House State Agencies Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB221
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB221”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1437
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1437”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1443
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1443”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1579
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1579”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1704
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1704”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB263
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB263”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB304
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB304”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB334
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB334”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:00
We have a little house cleaning to take care of before we get into the agenda today. I think it was announced the other day in the afternoon session about the Arkansas County Election Commissioners Association discussion on election-related legislation. It's to meet this Friday at 12 noon. Is anyone in the committee planning to attend that? We have Tracey Bernard.
Speaker 4
0:30
Anyone else? Is that the one that they asked him to attend? No. I'm not sure. This is the one that has
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:44
been set up three weeks in a row and been canceled three weeks in a row. Okay. We have Tracey, Representative Bernard. Okay. Just
Speaker 4
0:54
want to make sure before we can tell them who and who will not be here. The other thing we need to
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:01
talk about, let's be aware of, no, I'm on just to, tomorrow
afternoon we're going to discuss the procedures on constitutional amendments, and that will be done tomorrow after at our regular meeting that we're going to have after adjournment tomorrow. We're going to talk about the procedures and how we're going to handle it and the dates that is going to be required to work with the Senate to get these constitutional amendments heard and out. So if you can, let's be here tomorrow as soon as we can get after adjournment until we've got several things we need to take care of.
Without objections, we're going to take up Senate Bill 221. Senator Dismayne, are you here?
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:49
Senator, are you, Rep. McLean, are you going to work it for the Senator?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:07
Senator, would you take the end of the table and explain your bill? Well,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:15
Yes, sir. Let's bring the amendment forth. It was something that was presented to us by Attorney General's office. Well,
we felt like this amendment was covered by the FOI language in the bill, something they felt was needed, and we don't see any issue
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:29
with it whatsoever. Well, let's the committee get the copy, and then we'll take care of
the amendment first, Senator. Lieutenant Governor, welcome.
Welcome to our committee. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Nice to have you with us
today. Representative McLean, did you have a hand up there? No, she doesn't. Okay. Y'all heard the explanation from the Senator on the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Representative Garner. Move to pass, Mr. Chair. We have a motion to do pass on the amendment of the Senate Bill 221.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Ayes have
it. The amendment has been adopted. Senator, you are ready to discuss the bill
Speaker 24
3:22
as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. This bill is essentially what everybody has come to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
3:28
know as the open checkbook bill. This is a bill that was worked with very thoroughly with DFA. We had direct input from them, something that all interested parties had a say in, and that's something we're very proud of.
The result of this bill, I've been told by DFA, and I'll let them speak for themselves later, is going to be one of the best online checkbooks in the state or in the country. So, again, it's something that's going to be very easy for user, very user-friendly, something that I think will be very beneficial to our state agencies. I think we'll have a decreased burden
in FOI requests regarding financial issues, and I think that's something that will be very welcome by the agencies. Again, if you don't mind, I'd like to turn it over to the governor and let him make a few comments. That's okay with the committee and the chair.
Speaker 29
4:14
Certainly. Senator? Thank you all for letting me be here today. You know, on the other side of the house, they say that they do all the work, but, you know, I wanted to see what this side was like. So thanks for letting me be here today. As many of you all know, I campaigned on online transparency and open checkbook, and thankful for Senator Dismang for sponsoring this bill. My statements will be brief, but thank you for letting me speak today. Arkansas currently lags behind 36 other states in online transparency,
and we need to be a trendsetter. And so what I would like to see is the ability for people to see where their tax dollars are being spent. I think this will bring accountability to our government and also eliminate wasteful spending and restore people's trust in government. And so that is why I'm for it personally. Two years ago, there was an estimated $4.5 million cost for this. This has been drastically cut by 86 percent.
And so that is something that I'm thankful for, that we're getting cost savings where people can see where their money is being spent. I don't have any further statement, but I would appreciate a good vote on this. And just one follow-up,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
5:35
just for clarification, this will cover all state agencies with the exception of higher ed. Higher ed, I think most of you all know, is not underneath the ACES system. They all have, or most of the universities and colleges have their own accounting programs. And the cost that was going to be associated with implementation of online
checkbooks for those universities was estimated somewhere around $10 million. And so,
like Like I said, I'm disappointed they're not in this bill, and we are working to do something to help bring them along and take them into this process, in this much-needed process. But again, that would be the only state agencies not included. Senator, will you take questions? I'd be happy to take questions.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
6:21
Representative Cowling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said 36 states has already got this already?
Yes, sir. Of those 36 states, now, how many of them run
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
6:34
a balanced budget? I couldn't speak to that, sir. I'm not sure. I think if I understand some of the governor's comments, and this is reading the newspaper, that most states have a balanced budget amendment in place. How many have observed
Speaker 24
6:48
it? Again, I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not sure about the, if you
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
6:52
can bring it around, I guess I'm sure. There's number four that's got it, so I don't know that it's helping them any.
Speaker 24
6:58
Well, I'm not sure that this is anything that will help with a balanced budget, but I do believe it will help your constituents back home if they
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
7:07
have an interest in how we spend our money if this provides them access to make that investigation, which I think that you would probably agree is something that's very needed, something that would be very appreciated.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
7:18
Well, I understand that, but I'm just saying that as far as though, sure they can question what is being
spent and everything and all, but it's not necessarily making the states
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
7:30
doing any better. Well, I think that, and I mean, I can't speak for the committee members, but I know that input that I receive back home goes a long way in how I conduct myself in the Senate chamber. And so I believe that if individuals have access to more information, they're going to be able to provide me with more information about how they feel about particular issues and how we spend the state's money. I mean, the primary goal of the legislative body is appropriation and expenditure of state revenues. I mean, that's our primary task.
I know we do a lot of other things, but that's what our focus should be. And, again, I think that I welcome all input I can get from my constituents back home, and this is another tool that they'll have at their disposal to be informed and provide me with insightful direction. I agree with
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
8:18
you there wholeheartedly. Like I said, I know it, but I'm just saying that I don't see where the open checkbook is actually. help other states stay within their means? Well, I'm
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
8:28
not sure there's a direct correlation between open checkbook and other states staying within their means,
and I can't speak to that as far as a study or anything like that's been done. Again, I can just say for practical purposes, I would assume that this, and I do believe, I mean, just from the interest I've had on the bill, that this will be something that will provide our constituents with additional information, that additional information they provide us with, again, I mean, I know it's at our discretion on how we use it, but it has a lot of influence on me. And so, yeah, I mean, I think it will result in a better process in the long term.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
9:04
Thank you. Thank you for the question. Representative Cheatham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, good to see you down at the end of
the table. I think this is a good bill. I think we need to be transparent in everything we do. I guess the only concern I have is, and it may not be a problem, but DF&A, do they have appropriation enough to cover this?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
9:27
And I'll let them speak to that. I mean, I will say just before, and you all go ahead and come on up, but the numbers that you have before you are very conservative numbers.
I think that most of us know the governor operates in
a very conservative manner, which means he overstates anticipated expenses to make sure that we come underneath those costs when they're realized. And so I think what you'll see in this, and I think he'll speak to it, I am very confident that the individuals over there will do a very good job tightening whatever spending and doing this as efficiently and as cost-effective for the public as possible. But, like I said, I think it would be probably better addressed by DFA. And I guess what
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
10:04
I'm trying to get at, I guess, Senator, is that I noticed yesterday in the House
the atmosphere has changed a little bit, and there's some Senate bills, appropriation bills down there that got pulled out. And I'm just wondering if this is going to be one
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
10:18
of those bills that's pulled out. I can't speak to that. I don't have a vote on your end. But, I mean, I think that, again, what you'll find is, and I think it's, I mean, this is a progressive way to spend tax dollars. And, again, I think in the end, and I don't have ability to quantify what that cost savings will be, but, I mean, our state agencies are hit with FOI requests regarding physical matters daily.
And so that burden will decrease. They'll be able to be more efficient in those agencies because this information will be made very readily available to the public in a very user-friendly form. And, like I said, I think it will help our state agencies. As far as cost and actually result, I can't speak to it if it actually results in the cost savings to the state. But, like I said, I'll
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
11:06
agree with what you say. I guess I'm being a little facetious, I guess. I understand. But I guess to Mr. Weiss, I guess would this be two new positions and would this be additional appropriation that he needs?
Speaker 59
11:17
If you would, state your name. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Richard Weiss with the Department of Finance Administration. And Representative Cheatham is correct that there will be a cost to this. Nothing worth doing is ever very easy, as you probably know. But we will do this in the most efficient and effective way that we can. We feel like we need two people with extraordinary skills to be able to accumulate all of the data that comes out on a daily basis, and eventually we will have daily expenditure
reports posted at the end of every day. And that's a tremendous amount of information, and we need people with the skill sets to translate what's coming in from the agencies and from the different accounting systems and put it into a common format that is understandable to people.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
12:12
So, Mr. Weiss, you have these positions already in your budget?
