House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB175
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB175”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB177
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB177”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB176
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB176”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB178
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “recognized to present Senate Bill 178. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members. Bil…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1209
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1209”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1245
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1245”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1404
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1404”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB168
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB168”
|
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
February 22nd for House Bills 1406, 1407, and 1408 by Representative Hopper. Without objection, we will set that for a special order of business on the 22nd of those
three bills. We are pleased to have Senator Dismayne with us today.
We're going to take his bills first. So the first item up will be Senate Bill 175. Senator Dismayne, welcome back to the House. You are recognized to present Senate Bill 175. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Speaker 6
0:55
committee members. I say I miss most of y'all, but Senate Bill
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:02
175, we'll start out with that one, and just to kind of give a background on all these before we get started, 175, 176 are really
kind of clean up type language, 177 and 178 are both bills that deal with what was at one time a rogue bond company that had abused and found a lot of loopholes, and so we're trying to cover those. So again, starting with Senate Bill 175, it has no economic impact to the board or to the public. Right now in law, it requires that there's three documents that be carried by those doing bonding business. And those have all been combined into one
license. It's tamper-proof license that they're able to carry. And so, like I said, there's no economic impact and no additional equipment that need to be purchased. That's something that they currently have and are carrying right now. Appreciate any questions. Thank you for presenting the
bill, Senator Dismang. Members, are there any questions for Senator Dismang? Seeing no questions. I'm sorry. Representative Gillum,
you're recognized for a question. Actually, I'd just like
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
2:09
to make a motion at the appropriate time.
Thank you. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against Senate Bill 175? I don't see anyone signed up. Senator Disman, would
you like to close for your bill? I'm closed.
Speaker 6
2:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee
members. President Gillum, you're recognized for a
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
2:32
motion. I make a motion that we do pass Senate Bill
175. Proper motion. Representative Gillum has made a motion to do pass
on Senate Bill 175. All in favor, aye.
Speaker 6
2:43
Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. That one's done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, committee members, for a good vote. I appreciate your vote
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:53
on that last bill. Again, this has no economic impact, and what we're trying to do is the e-commerce type stuff where email is able to take place of what currently is mailed at this time. And also in that, in 2005, the state legislature made a change to the law for who was responsible for publishing the registered jail list in 75 counties.
Cert clerks were removed, and so you'll see them striked out of the language in this bill. So I appreciate
any questions. Thank you for the explanation, Senator. Members, any questions on Senate Bill
176? Seeing none, anyone in the audience want to speak for or against Senate Bill 176? I'm sorry, Representative Slinker, did you have a question? I apologize. I'm moving too fast.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
3:42
I'll slow down. I'm sorry you caught me at that, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Just briefly, since taking out the circuit clerks as the place for the list, is that list still available for public information through the sheriff's office or? That's right. It will go through the sheriff's office. Okay. Thank you. And there
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:02
was a request, just full background, from the sheriff's office to get these documents in the e-mail form because, I mean, it can be quite bulky and, again, save some postage dollars. Representative Slinker, I know your
ears perk when you hear clerk, so I didn't mind slowing down.
Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against Senate Bill 176? Seeing none, Senator Desming, would you like to close for your bill? I'm close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognize Representative Wright for a motion. a motion of do pass on Senate Bill 176. Proper motion. All in favor. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. Senate Bill 176 has passed. You recognize to present Senate Bill 177.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:53
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, community members. Senate Bill 177, this is really where we get into some meat here. What we had was in Crittenden County, we had a bail bonds company cost Crittenden County about $4.5 million because, again, Again, they used some delay tactics. That company was not solvent, and so this is requiring bond companies show or demonstrate solvency in front of the board. Again, I think it's a good bill for our county. It's a good bill for the industry. I appreciate any questions.
