House State Agencies 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 Jim Nickels
Unverified
0:01
This is a quorum for our subcommittee meeting, and we're waiting on a particular paper. But the other day we discussed Chairman Hall's bill, and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association wanted to make some comments about that. So without objection, I let the Prosecute and Attorneys Association give their information about.
And I'll tell you what, we're a little bit more informal because there's just a few of us. So come on up here close to us and tell
us what your association thinks about the Clark Hall's amendment. I don't necessarily see that one on our. No, not on here today. Is that what
Speaker 4
0:47
the ARC wasn't doing with your team? Yes. But I think they
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
0:57
would just like for the committee to hear their thoughts of it. If you recall, nothing we do here is really official,
and so let's just go ahead and hear
what the prosecuting attorney has to say, since we have a little bit of time waiting for Representative
Pierce's bill. Yes, Mr. McMahon can go ahead and tell that. I'll save us a little time.
Speaker 10
1:18
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, this is the amendment to amend the Constitution to allow the General Assembly to provide for the selection and tenure duties and compensation of special prosecutors to investigate the referrals that are made by any government entity. And I apologize for not being able to be at the meeting the other day, and I appreciate Representative Nichols allowing me to briefly make some comments from the Prosecutors Association.
But we, I mean, obviously we are opposed to this. I know we don't get to vote under anything, but I want to give you a couple of reasons why. We think that it clearly is a separation of powers issue. With our Constitution, the powers of the government in the state of Arkansas are separated into three distinct branches. And the Constitution also goes on to say that any one of
Speaker 11
1:59
those departments should not have the authority to exercise any power or discretion over another department of government. So
Speaker 10
2:06
it's our opinion in this specific situation that we would have individuals serving as prosecuting attorneys under the direction of the legislative branch,
and that would be a violation of the separation of powers. And to carry that just a little bit further, you have, let's say, an incident that happens here in Pulaski County. You have
Speaker 11
2:21
an elected prosecuting attorney in Pulaski County that's supposed to be the conscious and the voice of the community here in Pulaski County. So to have another prosecutor that's appointed by the legislature with some type of authority on that matter, I think we'd have a conflict there and that the person that was elected by the people to deal with that issue would have someone else in the jurisdiction, I guess, proposing to have that same authority.
And I don't think we can have two individuals with authority like that. And I believe that the Constitution would then provide that the elected prosecutor that was elected by the people under the judicial branch of government would
Speaker 10
2:55
have the authority to handle that case, not necessarily this particular individual under this constitutional amendment should it pass. And that's briefly our comments. I mean, I just
Speaker 11
3:02
wanted to pass on the views of the association and express those very brief concerns about that. And I'll be happy to try and answer any questions. And, again, I apologize for missing the presentation. So there may have been specific issues that came up when the bill or when the amendment was presented that I might be able to address if you need me to.
I just I'm not sure what those were. But
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
3:28
I think Representative Tyler has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here. Mr. Airy testified before us the other day when we met. And we talked about the separation of powers, and he didn't see this as a legislative, having legislative authority, this special prosecutor, that it would be part of the executive branch that would have the law enforcement authority is how he interpreted it to us.
And maybe I misunderstood that, but that's how I understood his testimony. Is that what he said? Yeah, that's how I understood his testimony the other day, because I was very concerned about separation of powers. And
he envisioned this as part of the executive branch and that it wouldn't be a separation of powers
Speaker 10
4:14
issue. I guess, Representative Tyler, my response to that would be that since the prosecutors are in the judicial branch
Speaker 11
4:20
of government, that any prosecutor that we're serving with connections to the legislative branch or the executive branch would still violate that separation of powers.
And I guess even moving to what I said a minute ago, even if we had two people somehow with the authority both in the judicial branch, we'd still have that conflict, I think, with the person that was elected to do that and someone that was appointed to do that. May
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
4:41
I follow up? A couple of things to follow up then. Let's assume then we figure out how they get into the judicial branch because we have special prosecutors today, do we not, that work in the judicial
Speaker 10
4:53
branch. Yes, and we have, well, we could have a number of them. We have two that
Speaker 11
4:57
are actually on my staff right now. And the way that they come into play is when the elected prosecuting attorney,
because all the prosecutions, of course, are done in his or her name, when the elected prosecutor has a conflict of some sort. For example, the victim of a crime might be a relative of the prosecutor or an employee of the prosecutor's office, or even a potential defendant would be an employee of the prosecutor's office or his neighbor or something like that. We have to turn to special prosecutors. So the procedure involved in that case is that the prosecutor files a petition or a motion articulating their conflict, and if a judge believes that there is a conflict, they order the prosecutor off the case, and then the judge has the authority to appoint someone else to handle that case.
So that's the type of situation. It's only when that prosecutor has a conflict or steps down for some particular reason do we have the authority then to move on to somebody else. And at that point, it's the circuit judge with jurisdiction does the appointing. often I'm asked to help find someone that will handle the case, and that's where the attorneys in my office sometimes get involved. But that is only with the authority of a circuit judge doing the appointment after a prosecutor is conflicted out for whatever reason. One more. Ma'am, one more.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
6:09
searching for a solution. We saw in a report that we had, I believe, in 2009, we had 99 cases that did not get referred. and that was millions of dollars that were fraudulently taken from the state and no prosecution resulted from it. So we've got a problem. We're in search of a solution. So if we were to figure out a way where the legislative audit,
the legislative function determines that the local prosecutor, for some reason, is not prosecuting it, is it possible that the legislative function then can ask the judge to, quote, refer it to the special prosecutor in your office? Because we're in, and I think you are too. I'm certain, knowing you as well as I do, you want to solve this problem too. And you
Speaker 22
7:06
agree, I would think, that we've got a problem that needs a solution.
Speaker 10
7:13
To some extent, I would. I probably would differ in the case that cases aren't being prosecuted
Speaker 11
7:18
or looked at. Have you seen the report? Yes, ma'am, I have. I mean, what our association has offered to do for the last probably six years since the report would come out, as you all are aware, Representative Tyler refers to a report that comes out showing shortage updates in specific jurisdictions. The prosecutor then responds to that report, and that report is then filed before the legislative committee. And the prosecutors have offered to come in every time there is a specific case that the legislature may want to hear about so that the prosecutor can articulate why he or she has not gone forward with that particular case, because there are many reasons.
And we have worked with the auditor's legislative audit to get to the point where we respond to those things. You know, years ago, that procedure wasn't in place. So that's something that was set up to allow the prosecutors to tell you all why or what's going on in a particular case as to why they haven't gone forward. And that's been done. And since that time, we have offered to always try to get that elected prosecutor or his deputy or whoever handled the case to come in and explain those reasons why. What I can't guarantee is you're ever going to be happy maybe with the reasons that they give.
I mean, a prosecutor may come in and say, in my opinion, I can't go forward, I can't particularly prove that any specific individual committed that crime or something like that, so they don't go forward, and I'll give you an example. Sometimes there are thefts in a school district or at a county government level, and there may be 45 people that had access to that money, and the prosecutor can't determine who to go forward with, so they may not file criminal charges because they don't know who to go after, who the actual defendant is. That's one example where that comes up.
In other examples, it comes up when they do know who did it and they negotiate a plea and that person does probation or something like that. So from time to time, we have differences of opinion on how the cases are disposed. I agree there's a problem in maybe getting communication to the legislature as to how those decisions are made, but I'm not sure that a special prosecutor will be able to handle that because that individual will exercise the same discretion that the current prosecutors do, and they may not always go forward for a variety of reasons that may or may not satisfy, you know, the legislative committee.
So, I mean, I realize there's a problem with the communication, but I'm not sure a special prosecutor is always going to do what the legislature wants, whether it's someone from my office, whether it's an elected prosecutor, or it's someone that you get appointed through an amendment or a bill like this. But the problem, I think, would be in the communication. And I understand that you all are often not happy with, you know, the direction that a particular case goes. And like I said, we've offered to bring the prosecutor in to explain why each and every time.