Speaker 59
12:16
We have a supplemental request that we're going to add to our budget if it's adopted.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
12:22
Okay. I guess I'm just curious about what's going to transpire down the road. We've seen some things already happen, and I agree. I think this is a good bill, Senator, and I just hope some other people in the other end of the building here can see that it's a good bill and not just because it's an increase are going to kick it out. Well, and I don't want to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
12:40
get involved in the House's business, but, I mean, I'll say, I mean, I agree with you. I mean, I hope that every individual will take a look at this. And other, I mean, if we're going to speak to it, just to get off the bill for just a second,
and we've got to speak to all anticipated expenses, and I think you'll see a process that hopefully your chamber will go through that we weigh and measure each one of those increased expenditures or anticipated expenditures or appropriations, and I think that you'll have a diligent group at your end, and I think you'll do the right thing
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
13:14
ultimately. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
13:21
Representative Penelope. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dismayne, welcome this morning.
We miss you in the House. At least I do. I miss you. Okay, y'all. Senator Dismayne, even in the face of having said that now, Senator Dismayne, we on the House end do believe in open government. We applaud you joining us this morning because we're being live streaming for open government.
So we know that that's something unusual for y'all. But anyway, you look good on camera, I'm sure. I like this idea when I first heard it from a fellow representative more than a year ago, maybe two years now. But as you know, you and I both serve on Joint Budget Committee, and as a member of that committee, we have a responsibility to look at budgets, and so I'm concerned not with
the philosophy nor intent of the bill, which I, like Representative Cheatham, support. I'm concerned about the cost, and if I may, I'd like to address my questions to that. You've indicated in here that, and by the way,
thank you for your fiscal impact statement, that the estimated cost is $825,000, and from your former explanation I was trying to determine
if that was a liberal expense estimation or a conservative expense estimation. So does this amount, is this on the high side or is this on the low side? MR.
Speaker 70
15:20
I've been assured that it's on the high side. And
Speaker 72
15:25
also I think one thing we need to keep in mind is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:31
the actual implementation process, the start-off process, one-time money can be used for those expenditures. MS.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
15:38
In other words, one-time money, you're talking about general improvement fund money? MR. That's right. Yes, ma'am. From
the Senate side, of course. Of course. Yeah. I'll be looking at your GIF appropriation bill, Senator Dismay. How much of this, if it is, in
fact, the two new positions, of course, are an ongoing cost, and then you have the ongoing cost of the website hosting, which I hope is not going to be $50,000 for hosting the site,
but I know some of that money includes the development. Do you have any idea of how much of that
$50,000 is actually what we call the annual hosting site fee? I may, if you don't mind, I'll
Speaker 78
16:27
let DFA take that question. Senator, thank you,
Speaker 59
16:31
Ms. Bernard, for the question. We, again, are estimating to make sure we cover our costs. If it comes in less than that, we will do it for less than that. But this will go through INA, you know, which is the state's portal where we have our, you
know, tons of different things out there. I think this is consistent with what we pay for other applications, but if
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
16:58
we can get it for less, we certainly will. MS. Okay. And I was interested, and if I may, Mr. Chair, since you've allowed it, direct a question to Mr. Weiss? Mr. Chair? If I may, direct
a question to Mr. Weiss specifically. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Weiss, when you indicated a supplemental, you're talking about a supplemental to the
fiscal year 11-12 budget? That's correct, ma'am. And what would that supplemental in your good estimation, and based on your experience, be, because would it be the entire $825,000 for fiscal year 11 and 12, and then what would be projected for the remaining
Speaker 59
17:51
of the biennium? MR. For the first fiscal year, which would be 12, we anticipate $600,000.
Included in that will be $300,000 for consultants and the two positions and the portal cost. For the second fiscal year and for the years on out from there, it would be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:16
about $225,000. MS. And most of that, Mr. Weiss, if I may, is
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:25
MS. And the hosting cost? MR. Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay.
And so projected over a two-year period, it's just
Speaker 59
18:33
under a million dollars or around a million dollars? MR. Over a two-year period, yes. A $600 the first year
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:40
and then a $225 from then on. Okay. Thatís correct. And when you ask for
a ñ and just one further question, Mr. Chair, if I may. Mr. Wise, when you ask for a supplemental, most people ñ thatís a supplemental to the fiscal year 11-12 budget.
A supplemental appropriation means that money has to come from someplace. So with your great expertise, where does that supplemental money come from for the 11-12 appropriation period since we're now engaging in the appropriations for 11 and 12? Where exactly does that supplemental money that
you may request come from? The supplemental will be written against
Speaker 59
19:33
the State Central Services Fund, which is
where DFA's operating appropriations come from. If we can negotiate out something on the one-time cost with the governor or with the legislature in terms of using GIF money, then we would have that portion of it coming out of GIF. Does the central services fund,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
19:55
money in that fund, does that money typically, as we refer to
it in joint budget, does that money come off the top? Yes, ma'am.
So that money is deducted from the amount of money that's available for general revenue, and it's off
Speaker 59
20:15
the top, right? That's correct. Well, it comes off the top from not only general revenue, but everything that
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:22
is collected by the Department of Finance Administration. I appreciate your, as always, honesty and your opinion about these questions. And I just want
to make sure, as a joint budget member, that we understand where this money
is coming from and how not that this bill is not important. I wouldn't say that at all. I just want us to all understand where that money is going to come from and that it lessens the ability to use that money for some other purpose the body may
find important. Thank you. Senator, thank you for being here today, Governor. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 98
21:08
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Rep. Nichols? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
21:13
If I ask to be recognized, Representative Cheatham and Penards had not spoken on an issue that I think is very important, Senator, and I just left the joint budget meeting where I heard the freshman Republican say that he ran on a campaign promise that there's going to be no increase in government spending and no increase in appropriations. he is willing to negotiate, but he has that parameter there.
So I am very concerned if the minority party is wanting to hold up government, and which is a very serious matter, I think it would indicate that we could end up like California or Washington, D.C. government, and that even though I agree with this bill, I am in favor this bill, but the tone that I'm seeing coming from the minority party is that even though
this may be a good government, we ain't going to pay for it. I just like to say. So I think you've got something that's going to have to change with that approach to government or we're going to be in a lot of trouble in this state. And I just wish that your colleagues would recognize that, that they have good legislation. This is good legislation, but it means absolutely nothing. Point of order. Are we speaking on the
Speaker 105
22:45
bill? Yes, I am. Are we asking questions?
Speaker 109
22:55
You have gripped it off a little off of
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
22:58
the motion. Okay, I will bring it back then. Please do. Do you feel that your bill is contingent on receiving proper funding? Of
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
23:06
course, just like any bill like this that is going to require funding, would be contingent on the appropriation. Now, and I'd also like to say just very quickly, since we drifted off and I think the question was pointed to me, and if you don't mind, Chair, I'd like to address it. They're not just my colleagues, they're your colleagues. We're all colleagues in this building.
And I think that most of you know in this room that I don't operate from a partisan standpoint. And I would, you know, just like to respond in a way that let's not make a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with partisan politics about partisan politics because I assure you that was not my intent to sit down at the table to do that. Now we can debate the question of funding, but again, we're all colleagues. They're not just my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Roger Norman
Unverified
23:58
Representative Nichols, are you continuing? No, I'll pass.
Speaker 45
24:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Klemmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
24:11
a question about the $300,000 consulting cost. And before I ask it, I would like to, oh, Representative Steele got up, but he reminded me yesterday that you're not supposed to ask questions you don't know the answers to. Well, I don't really operate that way.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm in higher ed, and we ask all kinds of questions in higher ed that we don't even think can be answered. But I would like to know, with that said, how will we – how has that cost arrived at, the $300,000 for the consultant?
Speaker 78
24:47
Again, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like to redirect that question. Certainly. Mr. Chairman, I
Speaker 59
24:53
have with me Paul Lothian, who is the head of the Office of Accounting for DFA. and he is the one who's come up with these cost estimates, and if you don't mind, I'd
like for him to be able to respond to that so we can give the committee
Roger Norman
Unverified
25:08
the fullest explanation. Certainly, if you'll state your name and who
Paul Lothian
Unverified
25:12
you're with, sir, for the record. My name is Paul Lothian. I'm at the Department of Finance Administration, Office of Accounting. I'm the administrator of the office. To answer your question, obviously this is something new for us, and so basically what we did was sit down, have a discussion with senior management. We know what consultants cost us to do other projects that we're currently working on. That range is anywhere from $150 to $200 per hour for a consultant that has these kinds of skill sets.
