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
Speaker 1
0:00
about the prosecution. And finally, you'll note in Section 2, criminal defendants would still retain the protections they have elsewhere in the law. So, for example, the Article 2, Section 10, Constitutional Venue Provision would still be good law. Folks would still be entitled to be tried in the county where the crime occurred. So, again, how this system is constructed within these parameters is completely up to the General Assembly. But there are these limits that keep this focused on illegal or unethical conduct by
public servants. Mr. Chairman, that would be my brief explanation. I'd be happy to answer
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
0:44
any questions. Representative Tyler. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Erie. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.
You're always very well prepared, and I appreciate that very, very much. Thank
you. Do we have some special prosecutors already that work? I believe Prosecutor Foster, if I recall, is a special prosecutor that works within
the Office of the Courts. Is that how that's
Speaker 1
1:10
set up? Ms. Tyler, if I understand correctly, Mr. Foster somehow works with the Prosecutor Coordinator's Office, and so, for example, if a prosecutor, and, again, I haven't studied this law closely, but I think the way that works, if a prosecutor has, say, a conflict at the local level, Mr. Foster can come in and try that case, but I think there has to be a judge involved, and Ms. Williams tells me that there may be two other employees besides
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:42
that works. Mr. Chair, may we ask Ms. Williams to talk about
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:47
that little further? Yes, Ms. Williams, would you please identify yourself and be able to respond to Representative Tyler's
Speaker 20
1:53
question? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Kim Williams, Legislative Audit. Do you have your mic on, ma'am? I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I do. Do you hear me? Okay. I know that H.G. Foster is
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
2:06
a specially appointed prosecutor, as is Jack McQuarrie, in cases.
I'm not sure if they've been involved in any of our particular matters, but I know that they have been. And Tim Williamson was appointed by a circuit judge to investigate it and handle a matter in Israel County because there was a conflict with the prosecutor. And the prosecutors do, among themselves, when there's a conflict, there was one in Conway County, Marcus Faden had a conflict, and they appointed Larry Jegley to look into that matter. So they do appoint through a circuit judge.
They get an appointment to assist in that
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
2:46
if there is a conflict. Mr. Chair, may I follow up
a couple, please? As you were drafting this legislation, I've had some concerns expressed in my own community about this. And as you were drafting the legislation,
did you consider having that prosecutor be a part of the prosecutor coordinator's office and that we would utilize that service as opposed to setting up a prosecutor function within the legislative branch?
Speaker 1
3:20
And let me be very clear about that, Ms. Tyler. I'm glad you asked that. I had a senator ask me at a personnel committee meeting several days ago, did legislative joint audit want its own prosecutor? No, ma'am. It does not. Separation of powers is not affected by this. We're in the legislative branch. We have nothing to do with the enforcement of laws. So no, ma'am. We're not interested in that. And if the General Assembly decided to take the authorization given by this and set up a special prosecutor to work out of the prosecutor coordinator's office, that would certainly
be allowed by this legislation. And
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
3:55
so it's not specified either way by this legislation. It could be that a future General Assembly
could decide to set up a prosecutor role within the legislative branch based upon this legislation. I don't think, because of other
Speaker 33
4:10
law, I don't think that would be possible. And this amendment does not address
Speaker 1
4:16
that other law. And Mr. Nichols is an attorney, too. I think he'll agree the rule is unless a constitutional amendment specifically addresses the existing constitution
or otherwise conflicts with it, then that existing law is still in effect. And in this case, the existing law is you have separation of powers. Legislative branch can only do its thing. The executive branch does its, and judicial does what it does. And in this case, I think the prosecutors would be in the executive branch. We being in the legislative branch, existing law, I think, would forbid us from having anything to do with prosecution other than making referrals. But we can't make the decision, decide to bring charges, and actually pursue those. So I don't think that would be an option either way.
Speaker 1
5:04
executive branch? Yes, ma'am. Not the judicial? No, ma'am.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
5:08
Okay. They are charged with enforcing the laws. Got it. Thank you. I've had a brain, you know what. One last
question. I'll be quiet. Just to help me understand, I didn't go back and have an opportunity to look up the code, but in Section 3, what is Article 20,
Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution? What is that?