And to the best of my knowledge, we've never had one, you know, asked to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
10:09
appear since we made that offer. Okay. Any other questions, if not, on this topic?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
10:17
Yes, Representative Penards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that it's not a matter of us not being happy. It's a matter of those tax dollars have been stolen, in our opinion. And after four years of going to audit meetings, I think that what we're dissatisfied with when we have discussions
about it is that it appears that in many cases no action is taken.
And sometimes even I know you have to have sufficient evidence to charge somebody with a crime, but I would I think that, again, stating what Representative Tyler has said, there has to be a better solution than the one we have that I've seen for the past four years, which is obviously, in our opinion, not working if we still have millions and millions of dollars not being gone after by somebody that committed a crime.
So, you know, I think that's the point, not that we're not happy. It's that those tax dollars are still out there, unrecouped. So I mean, I understand
Speaker 10
11:32
your question. My comments, I guess, would be directed at the fact that when something's reported stolen or something's missing, it's the burden of proof often that the prosecutors have. I mean, that's
Speaker 11
11:41
what the law says. We have a burden of proof, and if we can't go forward with that, then they're just not able to do that sometimes.
And, I mean, there's not anything anybody can do about that. I mean, that's the burden of proof. And doing an investigation with audit, you know, questioning individuals and coming up with a case file that they give to the prosecutor, that's one level. The next level is the prosecutor having to take that information and, you know, convince a judge or a jury at the level of the burden of proof that we have in a case. And oftentimes that's why we don't go forward with those cases, not just in an audit type situation, but in any kind of a case. I mean, a lot of times the prosecutor may even have a very good idea who committed a particular crime and can't go forward because we can't meet the burden of proof.
So that's, I mean, that's a real scenario. But as I said earlier, I mean, any particular time you want a prosecutor to come in and articulate on a particular case what the problems are, I mean, I know they're willing to do that. And I know that my committee that came and met with the legislature on that, the executive committee probably back in the summer, made that offer. And I promise my commitment to help bring that person in here to explain it. What I can't guarantee, like I said earlier, is that you'll always be happy with their explanation as to why they haven't gone forward. But the prosecutors will certainly come in and explain why they've made a decision.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
12:56
Just one further statement, Mr. Chair. It's not a matter of being happy or not. It's a matter of what's just. So that's what we're after. Thank you. Robson
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
13:11
Roebuck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to follow up because when we heard about the cases when
Audit was talking to us the other day, there were three cases that we actually, I think, they used as illustrations. One was the Pine Bluff case in the schools, and there was one at ASU in Jonesboro.
and then the one that affected part of my district was the Southwest landfill case. And so I think what concerned me about the whole process was expediency. It wasn't having to do with the decision or that I was not happy with what happened. I mean, I think that the person in Pine Bluff and the person in Jonesboro are both in prison. and we just had the decision from the federal judge on the southwest landfill and I think he stole almost a million dollars and got six months.
So, you know, yes, are my people concerned about that? No interest. I mean, he did pay it back, but no interest. And so, you know, when we see this, it's expediency to me. I mean, it took forever. So, I mean, I just want to say it doesn't really have to do with the decision, although sometimes, like Representative Penard said, we want a just decision. But that's always been our concern, is to make sure that it's done not
only fairly but as quickly as possible.
So could you address the expediency issue? Well, yes, ma'am. I'm
Speaker 9
14:35
not familiar with any of those three cases, but I can assure you that if I can get a little more
Speaker 11
14:40
details from either the committee or you later, I'll be happy to follow up on all three of those cases and find out. I'm not aware of all the different cases that are out there in the different judicial districts, But, I mean, these cases certainly are competing, I guess, with the time with other cases and other resources. I don't know if that's the reason until I do a little research on these three cases. You had mentioned the Southwest Landfill case. Did you say a federal court? Because if that's the case, then that's a federal court, then that's handled not by the local prosecutors.
Speaker 43
15:07
I understand. It eventually ended up there because it was mail fraud.
Speaker 11
15:10
But I would have to find out in details on these cases, you know, how they were referred and when they referred it and how long it took for a disposition. but I'll be happy to try to do that. I just don't have that information right now. Well,
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
15:20
thank you for doing that, because I think that's a major concern of some of us. Would I
Speaker 10
15:24
get that information from you or one of the staff members? Audit. Get it from our audit. Okay, and it's something that Mr. Arias testified to you the other day? They used those three cases when they talked
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
15:32
to us the other day. I will get that from Frank. Thank you.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
15:37
Okay, I think Mr. McMahon requested to present his side of Clark Hall's amendment. He's done that. I think now we need to move on to Representative Pierce and let him present his so he's not too late for his appointment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. And as you notice, we're not taking any action on anything that's said. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll yield
Speaker 21
16:03
it to the Speaker on this one and let him explain.
Speaker 47
16:08
You're recognized, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. you all have a copy of the proposed amendment in front of you if you've had an opportunity to look at it basically what this amendment would do is excuse me Mr. Speaker Sherry will
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:26
you take care and make sure they have the amendment now we're not going to take any motions on the amendment or anything
But for our information purposes, we need to make sure that everybody has a copy of
John Hubbard
Unverified
16:47
it. Okay. Proceed, Mr. Speaker. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would broaden the management responsibilities
Speaker 47
16:57
of the Game and Fish Commission to encompass passive recreational activities on WMAs that are owned and managed by the Game and Fish Commission. Very much to the director and the commission's credit,
I think the commission is moving in this direction, recognizing that these WMAs are a tremendous attraction to both residents and visitors to the state of Arkansas, and that that attraction is much broader than the traditional scope of the management of these areas, which is for
Speaker 52
17:35
hunting and fishing. The amendment recognizes specifically over in Section 2,
Speaker 47
17:41
I don't have the lines down here,
but the middle of the page, the underlying portion, where it talks about the type of passive recreational activities that would be in the scope of that. The management practice is it concludes in that the big portion of the underlying says that other passive recreational activities that promote economic activity and that can be regulated and managed in such a manner as to not negatively impact or conflict with the duties of the commission set forth in Section 1 of Amendment 35,
which the amendment would certainly recognize their paramount responsibility as for the management
Speaker 52
18:22
of wildlife in the state of Arkansas. But also, if any of the end result would be if any of these activities were deemed to be in conflict, then they would still,
Speaker 47
18:39
their primary purpose of having wildlife management would be for the healthy wildlife population. And in the rural area that I represent, the WMAs down there are just probably the most,
but have the largest opportunity for economic development associated with bringing people into the areas. And while,
Speaker 52
19:07
again, the commission has been headed in this direction, Some of their management practices have been changed to give greater public access to the WMAs. Bringing this amendment forth, if this became part of the
Speaker 47
19:27
Constitution of the State of Arkansas,
for future directors and future commissioners, it would be clear that this was a responsibility, not an option that the commission has
Speaker 52
19:40
in how they manage these properties. Public access is the key issue that's being addressed here. And since, of course, the $1.8 sales tax is part of the revenue stream, the Game and Fish Commission and the revenues that are received off of their gas leases
are not revenues that are associated to their licensing for hunting and fishing. It seems that the revenue stream alone, aside from the economic development attraction, that all of the people of the state of Arkansas should be guaranteed unfettered access to these properties so long as it doesn't conflict with their number one duty of managing fish and wildlife.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
20:32
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, did I say in the paper today the Arkansas Supreme Court has rendered a decision on game
and fish and the money and who controls it? How does that relate to what you're wanting to do here? It
Speaker 55
20:48
was a wonderful day when I read that. I know
Speaker 57
20:51
it was for law and law, so you've got to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
20:58
get it back in your budget now. Do any members have any questions of, yes, Representative Hutchison?
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
21:06
We're asking all the people who have sponsored an amendment the same question. These aren't bills, so they, getting 51 votes isn't required. It's to convince the joint state agencies why
your bill should be one of the three. They all could be good, presented on the floor, may get 51 votes, but we have to narrow it down to three. So why would we choose yours as one of the top three?