And we estimated that we would use about 2,500 hours of that time. We'd try to bring in two to three people to do this in a very short time frame to build these databases. And, you know, that's how we come up with a number. We know about what it costs per hour. We know about what man hours it takes, and if this passes, then we'll sit down and put our game plan together to determine whether we need two or three consultants, what's the most effective
Speaker 124
26:06
manner to address the situation. If I could follow up, how
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
26:12
will this contract be awarded to a consultant?
Will there be, I mean, do we have these on board? Are we contracting something out? Will there be bids let? Most of
Paul Lothian
Unverified
26:23
these type of consultants come through a convenience contract that we have with the Department of Information Services. They maintain a list of qualified people that have these skill sets and backgrounds, and we use that methodology to do this with most every contract that we have of this nature. Okay. Thank
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
26:40
you. I think I had another question, but I'll pass for the time being. Thank you.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
26:51
really appreciate this bill. I think we may need to add a little bit more because I think we may need to have a consultant for explanation and complaints. Because I'm sure there's going to be a lot of folks that's watching this checkbook and all. They want to know why so-and-so did this and
Speaker 111
27:08
complain about it and all. So you may have to add a little bit to that. Thank
Speaker 97
27:17
you all. Are you throwing representative rub up?
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
27:23
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Most of my questions have been answered, but to follow up on Representative Cowling, because if we are going to have the transparency and we are going to allow all of our citizens to look at this, what will be the procedure for someone that has a clarification question or a complaint? Is that going to be covered with these new positions? Is one of those positions going to be a complaint department? In response to that,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
27:48
I think we are the complaint department. I mean, I think that's what we're elected to be is the recipients of the complaint department.
And so, yeah, I mean, I guess it could increase my contact with my constituents, but, I mean, I think that that
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
28:07
burden falls on us. I understand that, Senator, but what we're saying or what I'm saying is is that when I receive a complaint from one of my constituents, then I go to seek answers and information. I'm going to go to DF&A for that information. Who will be there to receive my concerns and to help me provide the information to my constituents? Is that position covered
Speaker 59
28:33
this expense that you're giving us. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, Ms. Roebuck, thank you for the question, and I think you're talking to
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
28:46
the person who receives complaints. Yes, sir, and you do a great job, but I'm just looking at how this is going to increase the workload, and I'm just trying to confirm that these two new positions that we've thought through this and in the job description for those, that you will have the manpower to take care of what I see to be a much greater.
Speaker 59
29:09
Well, these two positions are technical positions. They would have nothing to do with any interaction with the public, but I can assure you that we in DFA and all the other state agencies interact with your constituents on a daily basis already. I agree with you this will probably raise more questions initially than we've had before, but, you know, that's what
Speaker 139
29:31
we're paid to do. That's our job. Well, I am
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
29:35
certainly glad to hear that. So we're going to say that then in the future when we are looking at budget
that we're going to be able to absorb all of this work
Speaker 140
29:45
within your agency with existing personnel. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Representative Tyler. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
29:58
Chair, Senator Dismang. I, too, miss you. This is an important bill to you, isn't it? Yes, ma'am, it is, and I miss
Speaker 143
30:07
you, too. Thank you. Okay, okay, all right.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
30:12
The, as I understand it, there may be some GIF funds. We've talked about that already. So, as I understand it, on the Senate side of the House, each senator directs where their portion of GIF funds go, are you going to make a pledge that all of your
Speaker 145
30:30
GIF funds goes to this project? I'm not sure that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:37
I'll have any GIF funds at the end of this process. I mean, I understand your question.
I mean, at the same time, this is something that I think you could look through here that I'm not the only one that feels passionate about. There's a large number of co-sponsors. The majority of the Senate are co-sponsors on this bill. It's also, I think, if you read the paper, something the governor believes in and something the governor supports, and I think that's evidenced by DFA's presence today. So to say specifically where that GIF money comes from, or even if I would have enough
Speaker 39
31:10
to help with that issue, I mean, I can't speak to how much I even have to give.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
31:17
Well, I'm just looking for, you know, if we have skin in the game, if it's really important, what's the priority? And if the priority is, from on the Senate side, that we fund this, then I think just, you know, as it may be a statewide project that we fund, that you and your fellow senators
Speaker 145
31:36
who are co-sponsors of this bill would make a commitment to fund it. Okay.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:42
I have no idea. Yeah, and I think that also goes into appropriation request were due last Monday, and I'm going
to tell you, I don't have an appropriation request that directly directs money towards this program. I'm not sure what the procedure would be, but as far
Roger Norman
Unverified
32:01
as participating and helping, yes, I would be willing
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
32:07
to do that. Thank you. Are you through, Representative Tyler? Representative Bernard? Mr. Chair, I have a point of information request or a point of order, I'm not sure which, since we're sort of allowing Mr. Weiss to be a part of Senator Disbang's presentation,
so I must assume by that that DF&A is endorsing this bill. And I ask the Chair for clarification. Mr. Weiss, would you make a public statement on your
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
32:36
position on this bill? Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you very much for
Speaker 59
32:41
the question, Ms. Penartz, and yes, we indeed are supportive of this. We work very closely to make sure that the information that this bill says that we will do, that we will be able to do, and we will be able to do it within the time and the resources
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
32:58
that we have. If I may, Mr. Chair.
Yes, ma'am. Mr. Weiss. Yes, ma'am. Are you officially endorsing this bill on behalf of the Governor? Endorsing
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
33:12
of the administration. Okay. Well, I just wondered, because normally we allow people to speak for and against, but I just wanted to clarify. I appreciate the – by the way, Senator S. Mann, could you tell me later how you got DF&A to endorse your bill?
I'd appreciate that. Thank you.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
33:31
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So would I. Thank
Speaker 157
33:38
you, ma'am. Representative Garner? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
33:41
Chair. And this question is also directed at DF&A. I've done some research on this issue and there's a lot of information out there. Other states routinely, in a majority, where there are projected costs have come in under
budget of their projections and I hear you making the statement that that is certainly possibility for you here, would you agree with that? Absolutely. And I will also say that, you know, there have been moments where I've been and they're fleeting moments where I've been critical of DF&A. Very fleeting, sir. Very fleeting moments. But I'm being very careful.
I have been made aware that in working on this that DF&A has put their resources behind the development of this to the extent that it is there are many websites and programs in these other states that have been researched and looked at and that it is it has been the effort and attitude of DF&A that they are going to make an effort to exceed the what's out there in other states that we are making every effort to make the best open checkbook
website available in the United States. That comment has come to me from DF&AG. Would you agree? Yes,
Speaker 137
35:23
sir. We have looked very carefully, and with
Speaker 59
35:26
much consultation with you over the years, too, We have looked at what's out there, what other states have. We know of no state that posts as we intend to do, post on a nightly basis the expenditure run of that day. Most of the states out there may have annual information, some of them may have monthly
information. We're going to be on a much more frequent basis than that, and it will be information It comes directly from the state's accounting system, so it will be good and
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
36:04
true information. And a follow-up, there's been some statements or questions about fellow representatives talking about the complaints. And certainly, as we shine the sunshine on state expenditures, there will be some expenditures that won't be made
because if you know that the sunlight is shining before you ask for or essentially write that check, you might not write that check. But for those instances where a check is written and people have reason to complain, DF&A being the dispersing function of the state, would you agree that to some extent the purpose of the check will be there And the complaints might very well be directed directly at the agency or to the person who's using that money
and not necessarily just to DF&A who is essentially cutting the check.
Speaker 59
37:07
I would firmly hope that happens. As you know, one of the statewide newspapers hung all of the state vehicles around my neck. this last year when DFA just kind of compiles all the records, but everybody out there thinks that the DFA owns all those cars. So yes, I'm saying that jokingly, but that's true.
We will get hit with a lot of that, but we'll also
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
37:36
know then how to redirect those questions. I know from researching this and all the incidentals of Open Checkbook and other states that everything from bottled water contracts, I mean, all, you know, the different agency heads, different departments, every one of those checks becomes visible to the public. And there is, it is very easy to go right to the source of who asked for this check to be cut and why.
And DF&A, in dispersing those checks, is merely the dispersing officer for the state. So will those purposes be clearly listed in the open checkbook so that people can go to essentially the people who are spending the money? The open checkbook will show
Speaker 59
38:26
which agencies are spending the money. It may not be completely clear exactly what the reason for that is. You know, one of the things that I go back to a lot is we have agencies, particularly in DHS,
where they have many, many juveniles in their care under their sponsorship. And on weekends, they may take them to a movie. Well, somebody's going to see a state car there at the movie or see the state paid for a movie for a bunch of folks and say, what the heck are we doing? It becomes very clear when you realize that they are taking care of foster kids and they're out there trying to give them a life. So you're going to have questions like that, but there's, you know, there's a way to deal with that, and I think it will be very open to see which agency is actually spending that
money and from there get very quickly to what
Speaker 164
39:20
the purpose is. Well, I just want to say I appreciate the
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
39:29
effort of all concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question would be for Mr. Weiss also. How are we currently keeping up with these checks that are written? How are we logging them? And is there a simpler way to do this than this right here?
