games and put them in bars and restaurants and increase sales and institute scholarships, and you'd probably hear a lot of squawking about that. But we run, this is our opinion, we try to run a conservative lottery when it comes to both the financial nature of it, because we try to be tight with our money, and the other part, dealing with the social part of it. We think that lottery is not for everybody
and should be played with eyes wide open and should be played with the understanding that if you play the lottery, chances are you're not going to win a prize. And we tell people that. We want you to play for fun if you don't. But we can ramp up sales. I could really turn up the heat on sales. But
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:09:40
I don't think that's where Arkansans want to go. But I guess part of my
initiative in wanting to pursue this is that I do think, I mean, it might be that if we were at 25%, like, okay, we're making steps in the right direction.
But when I see us next to last or last or third from
the bottom, I'm not happy with that. And I do want to see more of the money that we say we
Speaker 117
1:10:10
put this scholarship in effect for. You go back to our chart and
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:10:15
see what would you change to get the 20. I would say trim proceeds. And maybe this
doesn't prevail. Yeah, but your, I'm sorry, your prizes.
Well, trim prize is a few percent. I don't think 62 to 60 percent or 59 percent is going to change play. That's my humble opinion. And I
appreciate the information and I appreciate the openness. I do hope that you did seem to have some information
that was not readily available. Well, we want to be used
Speaker 117
1:10:53
as a resource. And I can tell you, and we struggle with this.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:11:00
We were ranked in the first two quarters of operation, we were ranked number five in the United States in per capita ticket sales in the United States lotteries. What we struggle with is also when we get up in the morning and go to bed at night, we've got 30,500 Arkansans that we feel responsible for in their hopes, streams, and ambitions. And if we tinker with this and we're wrong, then I'm going to hear from that gentleman right there, I assure you. Because he expects me to turn over $105 million to him this year, to the state of Arkansas, and we're not there yet.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:11:38
If you would, before too many hours transpires, would you get me that efficiencies list that Representative Roebuck referred to? We can get you any list you want. You just –
Speaker 119
1:11:48
I don't know what she's referring to, but we can get you – She said she
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:11:53
had a list of efficiencies of state. You don't know what she's talking about? No, ma'am, but, I mean, if you tell
Ernie Pasol
Unverified
1:11:59
us what data you want, we can get it for you. I haven't seen it. I've
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:12:05
heard her refer to him. But if she'll let us know, it might have come from NCSL or –
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:12:11
The latest information I had from NCSL is 2006, and they said they didn't have
Speaker 119
1:12:18
anything newer than that. We can get you up-to-date information because we report all lotteries for government agencies in the United
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:12:25
States, and we report, and so we have data up-to-date through fiscal 2010. We have figures up-to-date here in Arkansas as of yesterday. Well, I know there's just two of us
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:12:37
here, and now we have one member, so I don't want to waste your time any longer.
Speaker 148
1:12:43
We've got some state employers that are working on OCRS. Don't get
Speaker 89
1:12:47
paid for it. That's right. There we go. Well, we're
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:12:51
on overtime. Thank you for your time. Ms. Patrick, thank you for being here. And, Judy, thank you for coming and presenting to this. And Mr. Nichols and Ms. Roebuck realized they had some bills that they had not. Anyway, but thank you for coming. And, Ms. Climmer, thank you for bringing this forward. And I'm going to adjourn this meeting.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Donna Hutchinson Chair
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Corey Cox
Unverified
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 51
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 81
Speaker 59
Speaker 102
Ernie Pasol
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 27
Speaker 119
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 128
Speaker 129
Speaker 134
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Speaker 89
Speaker 148