Speaker 1
5:30
They're not subject to it. Oh, yes, ma'am. Amendment 80 is the recent judicial article that was passed, got rid of chancery courts, kind of streamlined the court system. Section 20 deals with the qualifications of prosecuting attorneys, the qualifications that are not adopted. If you're going to have a special prosecuting attorney, you may want the option of picking somebody outside of a judicial district. Section 20 currently says if you're going to be a prosecuting attorney, you have to live within that judicial district. And so this just says you don't have to follow any of those other than you do have to have been practicing law for at least four years.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
6:04
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hutchinson, did
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
6:15
you have a question? You're recognized. Maybe you could tell me again, since we're not setting up a prosecutor
for the legislative branch, why do we need an amendment rather than
Speaker 1
6:28
just a bill? The Constitution, Ms. Hutchinson, is now read, and there are court cases that say this and AG opinions that say this. The prosecutors that are now elected have the sole discretion on whether
to bring charges or not. No judge can force a prosecutor to do that. And so in order to change that and make it possible for a special prosecutor to make that decision, the Constitution is what gives those existing prosecutors that discretion now. You have to amend the Constitution in order to change that and set up a special prosecutor. A statute would not be able, you could not enact something by a statute that is contrary to the Constitution.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
7:15
D.C., they're always complaining that the special prosecutors are running, you know, willy-nilly over people's rights and charging in where common-minded regular prosecutors wouldn't go. So what are the parameters around this that would maybe lessen that complaint? Well, the ones that I mentioned earlier, you would
Speaker 4
7:35
get to limit who could make the referrals.
Speaker 1
7:43
There would have to be a public official involved in the wrongdoing that was the subject of the referral. Because it's a statutory system, if the legislature didn't like what was working, it could change that, which building it into the Constitution would not make that possible. But again, by having this in statute, if by experience you see that some aspect of it is not working, you can always come back and change that later. And who
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
8:09
would give this gentleman his paycheck? I think that kind
Speaker 1
8:13
of decision would be for the legislature when they set this up.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
8:18
Thank you. Ms. Tyler, you have another
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
8:24
question? You're welcome to ask. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On your page three in your report, Mr. Airy, we have 190 matters that were referred, and we had, let's see, 59 charges were not – is that right? No, wait, wait, wait, wait. There were a total of how many charges not filed?
Speaker 1
8:45
Ninety-nine. If you add the four where the prosecutor declined, the 59 where there was not, in the prosecutor's view, sufficient evidence,
and the 36 where it was an ethics violation and for whatever reason they didn't want to pursue that,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
9:02
that totals 99. Do we have any, and maybe it's in the report and I just haven't had a chance to look at it yet, Do we have any idea of how many state dollars have been impacted through these matters that
were referred? Sometimes I feel like we are a solution in search of a problem, but I want to make
Speaker 4
9:23
sure that this is a problem. While I'm letting Ms. Williams
Speaker 1
9:27
look, I will point out that we were recently involved in a fraud involving a governmental entity down in southwest Arkansas that involved three-quarters of a million dollars.