How available would it be to me if I wanted to know what was being spent in
Speaker 171
39:57
the state at the current time? Well, it... Are you still
Speaker 59
40:01
using ASIS? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I mean, there are very tight controls over all state expenditures of the state. It's a very formalized process. It goes through the Office of Accounting, and all of that is kept up with. Now, as far as translating that information to you as general citizen of the state or as a legislator or as me,
Speaker 61
40:24
translating that into something that's readily understandable to people is where the trick is in all
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
40:31
of this. Could that be downloaded to Excel file? And I think I've done that when I worked for the state before on
Speaker 61
40:42
some of our... Well, you're rapidly getting out of my debt. And mine. But I don't think that
Speaker 59
40:49
what we have right now is readily accessible to people. I can go to Mr. Lothian and get any expenditure on anything that's ever happened here, you know, in very quick order.
Most citizens don't have quite that access that I do, or, you know, and then have it explained what it is. So that's what the purpose of all this is, is to
Speaker 88
41:10
put something out there that anybody can look at and understand. And, you know, I understand that, and
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
41:19
my only concern is the cost of it, you know, what it's going to cost as opposed to what a simpler method might be. And, you know, I don't have a lot of, I don't have a lot of questions about this, about
how the state's spending their money and, um.
Speaker 59
41:39
No, sir, and I, let me say that I think, you know, what we're doing is we're getting information from every state agency. We're getting it from the Highway Department, who is not even on ACES. We're getting it from Game and Fish. We're getting it from all of the constitutional officers, and getting that into a common format that's readily understandable is what's going to require some money and require the technical people we have here. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
42:03
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Mayer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to go back to the funding source. You mentioned the State Central Services Fund. For a supplemental, will that also cover the ongoing costs? I mean, is that where the funding will come from year after year? Yes,
Speaker 139
42:25
sir. That would be a part of the operating budget
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
42:29
of DFA. Okay. And the Central Services Fund, where does that money come from? It's a fixed percentage.
Speaker 59
42:38
of everything that is collected by the department, which which includes virtually all special revenues, all general revenues, lots of the other types of funds that come through the state. But everything that comes through revenue gets collected and put through there and gets a 3%
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
42:55
taken off. And so this bill will not change that 3%, is that correct? So essentially net general revenues will be unchanged if we pass this bill.
That's correct. And I also wanted to ask, we currently have a transparency website of some kind. We've got the recovery website. Do you all administer that website? Yes, we
Speaker 139
43:19
do. We have that. We have a website that we're getting all
Speaker 62
43:23
of the motor vehicles that the state owns put on that's going through kind of the same process. Did you all, I
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
43:30
think you said you were going to work with the information systems department to set up the new website.
website, is that the same department that y'all worked with to set up the transparency website? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yes,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
43:59
sir. Representative Klemmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question kind of dovetails with what Representative Garner was driving at. or around, or maybe he drove right at it, and I'm going at it from a different direction.
Is the information, Senator Dysvang,
is the information that this bill will make available, is it currently subject to FOI? It is. Is it conceivable or perhaps even likely that the cost
Speaker 118
44:30
currently incurred answering FOI request could be offset. I can't speak to that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
44:37
directly, and I don't think that anybody has quantified what that
decrease in FOI request cost will be, but I think that everyone agrees that there will
be a decrease. Now, I can't speak to if it's actually going to be enough to completely
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
44:54
offset. It's at least, which you concede, it's
at least conceivable that the time spent in agencies would be answering requests would be reduced. because this is available? I would absolutely think so,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:04
and I think it will create greater efficiency. You know, as an accountant, when I'm doing my work in the office, the hardest thing, I mean, the worst thing is to get distracted and taken off task.
And so I think this will help keep the individuals working in the agencies on track. It will help prevent them from having to sidestep what they're actually doing in the middle of to complete an F-R request and the timeframes and requirements that, you know, correlate with an FOI request. Thank
Speaker 118
45:35
you. And have you by any chance counted the number of sponsors on this bill?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:42
It's been a while, but I believe we've got several.
Again, I think the majority of the Senate has signed on to this, believe in it. I think I can't speak directly for the governor, but I think there are plenty of newspaper articles in which he stated his support of the bill. And then on the House side, I mean, and I think it's time we probably let him say something, but we've got Representative McClain, which has
supported the bill and also found a large number of co-sponsors and supporters in the
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
46:11
House. I did count Senator Dismang. I'm sorry, my former seatmate. I'm not quite used to calling you Senator yet.
Twenty-five Senate co-sponsors, and this is probably for the people in the audience, and 35 House
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
46:32
Mr. Chair. Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Weiss, in response, in your response to
Representative Behrer's excellent question a moment ago, you said something that gave me pause when he asked you about how this
would impact net general revenue available, and
just so I'm clear, the Central Services Fund percent, which you declared to be 3 percent, in fact is correct. Is it not true that regardless of whether it's this bill or another, that if money is taken at that point that it does, in fact, decrease the amount of net revenue, even if
the percentage stays the same. MR. He
Speaker 59
47:33
asked if it would, my recollection of the question, would this reduce net general revenues or the revenues that fund all of the general revenue agencies, and it would not in and of itself do that. Obviously any expenditure you have out there is going to be reflected as a reduction in revenue someplace. MS. Well, thank you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
47:57
very much, because that's my point right there.
MR. Sure. I didn't understand him to talk about the totality. MS. I think your response was partially correct, and I see now that you've clarified it to be fully correct. Motion at the proper time. Representative McLean. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 111
48:19
I had two things. I was going to make a motion at the proper time, but I cede to my
Representative James McLean
Unverified
48:24
colleague, Representative Penard. So I do would like to make just a brief statement. This body has made investments in the past in these types of technologies with the live
streaming, which I get nothing but positive comments about, and I think that's something that's going to be, we're going to look back and it was a wise decision to make that investment and we have I think one of the best websites where anyone can go and track a bill, find out what their legislators are doing, find out what legislation might possibly affect them where it is in the process. So this is not unique in terms of an investment in technology, in transparency, in keeping people informed. And I would appreciate the support of this committee, and I think it has a lot of support,
and I look forward to bringing it to my colleagues on the
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
49:19
House floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Robott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of clarifications. If we have a private vendor, and I'm just thinking about the juvenile treatment center at Alexander, and we contract that out to a company I believe in Florida called G4S. When we are looking to see what that particular vendor is using the contract money for, will
we be able to see that in a private vendor? Or will it just show
Speaker 139
49:49
a check to G4S? I believe it would be just a check to the vendor, where the state
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
49:55
money goes directly to. MS. So we would have to then require that the vendor then publicize their expenditures. MR.
Speaker 59
50:03
That's correct. I mean, once the money leaves the Treasury, that's what we're accounting for. When it goes to a private vendor, the way they spend it would not be transparent into
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
50:12
this. MS. So the same would be true in our DYS system of all of those providers because they're private providers that we contract with to provide those services. So we will still not be able
Speaker 139
50:24
to see that information. Is that correct? how much money has
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
50:28
gone to them, but not how it's spent. Okay. And then my next question, Mr. Chair, has to do with higher education, and I believe the director is in the room, and he may want to answer this. Refresh my memory, Mr. Wise, why is higher ed not a part of ACES?
Speaker 59
50:45
Well, I'm not sure that I can fully answer that question, but ACES if you'll recall from when it was put into effect in the year 2000, I believe, was very, very controversial. There was a huge learning curve that the agencies went through. Higher ed had the ability then and generally still do to get themselves exempted from things
that appear to cause a lot of extra cost on their part. That's kind of facetious. But But they opted out of it, if you would. And as a result, they have their own systems. They have accounting systems that ultimately report to Mr. Lothian's shop for the consolidated annual financial report that we published. But they do have separate systems that don't talk to ACES and that would require a whole lot of work to ever get on a common platform.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
51:50
MS. And it's your testimony that that would cost about $10 million? MR. That
Speaker 59
51:55
is the number that we have been given from the Department of Higher Education.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
51:59
MS. But is it also your understanding that individual institutions of higher education could make that information available on their individual websites? MR. I believe
Speaker 139
52:07
they could, you know, depending on which school it was. MS. Because that's
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
52:13
been a real concern, and I've said that to people that asked me to sign on to this bill. I feel like we're talking about state government expenditures and so much of our expenditures
higher education, and yet we are saying that we will not have
Speaker 140
52:28
accessibility with that information. So I just wanted that clarification. Thank you, Mr.