Speaker 47
21:36
Well, two reasons. Number one is passage of this amendment would be a benefit to all of the citizens of the state of Arkansas. It would guarantee that these public properties
Speaker 52
21:52
would be managed in such a way as to have open access, inviting access to everyone in the state who has a propensity to enjoy the out-of-doors in any manner.
you might one of the side benefits of that if these properties were promoted by the state their access was promoted to have a nice side benefit of having healthy Arkansas healthier Arkansas a commensurate benefit and part of the motivation for submitting this amendment is stated in the purpose is economic development.
It gives, especially in rural communities, having an attraction like this where you can promote continued open access is a tremendous draw into the area. The problem has been,
Speaker 47
22:51
and Lauren and I have talked about it, and again, I give them credit. They certainly are moving in the right direction. But the problem
Speaker 52
23:01
has been that the properties are managed, I'm sure, For internal reasons, there are internal reasons why oftentimes the properties are,
access to properties are not available to the general public.
Speaker 47
23:15
But if you're a community that's promoting this as one of the attractions to your community and folks come to the community and the gates are locked or the access to the boat ramps are not available, you know, you have people come and they turn around and go back and obviously they don't come back and they tell people don't go over there because you don't have any reliability and you use the property.
Speaker 52
23:42
I've been on too many properties where there are too many wonderful roads to explore and a continuation of road close, road close, road close, road close, road close. And I certainly understand the reason this amendment, one of the big attractions in rural areas to these properties, could be would be four-wheeler access that's not in the amendment I know that this is it's controversial and certainly overuse of four-wheelers while they're
enjoyable to many of us can be a detriment to outdoor wildlife management and and just outdoor enjoyment of property so they're the activities are deemed passive, but the primary thing is public access to the people of our great state and visitors who come here. Representative Penarnas, you're
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:42
recognized. Speaker Moore, I was especially interested in one of the
statements you made about these wildlife management areas, and that is in the terms of economic development of the counties or the adjacent cities that are to these wildlife management areas. These areas are not open to economic development by companies to invest in, like industries to come in. Is that true? In the sense of you can't have a plant out there in that wildlife management area, so you can't bring an industry there into that county where that
Speaker 47
25:20
Absolutely not. This would not, you know, this wouldn't open it up to anything but the public having access to the property, but as far as any change to the property or anything in the amendment that it would allow any development activity
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:37
at all. Well, the point being there is because that land
is consumed for the wildlife management areas, that land is really taken out of the hands of the county or the areas to produce income or produce revenue for the county.
So this seems to me in terms of your rationale that this will actually provide some production of economic activity surrounding that WMA and that that might in fact benefit the county in revenue. Is that not true? Am I understanding what you're getting at?
Speaker 47
26:11
MR. That is a wonderful point, yeah. Okay. MR. Yeah, because this land does go off the tax road. The
Speaker 52
26:20
tax records. So the, you know, the local taxing entity is losing revenue.
Speaker 47
26:27
And your school districts don't get revenue? School districts, yeah. Okay. So, yeah, a management, and again, if they were managed
Speaker 52
26:35
in this way, then the state could promote the access, and, of course, local communities would be able to promote
Speaker 47
26:44
the reliable access and enjoyment of these properties. And, I mean, they're just treasures. I tell Laura all the time, I tell the commissioners, y'all hold the greatest treasure of the state of Arkansas.
I mean, because these are absolutely wonderful products. We're,
Speaker 52
27:01
I mean, they're absolutely wonderful. Well, I guess you could call them products of the state of Arkansas, that if we, as the natural state, if we managed and promoted them in a way, to ensure this public access and enjoyability, I think it would have a tremendous economic impact. And I'm especially interested in those areas where
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
27:26
these WMAs are that they could
be sort of a main industry in a sense. Maybe not industry is the wrong word, but certainly it could be a source of income for that county and that school district area and others. So I appreciate your attempt, what you're trying to do here, and I appreciate the, of course, you know I'm very interested in economic development, appropriate economic development. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr.
John Hubbard
Unverified
27:56
Chair. May I add one thing, Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 52
28:01
In the small community that I come from, Arkansas
Speaker 47
28:05
City, most of you know that. I'll talk about that in a minute. And it is very unique in that Choctaw Island WMA actually borders, it kind of wraps around the city limit of Arkansas City. I think it's the only WMA in the state where the city boundary is the boundary of a WMA. So the Mississippi River levee separates the two. And Lauren and the commissioners have been great establishing a trail system out there.
It has the opportunity to take a little town in the Delta that went from 589 to 366, and probably another two or three decades it's going to be gone. But it's just a ray of light down there. I mean, it really is a huge deal. And, again, Lauren's sitting back there, and they've been wonderful about opening it up. But for so long, it was, you know, people would come over there, and, I mean, the gates are closed.
They're just, it's like, well, we come over to enjoy the property, and it's like, you don't know why. They're just, they're closed. You drive down the roads, and, you know, you can't go here, you can't go there. And so it just seemed like that what would be good public policy for an area that I'm specifically interested in because that's the contact that I have with the
Speaker 52
29:29
good public policy for the state of Arkansas and how they manage these resources. Thank you. Okay, Representative Tyler.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
29:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Speaker. Thank you for bringing this. I did have a couple of questions, if I might. In the national parks, I believe, particularly like if you go up on the Buffalo River, There are a number of concessions that canoe renting and things like that, that the National Parks contract with these concessionaires to provide. Does this give the Game and Fish Commission the authority to establish those contracts in the WNMAs as well?
Speaker 47
30:16
I couldn't answer that specifically. I know that a lot of a number of their projects, perhaps all of them, or at least the latter projects that they've acquired, part of the monies that have been utilized
Speaker 52
30:34
in acquisition of those come from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. And I think under the terms of the monies that are associated with that, there are very substantial restrictions that are placed on developing anything on those properties. Now, I mean,
Speaker 47
30:51
the WMA that is close to Arkansas City, there's a segment of the property that they recently acquired down there that is not part of the
Speaker 52
31:01
– part of the property is covered by a wetland reserve program easement that would preclude in development, but part of the property has commercial buildings on it.
And, in fact, they've been looking for a concessionaire. So I think it just depends upon how the property was acquired. But I think they have that authority to engage in those type of activities now. And I think that might increase access for the general public, actually, and the economic development use of it. It's a big deal out there that could benefit a lot of areas of the state. You
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
31:38
mentioned all-terrain vehicles, and it is included in your language, and that does concern me a bit.
Speaker 47
31:46
Yeah, I have, as you would see in there, the passive activities that are defined includes the use of electric ATVs. These are basically golf carts. They're just, I mean, they're battery-operated vehicles. They're wheels. And it says, you know, the other types of all-terrain vehicles that's deemed appropriate by the commission, which is they have that access now. I mean,
Speaker 52
32:12
if the commission decides that they want to allow ATVs on part of their properties,
to the best of my knowledge, it has been discussed down on Choctaw Island, but there has not been an agreement with the commission on using part of that for traditional ATVs. The
Speaker 47
32:33
electric ATVs, number one, they're silent. Number two, they don't have the capabilities to have older boys have too much fun or girls
Speaker 54
32:43
out there, you know, riding and hot-rodding and four-wheeling. I mean, they're – I've heard rumors of that.
They are. Yeah, that's me too. And if the rumor is that I'll be doing some of that this
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
32:58
weekend, it's not true, I promise you. One further question, if
I may, Chair. Mr. Chair, in your amendment, you talk about can be regulated and managed in such a manner as not to negatively impact or conflict with the duties of the commission. Who determines whether or not the passive activities negatively impact with the duties of the commission?