I mean, that's the kind of thing that we will find. We didn't find it, but Pine Bluff School District referred to us a fraud involving $800,000 over time, if I remember correctly. So some of the things that Audit finds can be pretty big, pretty high dollar. And let
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
9:59
me ask Ms. Williams if... Ms. Excuse me. This report is just summarized by Judicial District, not in dollar amount. I know in our last biannual report, I think we had close to $8 million of unauthorized
type disbursements, ethic violations. That doesn't mean that was all fraud or outright theft, but those were the types of matters that we referred in the last two calendar years. That would be an estimate. I guess what I
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
10:22
was looking for was of that, what an estimate of how many dollars is it that's going unprosecuted? I don't know that we know that figure. We can try to
Speaker 1
10:36
figure that out and get that back with you, but I don't know that we know it from this report.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
10:41
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hutchison, you're recognized. Would any of these cases fall under a
situation where the FBI could come in and prosecute rather than us spending money, let them
Speaker 1
11:01
do it? Yes, ma'am, we had one not too long ago involving the head of the board that regulates architects, and that executive director of the FBI did get involved, and I'll – if Ms. Williams
remembers the dollar figures and the details
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
11:18
on that one. Yes, ma'am, it was over – we went back to 1995, and basically the architect board director started falsifying his TR reimbursements from within six months of employment. But when this case broke, the FBI was involved and the prosecutor, but because there were some federal crimes with mail fraud, it was fairly easy for them to get an open and shut
case, but it only prosecuted that for around $42,000, and half of it was reimbursed. Once it was brought to the director's attention, he reimbursed it, and then the Legislative Audit Committee asked us to go back to his inception of employment. By the time we were finished with that report, he'd already been convicted at the federal level and the prosecutor decided, I guess, a double jeopardy type thing not
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
12:14
same crime again. These 99, has anyone looked into them to see if it would fall under FBI jurisdiction or
were these cases just, I mean, what has to be the line crossed for this? them to
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
12:27
look into it? When we do a report, if there's something in it, we have a working relationship with the FBI, and if it's something we work with the prosecutor and the FBI and the state police, and they sometimes decide which angle would be quicker and better and get the best conviction, and that happened in Ms. Roebuck's district with Joe Ball, Upper Southwest. There was a conflict with a prosecutor there.
He knew the gentleman. The FBI got involved. They got a conviction, maybe one that everybody would be happy with, but the gentleman also reimbursed three-quarters of a million dollars to a landfill organization. So when outside
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
13:09
prosecutors can come in, we've asked them to? Yes. Brian
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
13:13
Cheshire had a conflict of interest, and he also works well with the FBI there and the U.S. attorneys, and it was an obvious case of mail fraud, and I mean, it was open
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
13:25
been shot. I think we need to stay on the amendment here and how it relates. Well, my question is if FBI and
Speaker 62
13:35
outside sources can step in, maybe we don't need this. That was my question. And it may be, Ms. Hutchinson, sometimes we don't have a
Speaker 69
13:43
federal matter and it's just a state matter.
Speaker 1
13:46
Where a federal matter is involved, obviously we can get them involved. But I can't look at this list right now and give you an answer about which ones are which.
Speaker 56
13:58
Any follow-up, Representative Hutchison? Okay. Representative Roebuck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
14:06
Chair. And if this has already been asked and answered, please tell me. If we did this, if this passed and we had our own prosecutor, how would the case in Pine Bluff, and there's also one that I was familiar with that I talked to you all about in Jonesboro at ASU there, how would it be different?
Now, I understand about the Ball case because that ended up federal, but how would it be different with the special prosecutor? If you've already explained that, just say, and I'll get Donna to tell me
Speaker 1
14:45
what you said earlier. Well, Ms. Roebuck, I do want to clarify this. It would not be a legislative prosecutor because of separation of powers. So I have heard that question before, and I do want to dispel, you know, we can only deal with legislation.
Enforcement of the law is an executive branch issue. So whatever official was created by this process would be an executive branch official. To answer your question, I don't know, Ms. Roebuck, that it would necessarily be different in some ways. My perception is the committee, the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee, would like the level of comfort that somebody removed from a district, perhaps removed from working with these public officials on a daily basis in the courthouse or wherever, a different set of perhaps less
interested eyes looked at a problem. MR. I think I hesitate to speak for the committee, but that's my perception of their
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
15:43
concern. MS. A follow-up. So you think that if we had this process, it would expedite, certainly, correct? MR. It could in the sense,
Speaker 12
15:52
and again, it depends on the process that you
Speaker 1
15:56
guys create, but it could in the sense that whoever is doing this is just looking at the matters referred to them. They don't have the day-to-day robberies and murders and that sort of thing to deal with
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
16:07
too. MS. Okay. That's all for now.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:17
Thank you. MR. I have a question. Would this Navy legislation allow the legislature to establish maybe a public corruption division in the AG's office to prosecute these type of
Speaker 1
16:28
crimes? MR. I don't think this legislation, this resolution would keep the General Assembly from doing that if that's how they chose to do it.