Members, any question of Senator Dismane on 177? Representative Woffley,
you recognize for a question? Yes, I do. Thank you, Chairman Williams. Section A in Section 1 places a limit of $100,000 on unpaid active bond forfeiture judgments. How does this apply in those rare cases where a judge has ordered a bond in excess of $100,000,
say $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, a million dollars or whatever, and there's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
6:05
a forfeiture? Since it deals with a rare instance, I'll tell you what, I'm going to turn that, if it's okay with the committee, I'd like to turn that question over to Director
Peters and let him respond to that. Director Peters, you are recognized to respond to the question. Please
Speaker 28
6:20
give your name and who you're with and respond to the question. L.A. Peters, Executive Director of
the Arkansas Professional Belmont Licensing Board. Representative Walker, this particular forfeiture that we're dealing with
this particular bill that we're dealing with, only deals with them when they have gone through the judiciary process of forfeiture. In other words, the individual has fleed. He has not been able to be located in the proper time sequences as spelled out in other statutes. So a normal bond will never fall under this particular law. Now, what happens now if an individual forfeits and a show cause is issued and a judgment is entered in against the bond company,
they have a 90-day period to pay that bond. What we have done here, and actually they have 10 days after that 90 days, what we have done under this proposed legislation is when that 90-day period reaches, if that bond company has failed to pay that judgment, it basically gives us a trigger to bring that bond company in and review why it hasn't been paid. From the 90-day to the 10-day, if they don't pay that and they don't have enough money in our agency's security to pay that bond, we in essence can shut them down until that bond is paid for or until other arrangements are made.
This does not take away from the court the right to reach some type of payment plan, some type of other arrangement. If there's extenuating circumstances on a bond that a judge knows he doesn't want to go ahead and require that money to be paid, this does not remove them from that at all. It doesn't address that at all. So it simply is an accountability in terms of the ability to pay once a bond becomes forfeited.
Did that answer your question, sir? Mr. Chair, in a way it does, but then the last provision, F, Section F, reinforces the notion that the unpaid forfeiture shall not exceed $100,000. I mean, it sort of places, it seems to me, it places a limit on what the court can do. Of course you can always put a company out of business for non-payment
But this sort of says to me that even though a judge will set a bond for $250,000, $500,000 All the bonding company has to do in the case one flees And is not apprehended or brought before the court as required Is $100,000 Well,
misconception there, Representative Walker. This only refers to a bond that has gone into fourth year.
It doesn't have any type of limit on what a judge can set as a bond. Now, another underlying statute that our board operates under is the state of Arkansas is liable to the individual courts for a maximum of $10,000 per bond. So does it really matter if it's a million-dollar bond or a $250,000 bond? The state of Arkansas is only responsible for $10,000 on any single bond.
So I think the direction that you're seeing that is totally a separate issue from this. Now, it also provides, in this bill, that if the bond company wishes to put more deposit up, they can continue to write bonds without that being satisfied. All we're saying is that the number of forfeiters you have, face value, you have to have, if they're in that 10-day period, you have to have that much money up with the state.
We have some bond companies that have as much as $250,000 up. So we've picked the $100,000 cap as kind of a median, but no one can exceed whatever their security deposit
is. And is that in some or in an individual situation? That is per company, and each company
is responsible for any agent and any forfeitures that fall under any agent. So kind of an umbrella type situation,
sir. All right, so if you have a million dollars written in $250,000 security,
that trigger does not come into play until you have forfeits that are at the $100,000 to $250,000 level. The trigger we're referring to here
never comes into being until, one, the individual that was out on bond fails to show up for court appearance, two, that a show cause order has been issued to the bond company. They have appeared before that judge, and a judgment has been issued against that particular bond company. Thank you.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
11:28
you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need some information a little bit, I guess, about the industry that you represent. And like if, say, an insurance company goes broke, then I believe there's some legislation that the state insurance commissioner takes it over and then they have a fund there that all insurance companies have paid into to cover the loss that that insurance company
has not covered. Is there anything like that in your industry where you have basically insured somebody is going to show up in court, and they paid a fee for that, but yet your bonding company goes broke, is there any mechanisms for all the bonding companies out of some fund to pay that deficiency, or is that just limited to the regular insurance industry? No, sir.
The bail bond industry does not have anything such as that. Each individual company has a deposit of, but there is no collective fund whatsoever. Okay.
Speaker 45
12:49
I guess that's a really great question. I'm a state agency director. Any kind of money I can get
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
12:55
my hands on, I'm all for, sir. I believe that Senator Dismain talked about where a bonding company went belly up,
and it cost the county quite a bit of money. But if your industry was more regulated, I guess, like the insurance industry, that would have been covered by all the industry to take care of that deficiency. So I think that's something maybe, Senator, dismaying that you might want to address in some future legislation. Would you agree? I do agree. And I mean, I think that's a
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
13:30
step in that direction where we're requiring them to prove solvency, which is what this bill does here.
But I do agree. I mean, we may need to revisit and see if there's additional legislation that does need
to be introduced to help with an issue like they had in Crittenden County where they'd lost about $4.5 million. I agree.