Speaker 47
33:21
Is that the commission? Yeah, that would be the commission. I mean, it basically, the language is intended to say that your responsibility, your management responsibility, include these things, but you go back to Section 1, which
Speaker 52
33:34
is Amendment 35, says, you know, the healthy wildlife in the state of Arkansas. That's why you're there,
Speaker 47
33:41
and that's always, that's your number one obligation. And it would be, you know, I mean, in my mind, if the commission's, for whatever reason, said we can't have horseback riding on this WMA,
He would give Bobby, since he's a horseback guy, it would give him cause to go out there to the commission and say, you know, this is in the Constitution. Why are you not doing it? And the commission basically would have to say, because we're such and such in the wildlife, and that's in conflict right now with having horses back riding out here, and that's why we're not doing it. And it would just be, you know, subject to their accountability under the Constitution then. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Roebuck, you're recognized. MS.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
34:23
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. On
page two, when you talk about assuring maximum public access, and then you said a few minutes ago, and I appreciate the clarification of why this is so important, and I agree with you it is, but then you said that they are already doing some of this even without this amendment. So I guess my question is, why would they not want to do what you have here, assuring maximum public access and all the things that would benefit the people of Arkansas and visitors, why do we need a constitutional amendment
Speaker 47
34:56
to clarify their responsibility? Thank you, Representative Roe Buckner. That's a good question because I certainly do not question the sincerity of Director Hitchcock and
Speaker 52
35:11
the commissioners in moving forward in this direction, but they are doing so as, at their option. They have no responsibility to the people of the state of Arkansas to manage their property with maximum public access. Obviously, a different director and
different commission could decide that this land is, it should be managed in the traditional sense that it has been, and that's for hunting and fishing. And other activities are not included in the scope of their responsibility now. So it would just simply spell out as part of the public policy of the State of Arkansas that this is how the properties would be managed. It wouldn't be a matter of discretion then, it would be a matter mandated by the Constitution. MS. A
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
35:59
follow-up, Mr. Chair, so right now what I hear you
saying is that it's at their discretion
whether this becomes a priority for the Commission and the Director. But the Commissioners, Game and Fish, are selected how, Mr. Speaker? The commissioners are appointed and
Speaker 47
36:13
the director serves at the pleasure of the commissioners. So what you're saying is, is that if we pass
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
36:20
this, then it makes it clear when a commissioner is appointed that this is not a choice of the commission or the director, that it is required and that it becomes a priority, whether they want it to be or not.
Speaker 82
36:36
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Unverified
36:40
Representative Cowling, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
36:47
Mr. Chair. Is all of their land WMA with game and fish? I mean, I know some of it's federal and all, but of all the land that they purchased and got, would it be all classified as WMA?
Speaker 47
37:06
I'd have to defer to the director.
Generally, I think it is. I don't know whether they have lands that are in
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
37:14
the inventory. In other words, do they have, is there private, is there some private
Speaker 96
37:24
places in this or not that? Mr. Chairman, please state your name for the record. Loren Hitchcock, I'm
Speaker 97
37:30
the director of Game and Fish. Representative Cowling, we have about 400,000 acres that the Game and Fish Commission owns in fee title. There's probably another million acres that's cooperatively managed with other entities
like the Forest Service, different paper companies, user groups like that. But we, the Game and Fish Commission, has fee title to about 400,000 acres. That's what we're calling true WMAs under Game and Fish ownership. So the land that you got from, say, the timber companies and
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
37:59
all wouldn't fall under this rule, even though that you're managing it for them and all? No, sir. We have to
Speaker 97
38:08
follow strict guidelines of the landowner and what they want out there on the use of that.
Generally, what we're looking for with conservation easements and cooperative agreements with other users that we're leasing from, we are actually leasing the hunting and fishing rights at that point. That's how the dollar amount is figured. Well, now, if you're leasing the hunting and fishing
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
38:30
right from a paper company or timber company and all, then you'd have to open it back up to the public, wouldn't you?
For hunting and fishing. For hunting and fishing? Yes. Okay. But not for
Speaker 103
38:49
wildlife, I mean trails and things of that
Speaker 97
38:54
nature. Well, it certainly could be a point of negotiation when the contracts came back around that we're broadening our scope, we're wanting to look into the electric ATV year-round instead of, you know, certain segments, certain seasons of the year and spring of the year when crappie's biting and things like that. Thank you.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
39:16
While you're here, would you like to make a statement on this proposed
Speaker 96
39:20
constitutional amendment? Yes, sir. Thank you. I
Speaker 97
39:23
applaud the speaker and his visionary look at this, and I told him it was ironic that our commission was heading in the same direction. And I think it's primarily due to a lot of reasons. As someone asked how the commissioners are appointed, and they're appointed by the governor, we have four commissioners appointed by Governor Beebe right now, and it seems to be their direction
they want to take to broaden the economic impact in local communities where our WMAs are and address the same concerns that Speaker Moore has in Representative Pierce in this joint resolution. Fundamentally, I guess the question comes, and someone up here asked it a while ago, do you need a joint resolution to actually fulfill that when you're headed in that direction? I think, from a personal opinion and also a professional opinion, that when you look
around, it's the only direction you can go. You know, quite frankly, I'm a father of two sons. One of them loves the outdoors, and the other one, if it's got a computer screen, that's where he's at. But now he might go walking on a trail, and he might get on some type of ATV, but he could care less about hunting and fishing. And we see that in their license sales as well. And it's not just Arkansas trend, it's a national trend.
License sales are going down all across the country. Young people have too many other things that they can go out and enjoy and do instead of, you know, getting bit by a skeeter.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
41:03
Do any of the committee members have any questions for the director? Okay. Would anybody in the audience like to make a comment on this proposed joint resolution? Okay. Say none. Thank you, Representative Pierce. Thank you, Representative Moore, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 47
41:20
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
Speaker 55
41:24
committee. If you have any excuses, duty calls elsewhere.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
41:33
Thank you. I believe Representative Hutchison would like to present her proposed amendment. Which one is that, Ms. Hutchison? H House Joint Resolution 1003. So you're recognized, Representative Hutchison.
Unknown speaker
41:52
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
52:52
Mr. Rosenbaum in District 3 is Texarkana. He has another one, District 6, but District 3, they got almost $200 per person per year. If you look down to District 4, I thought, my word, what happened to poor little Fort Smith area? That's District 4, and
I was told by the Highway Department that when 540 was built, it
Speaker 115
53:21
took more than their quota that they should have gotten.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
53:27
So they got more than the others got, and that they're
paying back for that 540 costs more. Well, if you divide it
up by 10 ways, that's probably
true. But if it had been divided up by congressional districts, it may have cost more, but it wouldn't have been as
much over what the average was spent. Next, please. And it's very interesting that the relationship between lack of representation and the dollars received per person in the district are inversed.
Next, please. All right, this is the congestion map, and when you look at where the money is going, but where the congestion is, then we see what the major problem is. The money is not going to where the congestion is because the dollars do not follow people, and therefore it doesn't follow the cars. Governor Beebe is always saying he wants the dollars to follow the cars.
Well, if they keep dividing things up, generally equally, it won't follow the cars. It just can't happen. And we need for the dollars to follow the cars to take care of congestion. I'm in, since I lived in Washington, D.C., I met numerous highway commissioners. They all make their little trip to D.C. and transportation committee up there.
And our highway department, our commissioners are the most independent ones in the nation. They have more power than anyone else. And when they find out I'm from Arkansas, they talk about our highway commissioners as if they're gods. I mean, they all wish they had that much power. But they also
tell me, we don't quite understand why they build the roads where they do. And here's one example. I-49 is the highway, international highway that's supposed to go from Canada to Louisiana.
It's a major thoroughfare, and the federal government is pushing for it to be built. Missouri is doing a very good job building I-49 in their state, and Louisiana is doing a pretty good job. We started to build, and Missouri built down to the Arkansas border. And they put aside, I think it was $80 million to connect to our part of I-49. And they waited and waited and waited. we started to build I-49 down here so Missouri decided we're giving up and
they announced we're gonna take most of our 80 million dollars and build roads in our state other places they kept a little bit in the bank account but they basically gave up on us and that's an example of why are you building roads where the cars are not there so and when you understand about the 10 districts well then you understand why we are building roads where maybe the cars aren't in congestion next one please oh and by the way when we build these roads
we also have to do upkeep afterwards and so we have very beautiful roads where there isn't that much traffic this just shows the most congested roads that you would think would be in the urban areas, but the 10 most congested roads in rural areas are also pretty much in the same counties. Next please, Jeff. Next. Okay, this is the problem.