Excuse me. I think you would have that option if
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:45
that's what you chose to do. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Anybody, any other questions from the committee or would anybody in the audience like to
Speaker 56
16:58
chime in on this issue? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Erie. Ms. Williams. Thank you,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
17:09
Mr. Chairman, committee. I see we have Ms. Hobbs here, and she has
a couple of resolutions that she filed.
Representative Hobbs, would you like to just explain what these resolutions
are and see if any of the members have any questions they'd like to
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
17:28
ask you? Representative Walker is not here, is he? I'm standing in for him. I'm teasing. He was in the committee I presented him this morning. Just kidding. Okay, and actually, as you can see, these are shale bills, matter of getting them filed before the deadline.
But I was encouraged to hear that the idea behind this committee is to improve, make improvements upon these. The 10-11, for people that live
out of states, when they
come here and they have to assess their personal property at a separate time than when they actually pay for the taxes, I think, at least feedback that I'm getting is that it's rather an archaic way of doing things.
A lot of states, for instance, you know, when you buy your tags, you pretty much pay
for your taxes on them when you get your driver's tax. So it's a one-step
process, which makes it simpler for a lot of people. And that's just the idea behind this, is do away with having to assess personal property because basically personal property that is assessed is whatever's being tagged anyway. I'm not talking about real estate property, but personal property items.
And we did have kind of a town hall meeting in our area, and this was one of the concerns voiced by the people that attended that town
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
19:10
hall meeting. Any members have any questions on the concept? Yes, Representative Tyler. So
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
19:20
we have an assessment office, and we have a collector's office. Correct. And so would it be the intent of
this, once you put language in it, that you would combine
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
19:31
those two offices? I think that is something to consider. And like I said, it's a matter of needing to get it filed, and so that's just not put it out there. But I just think if we can make government more efficient and make it a simpler process for people to pay their taxes, that's something I'm very interested and motivated in doing. And in talking to some of the assessors and so forth, it just sounded like a constitutional amendment would be a whole lot easier than trying to go in and change all the different
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
20:05
laws. May I follow up one question? There's more than things that you have to tag that we pay personal property taxes on. Such as? Such as, like, the equipment in my frozen yogurt store. So you're talking business. Well, my furniture in my home is personal property. So I pay personal property tax on my assets.
But you don't have to assess it separately from your real estate. Yes, I do. I assess my personal property each year, which includes my vehicle as well as my personal assets that I own. And I'm trying
Speaker 34
20:55
to understand. That's the only statement I get. So
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
21:01
she's – isn't that right? Representative Hobbs, if you don't mind, Representative Tyler. Maybe you can help me. Usually when you assess your real property and the assessor knows the size of your house, how many bedrooms you've got,
they assess a value to the personal property that is there. But it is anything that is movable is going to be personal property. So there is that aspect of the system. Now, you raised one thought in my mind. And you said you thought it would be easier to do a constitutional amendment than statutory changes. If it can be done statutorily, you know, we ought to look at, you know, my thought would
be let's look there because and let's leave this process to those things that there has to be a constitutional change. MS. Right. Okay. And I'm agreeable
Speaker 106
21:58
with that as well. about the topic, but
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
22:00
that's just a thought that I had when you were sharing this.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
22:04
And I'm okay with that. And like I said, I really wasn't ready to – I didn't have all my information together yet. Well, I think that's the purpose of this. And that's the reason I went ahead and did it, because I felt like it's a topic that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
22:20
needed to be discussed. I think just this
discussion somewhat informally helps you formulate what you need to do. So as I mentioned before you came in, we're not here to take any up or down votes or pass any judgments, but kind of ask maybe some probing questions to help the member maybe redraft or make other decisions. Any other questions or comments for Ms. Hobbs, Ms. Bill?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
22:51
And, you know, maybe that you're right. If you are, I think that's great. I'd much
Speaker 109
23:04
rather do it that way. If the committee, if you don't mind, I
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
23:10
will just go ahead and mention my bill, and I'll just stay here, if you don't mind, because this will be real quick. Did anybody in the audience want to speak on Ms. Hobbs' bills?