Roger Norman
Unverified
52:34
Chair. Thank you. I have a question, if I may, Senator. On your amendment, on
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
52:40
the amendment expenditure data does not include expenses of pending litigation. Can you elaborate on what that is referring to and does it refer to future litigation that we may
encounter? Are we going to prohibit that from being, is that going to be off?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
52:56
That information is not currently FOI-able, but the Attorney General brought us that language just to make sure that there was no issue between the language that we had here and what they do in their office. And so, I mean, that's what that clarification is for is their litigation cases that they're currently involved in. Okay. Thank you. And one thing, if you don't mind, can I speak to Representative Roebuck's question or a couple of questions? Absolutely. I believe that those companies that you were talking about where you write the check
and the only thing you're going to see is that one check, all that information is FOI-able, but I think there is an actual website that you can – they're all 501c3s or some type of nonprofit. A nonprofit, when they submit their tax return, I mean, it's searchable on the Internet. There is a website, it's been a while since I've done it, but you can go and look up just about any website where you would be able to see their expenditures and revenues. And so you should be able to see where this check comes in, or at least the blanket line where this comes in, and then how they spent the funds.
And so, like I said, there is a follow-through that can be done with information to be provided through this deal. And then also on the higher ed, I have the exact same concerns that you did. Very disappointed it was not included. and I would love to work with you because I know that's something you care about too and try to see if we can't get that done. I mean, just some examples of stuff that we're looking at. Other states have the same issue with higher ed, and what you'll find on their websites are links to the individual colleges' websites where they have their own open checkbook.
But like I said, those are things that we're looking at, and I would love
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
54:45
to work with you because I miss you too. Well, okay. I've got
to admit it. I really do miss you, too. Senator, I just wanted to clarify, though, because some of us served together on aging, and certainly my colleague, Mr. Garner, tried to shine the light on G4S some years ago, and it is difficult.
I know we can do that, and we all did that that year when we were freshmen. but I'm still saying that it's not going to be a part of this and that concerns me that I can do that but an average citizen would not know how to go about doing that when they see that huge check for how many million? 11 or 12 million every year written to G4S so that was my point. So I would love to work with you too because I think higher ed that there will be a way individually for higher ed institutions
to follow this and make it available on their individual websites, and I would hope that the new director would take that as a challenge. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman? Who
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
55:49
was on that? I'm not acknowledging you, Senator. That would be fine, Mr. Chairman. It would be the best thing to happen to me all
Speaker 210
56:02
day. I don't think you could speak on this bill specifically. That
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
56:08
would be fine. I'll accept your challenge, though. We're going to the public comment period.
You might be able to sign up and speak then if you'd like. Are you, Senator, are you through presenting
your bill? Yes, sir, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, we're going to the public comment. Is anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill? Anyone? Anyone speak for the bill? Seeing none, I would recognize Representative Garner who has asked previously for the privilege of your motion, Representative Garner.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
56:47
pass. We have a motion do pass. As amended? As amended. Representative Garner, as amended? As amended, Mr. Chairman. We
have a motion do pass as amended. Any comments from the committee? It was a pleasure. All in favor of the motion, do pass as amended. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. Motion is
passed. You'll pass your bill out of this committee, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members. Representative Stewart is going to run Senate Bill 263.
Representative Stewart, are you in the House? Please take the end of the seat and we will start. At our last meeting, we overlooked Representative Stewart who had sat diligently for an hour and then inadvertently thought he was supporting another bill by the committee. So we apologize for that, Representative Stewart. You have the mic, and if you would, are you presenting?
Speaker 4
57:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are you representing Senator Teague on Senate Bill 263?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
57:50
As best I can. You can probably handle it. Okay. This is a real simple bill. It's to remove the dean of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from the State Crime Laboratory Board. And back on page two, it just increases the number of physicians engaged in active practice or academic medicine. It allows UAMS to have some flexibility on who they appoint to that board, someone who may have more expertise or more knowledge on that topic.
Speaker 5
58:22
Are you through with your presentation? Yes. Will you take questions? I will. Representative Cowling? Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 35
58:29
Chair and Representative Senator Stewart down there.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
58:33
What about the crime lab? We didn't get their appropriation out now, so will we have a crime 11? I'm not sure, but they were there
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
58:44
with me on Monday. We didn't get to run this bill, but they're in support of this bill, and it just
gives the UAMS some flexibility on who they appoint to the board.
Speaker 4
59:02
Are you through, Representative Kellen? Any other questions from the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
59:08
committee? Do we have a motion to Representative Nichols? A question. What
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
59:12
Mr. Cowling brought up, if they don't have an appropriation, are we wasting our time with this bill? No bill is a waste of
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
59:22
time in the House of Representatives, Representative Nichols. And our job is to sit here and listen to whatever our members have that
they would like to present to this body.
So I would say we are never wasting our time. That was my thought also, so I move do pass. Well, we've got
Speaker 5
59:42
to go to the public hearing first, but I will acknowledge that at the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
59:47
proper time. Is there anyone in the committee who would like to speak against Senator Keefe's bill? Anyone for it? Representative Nichols, you have a motion? Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor do pass a motion.
Say aye. All opposed say no. Motion passed. Representative, you may tell the Senator he got by this time. Yes, sir. I'll give him your comments. But we would appreciate it. Next time he might attend our streamlined video where we can see him on TV. I don't think he can sit still that long. I think you have another bill on House Bill 1443. I do. And I'll
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:00:27
ask Mr. Harper to come sit with me, please. Without objections, we're going
Speaker 4
1:00:31
to let Representative Stewart run that bill since he is already at the end of the table.
Representative Stewart, you have the
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:00:39
mic. Thank you. House Bill 1443 is, I guess you could call it a technical cleanup bill. We're putting two words in. If you'll notice that on lines 2A and 2B, it says the manufactured homes are modular homes. Down in the third paragraph, it got left out in the last time, and so that makes all three of them consistent. It talks about manufactured homes or modular homes.
The words modular homes were left off on line C. Would you take questions? Yes.
Speaker 60
1:01:14
Representative Sheatham? Mr. Chair, I don't
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:01:21
have a question. I have a motion
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:01:24
at the proper time. What would the motion be? It would be due pass. Okay. Representative Nichols? I have a quick question. Yes, sir.
The I guess the manufacturing home or modular homes, are they represented by the same groups,
same entities, or is there any disconnect between those who are in the modular home business versus those who are in the manufactured home business, or is it one industry that we're dealing with? Let Mr. Harper
Speaker 225
1:01:53
answer that question. He needs some face time on the camera. Thank
Speaker 99
1:01:59
you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and Representative Stewart for supporting this bill, bringing this forward.
Speaker 4
1:02:05
Would you state your name and who you're
Speaker 99
1:02:07
with, please, sir? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. J.D. Harper, Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association.
Speaker 226
1:02:12
And in response to Representative Nichols' question, yes, the manufacturers of both products are generally the same. They're run down the same factory assembly lines. Most of the cases, they're retailed by the same retail outlets, and in this case, they're installed by the same group of people. We did have a couple of folks that are not set up as manufactured home installers that needed to get licensed as modular home installers. Those folks actually work for the factories.
So in that case, we look back at this and found in 2005, we had this in the law, When the law was amended substantially in 2007, these three words, or modular homes, were left out of that line. So we came back to correct
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:02:59
it. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. No other questions. Anyone else in the
Speaker 4
1:03:05
committee has questions? Anyone from the public would like to speak against this bill, for the bill? Representative Cheatham, you have a motion?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:15
Motion do pass, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion do pass. All in favor of the motion to do pass, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Motion is passed. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you, sir. We're going back to the regular agenda at the top. It's House Bill 1304. Representative Williams, are you here? Okay. House Bill 1409, Representative Carter. Representative House Bill 1437, Representative Mankin. If you would,
take the end of the table, and you're recognized as to present your bill.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
1:03:56
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Committee. House Bill 1437 is just more of an efficiency, streamlining bill for the health department. What it does is exactly what it says. It's an act to amend Arkansas law concerning type 4 transfers and other purposes, and it goes back to 1971 when the State Board of Health was transferred to the Department of Health utilizing a Type 4 transfer. As a result, the governor has to sign any rules adopted by the board.
According to the governor's office, this requirement only applies to the Board of Health and the governor's office would like to see the requirement removed strictly as a streamlining measure. And that's basically what it does. It eliminates the necessity for the health department to have to have it. Every little rule adopted by the board signed by the governor. Are you
Speaker 4
1:04:50
through presenting your bill? Yes, sir. Any questions from the committee? Any questions from the public?
For or against? Representative Bernard? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:05:04
do pass. We have a motion do
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:05:07
pass on House Bill 1437. All for it say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no? You've passed your bill, Representative. Thank you.
Speaker 4
1:05:18
Thank you, committee. We're going down to House Bill 1446, Representative Williams. He's
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:05:24
not here. We're going to Senate Bill 304, Pritchard, and I think Representative Rogers is going
to run that bill for the senator.