I put a map of the congressional districts over a map of the highway districts, and this is what we got. congressional district up here three it has one highway commissioner that is advocating for it little rock has two generally speaking mr. Berry's old district has four congressional four highway commissioners advocating for it mr. Ross's congressional district has all five commissioners in that area
advocating for it this is the problem as the population leaves the congressional district has to grow bigger and bigger looking for that number that they need to be a qualified congressional district, which means they pick up more and more highway commissioners. As the population shrinks, I mean, as the population increases in number, the area of that congressional district shrinks. So they get fewer and fewer highway commissioners that are advocating for them.
So that's how we have ended up where we are. I don't think anyone tried to have this happen. I don't think anyone meant for it to happen. And it was a good idea when the population was evenly spread around the state. And you can run the highway department better. But as our population has shifted, we're back to where we were in 1935 and before Mack Blackwell and at the White versus Hankins. We need to make sure our commissioners are representing equal population
and not equal miles. Next one, please. I think the Highway Department is really trying to live up to this. But they, in my opinion, they need to drop and be like the game in fish. Don't assign districts to your commissioners. Just let them be from the congressional districts. And let them work out. Don't assign these sub-districts
that they are supposed to advocate.
So, thank you very much,
Jeff. We can look at the amendment now. Maybe now we can understand why this amendment says what it says. It basically says that the highway commissioners will be appointed from each congressional district. And that's what, really legally and historically, what we should be doing. It says that they will represent no other designated portion of the state.
In other words, we're not going to divide it up into 10 different assigned them engineer districts. They'll serve 10 years, and I also put in that these commissioners must be from the area they are appointed. We had some political problems, you know. Someone had a hunting lodge up here, so he suddenly became the commissioner, even though he was only there for a few weeks every year. So we're going to try to stop that. All right, and I also thought we needed to put in some breathing room.
Because remember, White v. Hankins, we lost a congressional district and we had a lawsuit. Well, I put in some breathing room, in that if we have fewer than five, the governor will appoint someone from one of those engineer districts.
Remember, we have ten. The governor will appoint someone from one of these. They only
serve three years, so you will rotate quickly through the people, the different districts in the state.
So if we go down to three, he can point two from an engineer district. They only serve three years, but we'll rotate. If we end up getting five, go back to five congressional districts, well, then he doesn't have to point anybody from a rotating engineer district. We'll have five. You need an odd number to break ties. So that way it breathes a little bit.
If we lose one or if we gain one, we'll still be okay, and we won't have to face any more court battles. And the rest of it is basically, you know, our new congressional districts will get, and it tells how to manage that and how to start with it. So basically the commissioners will be representing the congressional districts. If we drop down to three or we get more in order to have the odd number, they'll represent
the engineer districts, but their terms are only three, so we hope to go through the state quickly and everyone will have an equal voice on the commission. And that's basically it. I think the Texas Highway Director was asked to come to the Blue Ribbon Committee, and I guess they had some creative ways of raising taxes, and that's what the Blue Ribbon Committee was about. But I asked him, what is the top priority in your state?
And he said, ending congestion. You will kill your economy if you don't end congestion. And I think that's what we need to do is have the money, follow the cards. I'm all for Governor Beebe. Governor Beebe would like that. And I will admit, the highway commissioners could get together today and vote to do this. And I think that's sort of what Mr. Governor Beebe would like to happen. But so far, they haven't seemed to give
an inclination to do that. So that's why I think this is needed. And to make sure that over time, they don't fade because we've seen three times they tend to fade away from that but this way they
Speaker 129
1:03:43
would have to stay with that basic format so i'll be open to any
Speaker 85
1:03:53
questions any members have questions uh okay representative penards was first
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:04:02
okay represent roebuck you're recognized thank you representative penards for yielding Donna, if this
was a fragmented, disjointed presentation, I would hate to see one that you had all weekend to prepare. I would love to see it. No. This was wonderful. Thank you so much for giving us all this information. I was with you in MENA when we had this discussion, and I think you brought some of this information to us at that time. I don't know how long that's been, but probably a year.
I remember at that time we had the commissioners there and Mr. Flowers was there. And I remember a statement that he made at that time, Mr. Flowers, and he said that all commissioners serve all of the state. And he said that if we wanted anything, that we did not have to be
limited to just the commissioner that lives in our district. Do you remember that conversation with him? Yes, I do. Okay. MS. Okay.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:05:06
And so that was clarifying for me at that time. MS. Well, part of the problem is, and I've been giving
this, people come up and say they call so-and-so because, you know, he's their best friend, and they are told, I am not your commissioner. You need to call so-and-so, he's your commissioner. So I think there is some delegated responsibility for advocating for certain
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:05:32
corners of the state. We more or less clarified that day from Mr. Flowers.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, but the first one is on page 3, when you talk about if we have fewer than five congressional districts, and then you go on to talk about under Section F about the at-large, and you say the term is three years, and I assume that those could be reappointed. It's line 22 on page 3, survey term of three years, but my question is, could that person
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:06:12
be reappointed? No, they could not.
Just as the 10-year commissioners can't be reappointed, the three-year commissioners can't be reappointed.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:06:24
So in other words, they would serve a very short time, and tell me
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:06:31
your rationale for that. Well, these aren't representing the congressional districts. So they aren't the true, what is, they wouldn't be representing equal population. But we do need someone to break the tie, and we do need to have the regions also influence
their vote. It's a three-year. While they don't have overriding votes, they do have an influence on there, and they are there to break any ties. But it's three years so that in a 10-year period, you would go through three
different engineer districts on these rotating commissioners. And my next
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:07:11
question really comes from one of my constituents, but I think it's a good question. When you were putting this together and writing the joint resolution, did you
Speaker 122
1:07:23
consider requiring that the commissioners be elected?
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:07:27
Yes, I did. And my first thought was, who in the world would
spend the money and time running in a congressional district for a job that pays $100 in per diem? But I just couldn't imagine anyone doing it. Running a congressional district is very hard. But I talked about it, and a lot of people would like to see it. But the problem is when you're running for office, you take donations and contributions from around, from other people.
Unless you had a law that said you cannot accept any kind of donations or contributions. So when you're elected, there is an unwritten influence in a legislator's life and in any elected person's life that you will remember them. So
we might get in a place where contractors and others who are interested would
be paying for the campaign and it wouldn't really be serving the needs of the state in general, but more into those who contributed.
It's the same problem, you know, that we have to fight. And I think they considered that one time earlier, and it just ended up with a lot of political shenanigans going on. So I don't know why anyone would want to run like that, but it would just open the door, I think, to political corruption. But you did
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:08:59
consider it and on purpose you left that out. Yes, we talked about it. Well, I commend you for the complete report that you've given us. And I assume that Mr. Flowers and the Highway Department talked to you for over five years.
MS. Exactly. And so I know you've worked very hard with them. And
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:09:18
I think they are run ‑‑ I think our highways are one of the best in the nation. And I think they do need more money. The Highway Department is in desperate need of more money. But I just couldn't vote for a tax increase until we get this problem straightened out, I think, but they are doing a good job with what
Speaker 122
1:09:39
little money they have to work with. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:09:46
Ms. Rebson Penards. Ms. Thank you very much, and I agree with Representative Roebuck. This is a very good presentation, and I know that you're knowledgeable in this area, and I appreciate the work that you've done on this. I like the presentation because you talk about the guts of it, which is to me the inverse relationship between population and dollars flowing.
And to me that is a key part of your rationale for this amendment, also especially when connected with the congestion map which you showed. Is it, in your opinion, through that White versus Hankins 1982 case, especially compelling is that wording, I believe you mentioned, what is that wording again that you mentioned about the
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:10:51
commissioners, it shall shift as the population
shifts and it shouldn't be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:10:59
frozen. So, in your opinion, is the current – do you believe that the Highway Commission is complying with stated law from that 1982 White v. Hankins ruling? Do you believe they are in compliance with that? I don't think they are. And the second question would be, that was my conclusion also, just from – I haven't read the case. I think I'm going to pull it and read it.