Or resolutions? Okay. Did you cover both of them when you were speaking? I did
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
23:40
not. Oh, okay. Go ahead and cover them. But I'm okay if you'd like to go into yours first. No, no. Bye. Now, the second one, or 1012, I was told that this would take a constitutional amendment to change. And this is something that, again, people in my area, and as their representative, I felt like I needed to bring this proposal before the committee.
You know, during the Depression, we began, I guess the taxes were forgiven for one year. They could at least delay them for a year. So now we always pay our taxes a year in our arrears. And, you know, again, people that moved in and out of state just find that to be very confusing. and especially one young man, I mean, spoke very passionately that he felt like we needed to have our assessments and our payment of those taxes within the same year.
And I think what we would do is just forgive one year of taxes because you're never going to catch up anyway. And one of his arguments was that he brought the point that he moved into the area and, you know, did his assessment Then he ended up building a new home. So it was almost two years before he actually started paying real estate taxes. So one thing he said, he felt like it would bring, you know, people that are using the services such as the schools and so forth,
they would start helping pay for those services in
Speaker 113
25:19
questions? Yes, Representative Hutchinson. I'm from an area where
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
25:25
people come and go quickly. For those who stay in one city a short time, if they come, they assess, but they move before the taxes are collected,
are you saying they've been here a year and a half, two years, using our services, and we've never
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
25:46
collected the taxes from them? That is my understanding in
conversations with the county people before, you know, they have made that point.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
25:55
Is there any way through the clerks? I know they can't spend time looking for wherever these people went, but can they know who didn't assess again and then maybe come up with some figure to know, since this impacts schools, how much we're losing?
I think if you had that figure, that might be very persuasive. It has
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
26:19
been a few years since I talked to the collector about that. And trying to get
an accurate information was difficult because with that delinquency, he also said that the homestead exemptions were calculated in that. So he said it was hard to know which is which. And he said they did not, you know, someone moved out of state,
Speaker 91
26:41
they pretty much rolled it off. Yes, Representative Tyler.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
26:52
And I may be confused. I'm not a tax accountant. There's a lot of things
Speaker 45
26:57
I've decided I'm not today, but I'm not a tax
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
27:05
accountant either. Me neither. When I sell a house, and I thought in my closing that I account for the taxes that would have accrued that I haven't paid, and that would be part of my disbursement in selling the house. Wouldn't that be? So therefore, I'm trying to figure out
how it would be. Now, I know there may be a delay in receiving the money, but I'm trying to figure out how there would be a non-payment of that if
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
27:35
I sell the property. I think with real property, if the taxes, if you don't mind, And if the taxes are not paid, there's going to be a lien on that property. So I think they will end up being collected by somebody. And so that's the way I would see the real property issue.
I don't think they can, as long as there's an ownership interest in that real property, the state or the county, whatever, they have mechanisms for collecting on it. Or it ends up with the land commissioner's
Speaker 121
28:17
office. Yes, Representative Hutchinson. Oh, okay. Yes, you're recognized. Thank you.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
28:21
Representative Hobbs, how will this, I mean, I realize this is just a shell, is that correct?
Yes. I would have questions regarding, what is it, Amendment 59 and Amendment 74 regarding, oh, it's all about collection and distribution of taxes. I mean, that would be, would this, do you think, require a complete rewrite of all of those things?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
29:01
I haven't really visited with the staff
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
29:05
attorney to know. When, okay, if you, the purpose is to get them paid in the same year or something, or what is the, I'm sorry, I
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
29:19
was, I apologize. That's okay. Like I said, in this town hall meeting, it was very clear that people in our area felt like if you assess one year, then you actually pay your taxes the next year.