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:05:43
Representative Rogers, you have the floor.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:05:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. Senate Bill 304 is an act that would amend the provisions of Arkansas law concerning the award of capital improvement contracts by the Arkansas Building Authority. And I have Ms. Ann Laidlaw with me here today, who is the Director of the Arkansas Building
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:06:16
Authority. Representative, are you willing to take questions, Representative Roger? Are you still presenting your bill? We're
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:06:28
still presenting. Ms. Laidlaw has comments to make.
Speaker 55
1:06:32
Would you state your name and who you're with and present the
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:06:36
bill for the? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Ann Laidlaw, Director of Arkansas Building Authority. And this is simply a cleanup legislation for processes that Arkansas Building Authority is already conducting for other state agencies.
We just have found that there were some areas that we needed to provide some clarification. I would like to point out on the page one on the bill, a number of folks have had questions assuming this means that we're doing away with formal bidding by contractors, and that is not the case. This is actually just to put it in line with what we're doing for formal bidding throughout capital improvement projects, but there was an issue here where a contractor was being asked to go after the fact to get bids from a subcontractor when, in fact, they will have
to get those bids from their subcontractors in order to bid to start with. So it was kind of the cart before the horse, and I wanted to provide that
Speaker 4
1:07:32
clarification because it has raised some questions. Thank you. Rep. Are you all ready for
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:07:43
questions? Any questions for the committee? Representative Bernard? Yes. I think I understand the intent
of the bill, but the intent is that if you have these projects,
Ms. Phil Law, how do you pronounce your last name, by the way? Laidlaw. Laidlaw. Okay. Is the
intent that if these bids or if this subcontracting work is less than what y'all deem to be a very minor amount, that they don't have to go through the normal process? Is that it? Representative
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:08:17
Pernouts, are you referring to the last page, the additional language on the last page?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:08:23
Right, because you're striking that you're deleting the first part, lines 29
through And then you're adding portions on page two that deal with if it's listed work under $20,000. So could you explain to me, is it because it's just a minor amount and you don't want to have
Speaker 89
1:08:42
to deal with that with contractors under that amount? Is that it? MS. No, ma'am. This is actually
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:08:49
two separate issues. On the first page, it's just saying that in order for a contractor to participate in
formal bidding for job order contracting, that they're going to have to go ahead and contact subcontractors and get their pricing in order for them to prepare their bid to participate in the bid process to be awarded. The way the law currently reads, it would say that after they've been awarded that contract, then they would have to then bid subcontractors. Well, they've already had to get those prices, so it's really kind of a mute point. In their prime
Speaker 248
1:09:19
bid, I mean, or in their main bid, they've already had to do that.
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:09:23
Yes, ma'am. Exactly. of their price regardless. They have a contract at that point for that pricing. I think the
second point that maybe you were making was in the second page where it has additional language that's saying that listed work of an unlicensed contractor for $20,000 or more. Right now, the way that the law reads is that for any work that's less than $20,000, you do not have to be a licensed contractor. So this is strictly restating what's already currently in law.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:09:55
MR. Well, you can understand our level of awareness with regard to any time the word contractor
is used in a bill that comes through this committee anymore, we're sort of synthesized to that word. So I want to make sure we're not somehow doing something here by allowing unlicensed contractor work that's less than $20,000. Is that what we're doing by passing this when we
say it has to be $20,000 or more? Currently law is that if
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:10:25
the work is less than $20,000, you do not have to be a licensed contractor with the contractor's licensing board.
And I will just add that we did, of course, talk with a number of entities that currently are working with Arkansas Building Authority and a number of state agencies, contractor Licensing Board, General Contractors Association, and they all agree with this bill.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:10:46
So the Contractor Licensing Board supports this bill?
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:10:49
Yes, ma'am, as well as the Association of General Contractors and Subcontractors.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:10:53
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion at the proper
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:11:00
time. Representative Nichols. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, so page two, section three, line six through 23, is this amending the Contractors
license forward enabling legislation? Is that what we're looking at?
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:11:13
MS. No, sir. We're not changing any existing – no, sir, it does not, to answer your question specifically. This is just consistent with what capital contractor licensing – contracting for work is already consistent with law. It was clearly omitted in this portion of the law, so this was done
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:11:33
for clarification purposes only. MR. The one area
that concerns me is Line 9, and I'll try to make it as non-controversial
as I can in respect to Representative Penartz. You have taken out a field of work that – because this state does have a number of sheet metal subcontractors. So why are they being
eliminated from this legislation? Yes, sir. I
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:12:01
apologize. have caught that earlier when you were asking your question. Actually sheet metal was eliminated previously when this law was amended, I think in 2007-2003.
Sheet metal was removed because it is apparently a part in the roofing industry, and they felt it was already covered. So it was eliminated in another portion of the code that's prior to this, and this was overlooked that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:12:27
it should have been removed in
this portion as well. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that. Sheet metal trade, they
do a lot in the mechanical and the plumbing industry also, and it's not necessarily related to roofing.
So that just gives me a problem in that we
are striking out a distinct endgame industry, distinct business grouping, and, you know, that just
gives me pause about the bill. So anyway. Representative Nichols, if I may attempt
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:13:09
to answer as well, if you'll look on line
seven, page two, line seven and eight, it includes those others that you were referring
to. It includes the mechanical,
plumbing, engineering, I mean electrical and roofing. It
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:13:31
only takes subcontractors. I don't understand why it is striking sheet metal subcontractors from this language. That's my concern. They are distinct business entities. They perform a particular type of work, but we're not making it mandatory that sheet metal
are part of the award. And it still hasn't been explained to me, the rationale, even if they did it on other legislation, why they are being excluded in this piece of legislation,
Speaker 258
1:14:06
why they are being taken out. And I'm sorry, Representative Nichols,
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
1:14:16
I don't know that I can answer your question to really truly address your concern, is that apparently this was addressed with that industry previously and they did not feel as though that there was as much of a concern.
It may be that somewhat of the subcontractors that are the protected subcontractors that have to be listed in a formal situation, which includes mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and roofing, that they did not feel that the shoot metal contractors, subcontractors needed to fall into the group of the protected subcontractors. And so since they were removed in that portion of the code, that this was just really an oversight that was not stricken in this area as well.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:15:00
MR. Well, I don't necessarily oppose the bill, but I would like to have information from the sheet metal subcontractors before I vote on this. That's just my concern about it. I
know you've done your – maybe you – I assume you've done your due diligence on this, but I just think it's
kind of staring me in the face right now, and I'd like to hear
from that industry what they think about the bill, removing the sheet metal
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:15:46
subcontractors. Representative Nichols, under the contractors that approved and were notified of this legislation and either responded back positively or did not respond at all, the American Subcontractors Association of Central Arkansas was
included in that, and that is where the sheet metal subcontractors would fall.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:16:06
Well, I do recall that some sheet metal subcontractors were here in 07 attempting to change the alternative bidding practices and they lost out on that and I hope this is not related to that at all. But I would like to hear from
Speaker 99
1:16:33
a sheet metal subcontractor whether they think this is a
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:16:38
good bill or not. Representative Nichols,
are you through with your question? Yes. Is there any other member of the committee in
the questions? Representative Nichols, may I ask you a question? Are you asking for my information, are you asking for a definite answer from the committee
or you want any individually or are you
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:17:13
satisfied with that? If I had my druthers on this, I would like for it to be pulled down to our next meeting so I can hear from the sheet metal industry what they think of the bill. And that's up to the representative, but that's – or it could
be up to us. Okay. It could be up to us. Okay. I
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:17:35
mean, you left me kind of
hanging here. Okay. No clarification on what your wishes are to – so it's really up to the committee.
Okay. The bill belongs to you now. Okay. Okay, I
Speaker 109
1:17:50
move if my motion is appropriate. We don't have a motion on the floor yet, so we can.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:17:59
I'd like to put one on the floor if it's appropriate. And your motion is? To table this until our, or postpone this until our next meeting. Now, I don't want to necessarily call it tabling, but to postpone.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:18:15
If you table it, it takes two-thirds to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:18:18
bring it back up. That's why I'd rather just postpone it until our next meeting if that's an
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:18:24
appropriate motion. Well, we have made some unusual motions this year, so just bear with me and we're going to look at the
book to make sure we're right. Would
it be acceptable to Representative Nichols if we asked the sponsor to pull the
bill down and bring it back up at the next meeting? Would that be acceptable? That would be acceptable to me, yes. Representative Rogers,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:19:05
what is your wishes? May I make a comment? Yes, ma'am. You are a member of this committee. The Arkansas Building Authority shared the draft of the legislation with a large list of people. Those that were included were under the contractors, the Association of General Contractors, the Association of Builders and Contractors, and the American Subcontractors
Association of Central Arkansas. And while they did not hear back from everyone, the ones they did receive the responses from were either neutral or favorable, and they did not receive any negative responses. And those entities represent the sheet metal contractors within the state of Arkansas. We're back to the question though
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:19:43
that we asked, Representative Nichols asked, are you declining to pull the bill down?