But the other question is to your numbers with regard to actual dollars flowing to what is an artificially made 10 engineering districts. Those are artificially made. There's nothing sacred about them. Is that true? Well, I'm sure the engineers think it's sacred. Well, is it? I mean, it was drawn
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:11:51
to help the engineers. Well, but there's nothing sacred about it. To the administration. It wasn't drawn to be a representation model. So it's something that's just been there,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:12:02
and it's easy not to change.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:12:05
I don't want to wipe away the engineer districts. They need to
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:12:10
keep those districts, but not assigned to the commissioners. Yes. Your argument is that they shouldn't be used for the selection of what areas the commissioners are assigned to.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:12:23
Is that correct? Correct. Okay. I think it would be better if
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:12:28
they were like the game in fish and just didn't have assigned areas. Okay. In addition, I noticed here something else I liked in this amendment or this resolution,
and that is, well, one further question before I ask about page five. Certainly the dollars, that inverse relationship, I'm bothered by that because of the dollars flowing to my area of the state in western Arkansas, and especially in terms of the congestion in terms of Highway 71 and the lack of progress on that Highway 71 completion, which is, by
the way, and I know you know this, Donna, it has been designated as a corridor of the future. You aware of that? Are you not? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. You talk about the authority to amend powers and duties starting on line four, running through line eight. What do you envision that, or do you have an example of the kind of thing that the legislature,
and I like this because it gives the legislature an opportunity to have input. What do you envision as an example, and if you can't have it today, maybe you can give it to us next week, as an example where we would do something to change the powers and duties by two-thirds vote, which I like the fact that you give us that power? MS. Well, I
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:14:09
hope we never would have to do that,
but I know, like I said, Mack Blackwell
came about because of political corruption, and I think if the legislators see some
problem in that, and also if let's say this terrible earthquake happened, God forbid, we may want to vote that, you know, for the next two
years we're not going to build roads any place except in that earthquake corner to try to get that area. You know, that's just I don't know how we would handle it, but if there's something
like that that we would want
to have a top
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:14:56
priority. MS. Well, that's a good example, I think. I hadn't even thought of that myself. Well, I appreciate, again, all the hard work you've done on this, and I like your approach, and I especially like your presentation of the background and the rationale and the very telling White versus Hankins case and the inverse relationship ration that is clearly
demonstrated in your presentation and the possible inequity in that. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cowley. Representative Cowley. Representative Cowley. Thank you. I've been in
Speaker 161
1:15:38
your area, and there seems like there's a
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:15:41
lot of road work being going on in that area. You've got 412 running east and west, and you've got, I know they're just now opening up the bypass around Bella Vista and all, and I understand what you're saying,
Speaker 163
1:15:54
but, huh? They're not? I thought they had
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:16:06
said that they were not too long ago. They're opening up a bypass around a small city that they hope will eventually will reach to the major road. But their building, it's going
to be many, many years off before we are connected to the Missouri I-49. Okay.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:16:25
All right, well, I understand that. But there's been work at that area, and like I said, 412 East and West,
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:16:34
they're working on four lanes through that way. Well, the problem
is the money isn't following the cars. We still have every morning and every evening congestion backs up down an interstate, and it's very dangerous for people coming on the interstate. They're new, they come around a corner, and then suddenly all the traffic is stopped,
and it's backed up all over northwest Arkansas every morning and every evening. And if the money had been following cars all along, we would have been able to handle this congestion. I guess
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:17:10
my question is this. The latest proposal I heard was were they going to one price diesel at $0.05 at a tax on diesel and all, then actually and all, then we need to put more on
Speaker 167
1:17:25
gas, I guess, also to help that area.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:17:29
Well, like I said, I think the Highway Department does need more money, and I really am not concerned how they raise it. My concern is, unless we change this funding approach, we never will get on top of the congestion in the state. So my concern isn't how they get more money. We need to change and drop the engineer districts and just let the commissioners be like the game in fish and run the highway department like that.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:18:02
I can't understand that, but then, you know, I understand that we can't do everything there in as big as the 4th District Inn and all and let the roads fall down and all that area also. I can understand, you know, the lack of money and all doing that, but I just don't see See how to express it in a way that to keep the other roads up in the state of Arkansas, how it's going to be done.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:18:34
Well, I will admit if I was from the 1st and 4th District, I probably wouldn't vote for this because you will get less dollars by having the money follow the cars. But we continue to build roads, and it's not just building roads that's the problem. It's then we have to pay money to upkeep all these roads. And we have one of the largest highway systems in the nation.
I can't remember. I'm sure Mr. Flowers could tell. Is it eighth or twelfth? And we're a very small state, but we have the twelfth largest highway system, and we have to pay for upkeep. So that's my concern. and not just that we're building roads where there is low traffic count, but we have to continue to take care of these roads. Well, maybe the suggestion is we move
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:19:27
some of these folks back to the country and all in that way would spread it back that way. Yeah, but put them back in the fourth.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:19:35
Well, you know, the philosophy was if we
build it, they will come. But sadly, they didn't come, they left. So we tried that. Well, you
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
1:19:47
know, I understand it, but I
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:19:50
think Mr. Moore's suggestion is very good. Let's give him a reason to go to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:19:56
Arkansas City. So you would defer to his amendment? Representative, Vice Chair Slinkert has some questions.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:20:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Donna, I noticed that this repeals in Arkansas Code 2765-104. I mean, that's already in. I mean, what is that code about? Is it about the terms or anything like that of highway commissioners? Yes. Speak
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:20:35
that's a broad code. And this just gives more detail and makes it
adds about if you need to actually live
in the district that you're going to represent and
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:20:51
it just cleans things up more. So therefore, your amendment, I mean, if this were to pass and then those terms and all of that would be in the Constitution and not by code even though that the legislature has powers under, as Representative Pernard said, has
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:21:20
to create statutes, I guess? Well, we do have already create some statutes. I tried to delete a law, a code in the books just
last week, I believe. This code said that when the governor appoints commissioners, he must appoint it from the congressional districts of 1979. And we pretty much, you know, ignore that, which
I'm glad. But there are powers that are in statute already.
But this basically just tries to return the Highway Commission to they represent equal population. And two-thirds is a pretty high number to get to to make changes. And it says the duties, the powers and duties, but if you notice, it doesn't talk about the form of representation.
That will always remain the same, hopefully, that they will represent equal population.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:22:29
Okay. All right. Thank you. This is a great job, Donna.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:22:37
Thank you. Representative Hobbs, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Donna, I
mean, wow. You did great. You did great. But since Representative Roebuck brought it up, I thought about just talking to you about it a little bit later, but obviously other people have also thought about having those hallway commissioners elected. I personally like the idea of giving people a voice in this, and I think if we were to
to go, congressional district, that makes it really easy. I hear what you say about political corruption, but I think the same could be said about any office that's elected, including our own and so forth. I think, I mean, based on what I'm hearing, I think this appointment is something that people seek, and now we're giving one person, whoever whatever that is in office, that political power to make those appointments.
And I'm just wondering if you would consider, you know,
give a little more thought and maybe talk to a few more people about having those
Speaker 150
1:23:42
positions elected. That's fine with me. It was
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:23:46
a debate that we went back and forth over. I just couldn't imagine who would
Speaker 64
1:23:53
run for this office. It seems like it would have to be someone who is already wealthy. Well,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:24:00
or it could be a matter of just putting your name on the ballot.
And it may just be one person, but, again, it gives the
people a choice because, like I said, it is a sought-after office, and I just like the idea of putting
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:24:16
it to the voters Mr. Chairman, could we have
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:24:19
a vote if they would like it to be amended to election? That's outside our purview. You can just suggest. You can do a member's own, I would assume, on your bill and handle it through the committee or through the House.
Okay. Would the Highway Department like to make a statement on this proposal? If you are, come on up here. We're trying to act more like a committee and get a little more intimate in
Speaker 183
1:24:59
our discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dan Flowers, Director of the Highway Department. I have with us this morning Robert Wilson, who is the Chief Counsel of the Highway Department,
and Jody Mahoney taught me many years ago that I didn't need to be practiced in law, so I brought a lawyer. Let's see if it comes down to that. This proposal, to me, rather than clarify the duties and responsibilities of the commission, actually makes it a little more confusing as far as operations of the department. A lot has been made today about commissioner areas or commissioner districts.