That's very confusing, I think. And so what they wanted is do
your assessment of your real estate property and your payment of taxes within the same year. I'm sorry. Thank
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
29:52
you. Thank you. Representative Hodgson. I know are
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
29:57
there a number of laws that would have to be changed if we made that difference
or would this one law automatically change those or would we have to go back and
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
30:15
legislative change the laws? Right. A brief discussion I had with the staff attorney about this, and, again, it was very brief, but the point was made, if this became a constitutional amendment, then part of the amendment would change those.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
30:35
Any other members, any questions? What about the audience? Anybody from the assessor's organization or the
school board's association? may be losing a year of income. Thank you, Representative
Hobbs. The other item is my joint resolution.
All I will say is that's to repeal our annual sessions. I felt like it was a
waste of time and money that we had. I guess we've been making a statement, felt like we fought over a place to sit when we were out there. So unless somebody's got some questions, may I just ask Matthew Miller, our attorney, to draft a bill repealing the annual session. So that's where I was coming from on that. Now we also have representatives from the land commissioner's office.
Mr. Ingram is not here, so I think it might be appropriate just to wait until he's here if you want to. He's ill. He's ill? Okay. He's ill. So we will pass on that. Now, I did see Representative King go through the back door back there, but I haven't seen him come out, so I don't know if he has anything that he would like to say. And the other reps are not here on these bills.
So does any member have any other questions or comments about the Constitutional Amendment? Yes, Vice Chair. Thank you,
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
32:19
Mr. Chair. It was mentioned, I think, about guidelines for how we were going to process these. I mean, I understand the subcommittee and all of that, but there was mentioned something about guidelines. I think
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
32:34
Chairman Hall is going to be covering that in our regular meeting. I think the purpose of this is to put out the ideas of the various constitutional amendments
and get feedback from each other and decide how we would like to proceed on it. This way we'd have a way to learn about the amendments instead of just walking into a full committee meeting.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
33:01
Yes, Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was going to ask this of everyone that came since we didn't have Mr. Hall here. I couldn't ask him. But unlike bills where you only have to get 51, on the amendments, I think each person
needs to display why theirs should be the top three. Why is it such an overwhelming need that theirs should be the top three? So Representative Hobbs, I'm not sure if she was going to introduce hers or where she is. And so I'd like to know why you thought the one about changing the payment of our taxes, why it should be considered the top three.
And I'd also like to direct that to our chairman on why he considers, because they all may be good, but we can
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
33:59
only vote for three. And I think this process helps us as members to
make that evaluation. You know, I just thought I would throw mine out in the mix, and if there's consensus that can be built around it, then great. You know, that's what we're here for. And all of these proposals that have been submitted have some justification behind them,
And then I guess we'll deal with the politics of who, you know, who comes out of the committee. But we are limited in what we can do. And we also have our counterparts at the other end of the building that have their group of amendments that I'm sure they feel are just as valid as anything we put forth. So this is my first time on the committee to deal with constitutional
Speaker 3
34:49
amendments. I think, Representative Hutchinson, you were on last time, were you not?
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
34:53
Yes, sir, and it always boiled down to that question, why should yours be in the top three?
Because we did have a lot of good suggestions. So that's one thing when we present it we need to remember that's the big question that you have to answer at the end of the day. I understand
Speaker 107
35:12
that. And if you were at that, and you were at that meeting, you know, that some people
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
35:18
felt very passionately about this. And I felt like as a representative from the area that if, you know, if there had only been two or three amendments submitted, then, you know, I would have been in error for not trying it.
Thank you. And like I said, it may, you know, it may find out, oh, that's a
better idea, and I'm okay with that,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
35:42
but I think I need to represent the people. Any other questions or comments? Would anybody in the audience like to comment on any of these
resolutions? Hearing none, I guess we will stand adjourned until Friday morning at 9 o'clock.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 16
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 20
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 5
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 4
Speaker 62
Speaker 69
Speaker 56
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 12
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 106
Speaker 109
Speaker 93
Speaker 113
Speaker 91
Speaker 45
Speaker 121
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 107