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:19:57
We can. We can delay the process until the next meeting.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:01
Do I have a motion, Representative Nichols, to allow the sponsor to pull the bill
down? Yes. So moved. motion to pull the bill down, allow to take it out of the proper order. I'm sorry. I'm going to get the terminology. I didn't think last week after doing this that I'd have to do this so soon. We need a motion to take it out of proper order.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:20:24
I move to take this bill out of proper order.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:28
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? No. No's have it. Your motion failed. President Rogers,
Speaker 4
1:20:36
are you finished with your presentation? With the information that's been presented
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:20:41
today and if there are no further questions, we would appreciate a good vote on this bill. Is
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:48
there anyone from the public who would like to speak for or against this bill? Representative Bernard, do you have a motion? I have a motion do pass.
We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:21:07
say no. No. Motion passed. Representative Bernard. Just as a point of information, knowing Representative Rogers and her excellent reputation, I'm sure that she will endeavor to get that information for our fellow Representative Nichols prior to the introduction of the bill on
the floor of the House. I see her shaking her head yes, and it's exactly what I thought knowing Representative
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:21:31
Rogers. That's between the two representatives. Thank you. Representative Rodgers, you have passed Senator Pritchard's bill. Representative Buddy Lovell on House Bill 1704, who is asked without objections from the committee, asked earlier because he was running bills in the other committees that we had called him. And Representative Lovell, you have the, you're at the end of the table, you present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 268
1:22:02
Bill 1704 is pretty simple. What it does
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:22:05
is it allows a member of the County Board of Election Commissioners to be a candidate and still serve on the County Board. The stipulation is that if that person is running for office, that he has to recuse himself for any participation in his election I'd answer any questions do we have any questions the committee
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:22:36
represent Rogers thank you mr. chair and thank you representative level but can you expand on this a little bit and tell us where this comes from and who supports it and why it's being introduced and
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:22:52
what's needed I'm really at a loss on this okay where it where it came from is the mayor the mayor of my town. Matter of fact, predecessor in the House of Representatives, Wayne Nichols, was running for mayor and he was on the Poinsett County Election Board. He was challenged that he
could not serve on the election board and also run for mayor at the same time. It was unclear in the law, it was unclear that he could or certainly didn't say that he could not. So this is to make it plain that he could run for office as long as he recuses himself from any decisions concerning his election. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:23:44
Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, do these election boards pay anything is there any is there any pay for being on those county election boards uh no well maybe andrea representative lee may
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:24:03
have the answer to that question i guess my question is if there if there is some
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:24:11
kind of pay or some kind of reimbursements and this person is running for
office and has to recuse would they still receive the pay from the or the reimbursement from the election board while they were not actively involved in the election board while they were running for office. Does that make sense? It makes sense. I
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:24:28
don't think they would receive it pro rata. I think they would still receive their money as long as they were a member of the board because they would still be there to decide other election questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:24:46
Representative Tyler, did you have
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:24:49
a question? I do, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Lovell, my phone dropped, but I'm going to leave it on the floor. You're welcome. The election board in Faulkner County is three members. I don't know. I think that's probably consistent from county to county. And the election board makes lots of decisions about elections, like polling places, the process for drawing the order on the ballot.
And I'm having a hard time figuring out how a person can recuse themselves from all of those decisions and still – And we also have in our county, and I think this is the same elsewhere, depends upon, you know, we have someone from the minority party and someone from the majority party, and two people from the majority party, actually one person from the minority party on this board. I'm having a hard time figuring out how they would recuse themselves
from those decisions because things like polling places can impact an individual's election. So I have deep respect for what you bring to this committee, but I'm a little worried about this and what we're really doing here. So maybe you can help me
Speaker 147
1:26:10
understand that a little better. Well, I don't know that
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:26:15
I can help you understand it any better because I do agree with you. But there are, you know, during an election cycle, there are many,
there's certainly more than one election that's being decided. If there were only one, I would agree that it would be hard to recuse from that. I think in this case, this person would be recused from any decision that had to do with his election but could participate in any decision that had to do with others. Now, the Poinsett County Election Board of Commissioners is more than three.
So I don't know exactly how many are on it there, but there are more than three. So it would strictly be just questions on his election that he would recuse from. Representative Tyler,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:27:16
you still have the mic. Thank you. May I follow up with one question, Mr. Chair, and this is a question for you. Could we potentially hear from the Secretary of State's office on the elections and their
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:27:28
perspective on this? Do we have anyone here from the Secretary of State's election division? If you would, would you take
the seat and state your name? No. And then you're
Speaker 281
1:27:40
with. A.J. Kelly with the Secretary of State's office, Deputy Secretary in charge of elections. I have not talked to Representative Lovell about this, so I apologize for the comments I'm about to make. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to go over this thoroughly with my folks in elections, but I know personally
the complications this would cause. One, probably most importantly, is there's a law that says election commissioners shall not contribute money to any candidate. Already a huge problem there. This is, the complication created by this is you know, then does the can the mayor or whoever it is that's running for mayor, and it's also the election commissioner, can he or she contribute to his own campaign? And the answer is probably no because this law does not, the proposal does not change that law.
Election commissioners are paid. In my mind, 80% of the issues considered by the election commission would be generic to all candidates, and so the question is, does the person who's running for office have to be accused from 80 percent of those things. Currently my understanding of the law is that the election commissioner who wants to run would have to resign from the commission. That is probably the correct thing to do. Again, that law precedes me and precedes us.
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:29:02
Sorry to give you the bad news. MR. Well, thank you. MR. Any other
Speaker 4
1:29:18
questions from Representative Tyler? Are you through? Representative Lee? Okay.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:29:23
Representative Lovell, do you have a question? I think I have a comment statement more than a questioner. Based on what I just heard and based on, I think, the attitude toward this bill on this committee,
I think it would be better for me to pull this down and not
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:29:45
run it. I need a motion to take this bill out of proper order. We
Speaker 187
1:29:54
of order, Mr. Chairman. I think he's asking to pull it down permanently. Isn't that your request? Absolutely. I don't think
Speaker 118
1:30:01
we're taking it out of order. it has to go out of order
Speaker 4
1:30:10
because it belongs to this committee and it was even if he's not bringing it back
Speaker 14
1:30:15
up even if he's not bringing it back because he does not have to bring it back up but we have to give him permission to remove it from the calendar thank
Speaker 118
1:30:22
you for that clarification Mr. Chair I have a motion
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:28
well he could do that also but he has to bring it down that's all you want to let it to die Representative, do you want to take it out of the proper order and withdraw it?
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:30:40
I'm going to withdraw it. I mean, eventually. Let's do it
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:44
this way where we're legal. Representative Tyler, do you have a motion to take it out of proper order? We have a motion to take House Bill 1704 out of proper order. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. All opposed, we're fine. Representative Lovell, you've withdrawn your bill indirectly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee. This is three times
we've done this in two days, folks.
I mean, I didn't think
we'd ever do this again. Okay, let's go on back to our agenda. We have House Bill 1498. We have 20 minutes. We're going
Speaker 4
1:31:30
to try to take care of this. Anyone here from House Bill 1498? House Bill
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:31:46
1577? Senate Bill 334, Senate Bill 334, Rep. Slinker is going
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:32:31
and committee. I've invited A.J. Kelly from the Secretary of State's office to assist me here to run
Senator Irvin's Senate Bill No. 334. What this bill does, in a nutshell, is to, in case of a tie vote, that the, at the general primary election, which is the runoff election after a primary, that in case of that tie vote, nominees of a political party to fill the vacancy resulting from that tie vote should
be declared by a certificate of the chair and secretary of the appropriate convention of delegates held within 25 days of the governor's letter certifying the vacancy. This is in the wording on page 2. Senator Irvin did write out this comment. I would like to read it. Last June, the intent of the legislature was questioned in regards to the Arkansas Code
7-1-101 and 7-7-104 as a result of a tie vote in the... Representative Slinker, hold
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:33:49
up one second. Is that permissible to allow the Senator... I don't think it's permissible to allow a letter from the Senator or anyone that you're not here to be questioned
or answer questions. So I'm going to ask you to respectfully decline to read
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:34:07
that letter if you would. Okay. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. And again, the bill is to simply require, I believe, in case of a tie vote, that a convention
would be held of the party according to the rules of the party in case of a tie vote at the runoff election, primary election. Okay. Are you through presenting the bill? Yes, we'll
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:34:46
take questions. Thank you. Any questions? Yes.