Ever since the 60s, and I came to work for the highway department in the 60s, there have been more or less commissioner advocacy areas. People tend to come to folks that they know have some type of familiarity with the road system in a particular area, and it seems to have worked reasonably well. The Highway Commission is a statewide commission.
It's not appointed for the purpose of administration of the Highway Department and the Highway Program from districts, but from statewide authority. If you look at the activities of the commission, you'll find that the commission oversees the entire department, the entire commission, authorizes policy, they authorize budgets, they authorize projects.
Every four years we have a highway program, and it's printed and distributed for comment all over the state, and it is approved by the commission sent on to the Federal Highway Administration and approved there also. Specific projects are approved by minute order by the commission. All commissioners sign minute orders to approve projects.
But then the commission is faced with different situations that have actually been brought up here this morning, and I'll just kind of refer to some of those. But the Highway Commission has to deal with over 100 federal aid categories of funding, and it's a pretty difficult situation to deal with because of all the different federal requirements and the amounts of funds that come to the Highway Department.
In addition, Congress has a great deal to do with how we spend the money. Reference has been made to I-49 and the development of I-49. I guess one of the best examples of the Commission taking action to deal with a – it's actually a regional issue, but it had a statewide impact, and that was the construction of I-540 from Alma to Fayetteville.
back in the 90s. And the entire commission recognized the importance of advancing that project or fast-forwarding that project and took the action to dedicate enough money to complete the project by 1999. In doing that, it impacted adversely a number of projects around the state. Just off the top of my head, Hot Springs Bypass, Pine Bluff Bypass, some work around Jonesboro
and impacted a number of areas of the state. But I've never heard anyone say that that was the wrong decision to make because I-540 replaced old Highway 71, which was not a good road. It was not as safe as what we have up there today. But that's a good example. You mentioned an earthquake. Well we've had somewhat of an earthquake in north central Arkansas in the Fayetteville Shale area.
And I'm not referring to the earthquakes, I'm referring to the damage that we have had on the road system as a result of the heavy hauling in the natural gas play area. And the Commission just last year made a statewide decision to utilize the natural gas severance tax revenue that was coming to the department for use statewide to concentrate on trying
to keep the roads together in that area because we have about $450 million worth of damage up there. And if anybody drives up there, you can see it. It's everywhere. The roads are being torn apart by this activity, and we're doing what we can to try to keep the roads together and reasonably safe. Other programs that the Commission deals with on a statewide basis are numerous. Just to mention a few safety programs, recreational trails, transportation enhancement projects,
and then the stimulus program that we had over the last several years. That was a decision by the Commission to take those funds that came to us to fast forward projects and distribute those funds all over the state. The reason for those funds coming, obviously, was to create jobs, keep people working, and it had a tremendous benefit on the state. And the Commission saw to it that this was distributed statewide in a reasonably uniform
fashion. We had a lot of strings attached to it. We had to take shovel-ready projects and things of that nature. It was a statewide effort administered by the Highway Commission. There's a lot being said about the money following the cars and Governor Beebe's interest in that. And the Highway Commission has recognized that for some time. And back in 2004, adopted a system of highways in Arkansas,
known as the Arkansas Primary Highway Network, that represents about 50 percent of the miles on our highway system, but it carries about 90 percent of the traffic. Now, there are varying degrees of traffic even within that system, but that is an effort to have the money following the cars. And the lion's share of the money that is spent on highway projects in Arkansas is on that system and has been for several years. Now, can we get to all the problems with the money that we have?
No, we cannot. But also in dealing with money following the cars, I certainly am not trying to speak for the governor, but he has also said there are other needs in Arkansas that have to be addressed in areas where there's not the heavy traffic, and that is for the purpose of mobility and economic development in other parts of the state that have relatively low traffic volumes
as compared to some parts of the state like Little Rock and Northwest Arkansas, Jonesboro, and places like that. So trying to mix all this together and make it work is not an easy thing to do. and I believe the Highway Commission has done a reasonably good job over the years in addressing these things. I mentioned Congress. Congress earmarks money, and we have no say in where it goes.
Highway 71, our future I-49, is a good example. And Representative Hutchinson mentioned the fact that Missouri is doing a good job on theirs, and we're working on ours up there and trying to get something done, But then we'd take off and spend money down below Texarkana, down to the Louisiana line. That was a federal earmark. It couldn't be used anywhere else in Arkansas. We had to spend it. Now, we had the option of not spending it, but then we'd lose it.
Now, why do something like that? So 100% federal money. We spent it down there, and it's been a good thing. It will tie I-30 in Arkansas to I-20 in Louisiana. Louisiana is building up to the line, and it will be a good expenditure of those federal dollars. Elected commissioners has been mentioned. There's only one state in the country that has elected commissioners. That's Mississippi. And Representative Hutchinson mentioned some of the problems that exist with that type system.
Speaker 185
1:34:25
If it were that effective, I think more states would be doing that.
Speaker 183
1:34:31
There are other commissions in the country that operate somewhat like ours. We probably have the longest terms, but they operate independently. I think Missouri is pretty close to us, Wyoming also, and there are others. But there are a number of ways that commissions operate over the country.
But our districts that have been referred to a number of times here are maintenance districts. They're for the purpose of taking care of the roads from a maintenance standpoint and a construction standpoint. Each district has about 1,600 miles, and we are the 12th largest highway system in the country, and we're about 43rd in the amount of money that it takes that we have to take
care of the system. A big problem, needing a solution to, and we'll never get a 100 percent solution, but We need to have somewhat more enhancement to the revenue for highway construction if we're going to do all these things that we want done and need done, such as Building I-49 and 412 and Highway 82 and many others across the state.
Now that's just my two cents worth on the discussion and as far as the legal ramifications it, I would yield to Mr. Wilson if it pleases the committee. Okay. Mr. Wilson, go ahead and identify
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:36:15
yourself. Thank you. I'm Robert L.
Speaker 188
1:36:22
Wilson, Chief Counsel for the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. I think Mr. Flowers has covered most
Speaker 189
1:36:29
of the areas that I was looking to address, but one
One of the things I know from the bill that there are several items here that are improperly addressed, one of which is we talk of commission districts or engineering districts. I've never heard the term until recently, and this is not to be sarcastic, please, but that term is not something we use. It's not something that's in the code. It's not in our regulation. There are no such things as engineering districts. But we tend to – the districts that we have are primarily maintenance districts.
Most of the engineering work is not done out in the districts. Yes, the engineers are in charge of them, but that's not where the engineering work generally is done. They have people out there who do oversee some projects and things like that.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:37:25
Let me just interject your question here. the map that Representative Hutchinson showed us with 10 districts. You're saying they're not called engineering districts? No, sir, and they never have. Okay, but they are called maintenance districts? Yes. So we're just talking about terminology.
Are those districts in that map fairly accurate as far as the
Speaker 189
1:37:50
coverage area? Well, when we use the term engineering in the highway business, it's not the same as maintenance.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:37:58
Yes. Okay, but my question is that map that Representative Hutchinson provided to us, is that, are those boundaries there accurate? As
Speaker 196
1:38:04
far as the districts, yes, they are. As far as the districts, yes, they are. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 189
1:38:14
Okay. But, you know, my contention is if we're going to codify something or adopt it in the Constitution, it needs to be correct. And I don't think that's correct. One of the other things that I noticed was we were talking about the Arkansas Code addressing the members
Speaker 188
1:38:41
appointed to the Highway Commission. And I think the citation was 2765-104.
Speaker 189
1:38:48
Actually, that's in the code, but it is not necessarily exactly what the Supreme Court said, and what the Supreme Court said was in the case of White v. Hankins, that they would interpret the Constitution in a way actually the Supreme Court used common sense, and they do that quite a bit. But what it said was that under the present system, since we no longer have more than four congressional districts,
we have five commissioners appointed, that you would always have one district, congressional district, with more than one commissioner appointed from the district. But the Supreme Court has also recognized that they serve at large, not a particular district. They still serve at large. And that's the way I've always recognized it. And I think the commission does as well because I've seen a number of districts where a number of situations where the citizens in South Arkansas
or North Arkansas will contact a commissioner that they're familiar with in this area. So it's not as clear-cut as it appears to be from the presentation. One of the other things that I noticed that probably needs to be addressed is that on page 2 of the bill, line 22, we refer to Section B-2. There is no Section B-2 in the bill at all, and I think we would.
And it does refer to district subdivisions addressed in those areas, and I looked for it and I couldn't find it. So basically I think that before a bill is submitted, I think it needs to be corrected. Mr. Wilson,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:40:46
I don't expect you to necessarily be in favor of this amendment, but I think it would be helpful to the committee and to the sponsor of the bill
that when you see those inconsistencies or those problems from a, you know, a title standpoint or maybe what you just mentioned, the section that is wrong, that you get with Ribson Hutchinson and just point that out so she can hopefully clean it up where I don't want us to spend a lot of time, you know, with dealing with so much the mechanics of what we have in the Act, but the policy implications of it and what your positions are on that, I think that
would help the committee. Does that sound
fair, committee, to ask it that way? I understand that and I appreciate that. And normally
Speaker 188
1:41:44
I would, but I just saw the bill this morning, Sarah. That's one of the reasons I read it. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate these suggestions
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:41:51
because we were wondering what to call those districts. So I do appreciate it. MS.
And we'll clean up the B-2. I'll check with the. MR. Go ahead, Mr. Wilson, if you have some
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:42:04
other comments to make. MR. Yes, so that was something I wanted.
Speaker 189
1:42:09
Like I said, I just saw the deficiencies this morning, and that's why I raised them at this time, because I
Speaker 189
1:42:19
MR. Appreciate that. You can continue. MR. Okay. Again, one of the things that they are talking about, the various commissioners, again, White v. Hankins, I think, resolved that. And I'm not sure what the effect that this particular document is going to have on that case as far as White v. Hankins. But the Supreme Court was convinced that, yes, we don't have five more congressional districts.
We don't have five or more congressional districts, but we have five commissioners. And, yes, you're going to have at least one district with more than one commissioner serving. But if we leave the law as is, it would probably be the best thing for us because we could gain more seats in the future and we wouldn't have to come back and try to amend the Constitution just
Speaker 199
1:43:09
to take care of that. It's already been taken care of by the state Supreme Court decision.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:43:17
Maybe if this amendment just said that it will fluctuate depending upon the number of congressional districts, would that take care of it? I'm not sure. I have
Speaker 189
1:43:25
to look at it to be sure. But my there is some other policy reasons which I will not address here and I think that Mr. Flowers has addressed but I will tell you that the years that I've worked there
I think the Independent Commission is what we need and the best thing for it. And I've sat with them. They don't always agree with me, but they tend to listen to us when we tell them what needs to be done. And I think if you look over the years, we've not had a scandal since the adoption of Mack Blackwell. And as Mr. Flowers said, Missouri is one of the states that has a very similar constitution, a very similar amendment. And I get along very well with my counterparts up in Missouri,
and they are pretty much the same way. that it best serves the people. It gives the commission flexibility to put the roads and serve the entire state. Now, just because someone is appointed from a certain area, they still serve at large. We cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. They serve at large, and for my meetings with the commission and sitting in on their various conversations and meetings, they all serve the state at large. They're not necessarily, they are not there to just take care of one particular area.
And there's no partisan bickering as far as I've seen. They might not always agree on everything, but it's not because of partisan bickering or trying to prove, just take care of their constituency. They have the state's
Speaker 199
1:45:07
interest at heart. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:45:14
And I think as state representatives, we recognize that we're elected by a particular geographical area, but we also serve the entire state of Arkansas.
I'd hope for us. I know some of the members want to get on the road. So if you have some quick questions for the Highway Department
Speaker 85
1:45:33
folks, then maybe we can wrap this up. Yes, Representative Hutchison. Thank you,
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:45:39
Mr. Chairman. You mentioned with the stimulus package that you tried to equally dispense the funds. Was that distributed
by the 10 districts? In general, it was, yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Roebuck.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:45:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I just wanted to go back to your statement, Mr. Flowers, when we were in MENA some time ago about each commissioner really serving the whole state. Just to clarify. and I'm looking at the map, and you know that you and I have talked for years because you also talked with my husband for six years about Highway 7 from Cattle Valley to Hot Springs. And so when I look at this map, then I see that part of that's in Clark County, part of that's in Hot Springs County, part of that's in Garland County.
So if I understand what you said to me in Mina that day, then I don't have to worry about who I contact if I talk to the commissioner from 7 or 6 or whatever. They're all going to have that on their radar screen. But could you clarify for me, if I have that concern on needing more passing lanes on that well-traveled highway,
Speaker 182
1:46:54
what do I do? Well, I understand exactly what you're saying. And communicating with any highway commissioner will
Speaker 185
1:47:01
get the word to the proper place to where we can do whatever studies we need to do, look at the whole situation.
And then when we start developing the statewide construction program, known as the statewide transportation improvement program, we involve all the commissioners in the discussion of all the projects that are brought forward to us. We have a multitude of those projects that get brought to us over a period of years, and we keep those on our consideration list for consideration in each highway improvement program,
and there's obviously more than we've got money to fund. But they're all
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:47:49
given consideration. But just to clarify and going back to Representative Hutchinson's presentation, and who's my advocate? Who's advocating for those passing lanes on Highway 7 if I look at this map
Speaker 185
1:48:06
and consider the commissioners? Murphy in Clark County, and at this point in time,
it would be Schick, the new one in Hot Spring. So going back to
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:48:20
what you told me in MENA, So I would not call someone in northwest Arkansas
Speaker 185
1:48:28
about that issue. You could call anyone you want to, but we work with these commissioners around the state, and it would be more direct to talk with Murphy or Schick.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:48:42
So just going back in what we said,
it really does matter where the commissioners live and the influence that I would have with that commissioner. I would have more influence with Schick and Murphy because that's where this highway is
Speaker 210
1:49:00
located, correct? Yes, we work with them on certain areas
Speaker 185
1:49:04
more than we do on others, but they all have a final say in the consideration of the projects that are approved. Okay. Thank you
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:49:15
for the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:49:21
Okay. Seeing no further questions, okay, Representative Bernards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:49:28
Good morning, gentlemen. Do you have to remember off the top of your head where the commissioners are or where they reside, where their home or residence is? Do I know where they are? Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Could
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:49:49
those to this committee, if the chair would allow?
Could you provide a documented list of those to the committee? You mean all commissioners or the current commissioners? Well, whoever the current commissioners are, I guess. Yeah. I mean,
do you have more than you're allowed? No. Oh, okay. Well, you're sort of
Speaker 183
1:50:10
mixing me up there. Well, I didn't know whether you wanted the history of the commission or
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:50:14
just the current. No, I don't need those back from 1937. I'd just like the current ones, if you have that. I can give them to you now. Okay. No, I'd like it in written form.
Chair
Unverified
1:50:25
Okay. Okay. Thank you. I noticed we have a few people in
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:50:35
the audience. Are you here to speak on any of these amendments or just enjoying the education that you're getting? Okay. The committee, upon adjournment on Monday, we will meet in room 130. This room is already taken. So I've also asked the staff to keep every constitutional amendment on the agenda.
And I think we need to be able to hear what people have to say on any of these if we have the time to do it. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
Special Business
HJR1007
HJR1003
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 10
Speaker 11
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 43
Speaker 21
Speaker 47
John Hubbard
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 55
Speaker 57
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 82
Chair
Unverified
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 97
Speaker 103
Speaker 115
Speaker 129
Speaker 85
Speaker 122
Speaker 161
Speaker 163
Speaker 167
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 174
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 150
Speaker 64
Speaker 183
Speaker 185
Speaker 188
Speaker 189
Speaker 196
Speaker 203
Speaker 199
Speaker 182
Speaker 210