Representative Lee. I'm sorry. Representative Lee. I'm sorry. Representative Bernard had her
Speaker 296
1:34:53
hand up first. But you're next. Representative Bernard. This is making up for all my head nodding from the last one. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Representative Bernard. I appreciate that. Where does the Secretary of State's office stand on this, or do you have any opinion? I mean,
Speaker 297
1:35:10
it seems like a logical way to handle a primary tie. A.J. Kelly with the
Speaker 281
1:35:17
Secretary of State's office. I'll just address the question directly.
Our office would support the change. It is a modification to current law to clarify how to do it, and it is also a timing issue. In order to get the ballots printed and out the door on time for uniform and overseas voters, we really have to have a quick resolution. It's almost impossible to have another election, and Stone County is a quintessential example of what happened. I'll just kind of go into that very briefly. In Stone County, they had a sheriff's race. The general – or the initial primary resulted in a runoff election.
At the runoff, there was a dead tie. That means that there was a vacancy in office. There's litigation pending about that vacancy, so I don't want to go into too much detail. But there was a vacancy in office essentially declared. The governor scheduled a special election, and that special election threw off their entire timing of the general election for every other election, for every other candidate. So this would clarify things and simplify it that the party chooses, and they choose by convention.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:36:24
MS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. Representative Bernard. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So let me see if I understand, because you're using the term in online 2930 there, general primary election. Do you mean the preferential primary election, not general?
Or when you use the term general election, that means the one that's held in November to me. Now maybe I don't know enough about elections, but I would have thought that the wording there, there's a tie for the same office at a preferential primary election rather than the use of the term general. So you're mixing me up with your terms here.
Could you respond to that from the Secretary of State's office? I wasn't even sure there was an election that could be entitled general primary election. Sir, could you respond to that? Okay. Go ahead. Since you have the Secretary of State, Representative, if you want to respond, fine. I can't quite see you down there, but both of you want to respond to that, that's fine. But you're mixing up some terms here that are confusing me.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:37:55
MS. Thank you, Representative Penartz. I believe I can. The preferential primary election, of course, is held three weeks prior to the general primary election, which is, in fact, we refer to as the runoff election after a primary. So, thus, the general primary election is set by law, and then the preferential primary is set by law three weeks prior to that is
Speaker 281
1:38:28
my understanding of the law. It is a confusing terminology, but that is exactly right. The preferential primary is
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:38:39
first. That's in May. The general primary is second in June. Okay. So that's what we typically, those of us who are not election law specialists, I mean, We just call it elected. It doesn't mean we know anything about elections. So the term general primary election is what we, laypersons, normally refer to as the runoff?
MR. Yes, ma'am. MS. That is correct. MS. So that, in fact, is a correct use of the term general primary election here. So that's when the tie occurred and then there had to be another rigmarole. MR. Yes, ma'am. The program roll
is exactly what's going on. Okay. Okay. I'm clear now. I'm not sure. I now know more than I
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:39:30
wanted to know, but thank you very much. Representative Nichols. Yes. This is for the sponsored Secretary of State's representative.
Since we're dealing with Democratic primaries or Democrat primaries and Republican primaries, Where do the various parties stand on this legislation? Have they been involved in the drafting of this? Because I notice that I don't see any Democrats listed as sponsors. Well, Thompson, yes, I see Thompson there. But anyway, just in general, what have you contacted the Republican Party
and the Democratic Party to find out what their position is on the bill? I know there was a problem, and we need to solve it legislatively, But since we're dealing with what the parties are involved in, I'd like to know that both parties are okay with this legislation. I could not speak for the Democrat Party.
Speaker 281
1:40:29
I'm sorry to say that. I don't know. I'm absolutely certain that the Republican Party would support it. Point of order.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:40:39
Point of order, I don't believe someone from the Secretary of State's office can speak
for either party. So I just wondered if the gentleman wants to withdraw that statement.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:40:58
I do. Thank you. Well taken. Point well taken. My question is, has either party been contacted about
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:41:09
this particular piece of legislation? No, I was asked by Senator Irvin to do this since she could not be here today.
And I don't know the answer to that from Senator Irvin, I'm sorry. Are you through Representative
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:41:31
Nichols? Yes, Mr. Chairman. of else from the committee? Do we have a
Speaker 4
1:41:40
anyone from the public like to speak against this bill? For the bill? What's the wishes of the will of the committee?
Representative Lee? We have a motion to do
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:41:54
pass from Representative Lee. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? You passed your bill. Thank you, Representative.
We're going to House Bill 1579. Representative Vines, are you running that bill for Representative Summers?
Representative Vines, would you introduce your guest? And you have the mic. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:42:37
and committee, and I appreciate you saving the best for last. I have Roger Norman from the Division of Legislative Audit here to explain the bill with me. This House Bill 1579 concerns two provisions of the Arkansas Code. It's going to amend certain provisions. I'm going to make an overview, and then I'm going to let Mr. Norman get into the nuts and bolts of the changes.
changes. The first would be technical changes to Arkansas Code Annotated 10-4-412, and then the second would amend 10-4-417 regarding the draft audit reports. And with that, I'm going to yield the microphone to Mr. Norman. If you would, Mr. Norman, just take your name and who you're
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:43:22
with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
Speaker 309
1:43:26
My name is Roger Norman. I'm with the Division legislative audit. This bill is pretty straightforward.
Speaker 310
1:43:32
There was a couple of technical changes dealing
with the basis of presentation. The real meat of the bill is on page three, and there was a couple of issues that have come up in the last couple years. We feel like that the law was always clear that our audit reports are not public information until they're presented to the committee. As a process of presenting those reports to the committee, we do a mail out to the entities that they represent and to the members. And we just, all this does is make sure that those reports are not subject to FOI in their hands until they are presented
Roger Norman
Unverified
1:44:12
to the committee. Are you all through with your presentation? Yes. Yes, sir. Are there questions from the committee? Representative Lee, will you
Speaker 296
1:44:28
take questions from the committee? Absolutely. Representative Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you're kind of lumping it in with working papers until it's
Speaker 309
1:44:36
been presented publicly to join audit. Under the current law, the draft reports and all the reports, even the final report, is
Speaker 310
1:44:42
not open until it goes to the committee for presentation,
or the exception to that is if the co-chairs do an early release. And so the reason for you... The reason for this is to allow the oddities to get a copy of it so that they can read it to prepare for the presentation once it comes to the committee. So we're only talking about a few days
Speaker 296
1:45:07
there. Okay, thank you. This sounds good. Thank you.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:45:13
Any other questions? Representative Cowley? We have a motion do pass.
Before we have that, is anyone from the public like to speak against this bill?
for this bill. We have a motion to do pass from Representative Cowling. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Representative Vines, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. We have House Bill 1602. Is anyone here to run 1602? There's not any other bills on the agenda.
Is there anything for the committee? Representative
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:45:50
Nichols? I'd like to make an announcement before we adjourn. Your announcement, sir? That the Constitutional Issues Subcommittee will be meeting after adjournment today and Friday morning at 9 o'clock. All right. Representative Klemmer. I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:46:09
of members have asked me about, and that is why we have HB 1292 and all of that.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:46:20
On the agenda? He did not pull it off of the agenda. He asked for it
to stay on. Okay. So it works back up, and he's still on the active. But it will work itself back down and
Speaker 14
1:46:32
go to the far list if he doesn't. And then on, was there also? And he has opportunity to run it twice as a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:46:38
committee. Okay. Thank you for that information. I thought there was one more on here, but that's fine. Thank you.
Speaker 118
1:46:48
Any other questions? Ma'am? It was Representative Sanders, 10-0-5.
Speaker 4
1:46:51
Same thing? He has one more time. He has one more time. Okay. Thank you for that information.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:47:01
Yes, ma'am. Anything else from the committee? Any questions? If not, we will meet tomorrow upon adjournment. Because we're not here Friday, so we're meeting tomorrow upon adjournment unless there's nothing added to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:47:18
the agenda. Yeah, but the Constitutional Committee does meet upon adjournment today.
Right. Yeah. That's absolutely right.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:47:36
and we will see you this afternoon.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB221
SB263
HB1443
HB1437
SB304
HB1704
SB334
HB1579
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 4
Roger Norman
Unverified
Speaker 14
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 29
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 59
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 70
Speaker 72
Speaker 78
Speaker 89
Speaker 98
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 109
Speaker 45
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Paul Lothian
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 42
Speaker 111
Speaker 97
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 145
Speaker 39
Speaker 61
Speaker 157
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 164
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 171
Speaker 88
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 118
Speaker 64
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Speaker 210
Speaker 212
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 35
Speaker 60
Speaker 225
Speaker 99
Speaker 226
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 55
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 258
Speaker 268
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 281
Speaker 284
Speaker 187
Speaker 208
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 296
Speaker 297
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 309
Speaker 310
Speaker 177
Speaker 259