Thank you Mr. Chairman Representative Hammer you recognize for a question Thank you just to make sure I heard something right a while ago did you say that if a bond company has to forfeit
or falls into forfeiture that they have 90 days to pay that back is that did I
understand that correct Well, your existing statute and other statutes, that really hinges on the individual court. A court can issue a show cause whenever they wish to do so. What falls under the bail bond statutes is if the court does, in fact, issue a show cause and a judgment,
then the bail bond company has 90 days from that date. It does not in any way instruct the court as to the time frames that they have to comply with.
Okay. May I second? Last question, please. Are they allowed to operate during that 90 days of business? I noticed on the bottom of the page it talks about a company's license shall be suspended. Does that apply during that 90-day period referenced up there in B? I'm not
Speaker 40
15:10
sure. I totally understood your question.
But the process, I think that you're alluding to, falls under civil procedure acts and things of that nature. Now, as to which line falls and what, I'm sorry, sir, I can't answer that without a
little review. Sorry about that. Well, let me ask it this way. If a bond company cannot honor their commitment, but they have 90 days to pay it back, Can they continue to operate during that 90 days while they try to pay that back,
or are they suspended from doing business until they get it paid back? No, sir. Under this
statute, we would only have the authority to suspend them when that 90 days is up. Under current statute, we have to send them a notice. A filter takes place, a judge or a court will send us a notice of judgment, and we send a bond company a letter that says, you've got 90 days to pay this, or we turn you off. Under that same statute, once that 90 days is up, we have to send them a, for lack of a better way of putting it,
a second warning that says you've got 10 more days to pay it. What this does is when that 90-day period hits, if they haven't paid it, they're shut off until they come
Speaker 45
16:26
in and convince the board that they have the assets to pay
it or that they put up more security deposit. Did that answer your question, sir? It did, but it leaves one last question. Sorry. May I? So if I understand you correctly, the way this is written, a bad bond company, and by bad I mean they have had to forfeit, and they are now on 90 days payback plan,
but can they continue to do right business, do business during that 90 day to further compound the problem? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Hammer. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Walker, you recognize
one other question? I want to follow up on Representative Hammer's question. And I've seen, I think, this happen. You have situations sometimes where a bail bond company may be actually insolvent. It knows that it's insolvent and it can in no way meet that $100,000 requirement.
So it uses the additional 90 days or whatever other time that it can get the court to extend to write as many bonds as possible, knowing that it will be put out of business within three to six months. So they write the bonds, and they take in the revenue, and then they don't deliver the accused. That seems to be fraudulent conduct on the part of the bonding company.
Is there any penalty for the bond person who engages in that conduct as described by Representative Hammer and knows that he's just going to make some money during this period and has no responsibility to anybody because the only thing you can do to him is take his license and nothing else? Representative Robert, the
six years I've been with the industry, that's only happened in one time, and that's exactly what has caused this bill to be proposed.
This is a much tighter type situation. The company that that took place in, because we didn't have the ability to shut them down in that 90-day period under the old statute, that's exactly what they did, and that's how it got up to that ridiculous figure. As to the possible penalties that they were facing, I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss
Speaker 45
18:56
any criminal proceedings that may be ongoing in that particular county,
but I can assure you everybody is aware. That
causes me another question. If there are criminal proceedings ongoing, they have to be public. So why wouldn't they be subject to being publicly discussed? It's not
my case, sir. Members, I want to make sure
we're going to limit our questions to this bill. Sorry, the Chair has been distracted a little bit and it sounds like we're
getting a little far off the bill. I apologize. But if you have any questions about the bill.
MR. In all due respect, I mean, it does address provision C of the bill, and it also addresses provision F of the bill, and I think that the questions did go to the point, And no disrespect to the chair, I do feel that the questions were pertinent on this bill. None taken, Mr.
Walker. I apologize. I admitted that I was distracted, so I didn't catch all the questions.
But if it is germane to the bill, we're happy to have those questions taken, and we'll try to get an answer for you. Do we not have an answer to that question? I think
I answered the question, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'm sorry.
Speaker 16
20:16
Mr. Walker, are you satisfied? Do you have any other questions? Mr. Chair, I am satisfied. Okay. Any other members have questions? Anyone in the audience want to speak for
or against the bill? Senator Dismaine, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for
Speaker 63
20:30
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Representative Rice, I recognize you for a motion. Members, Representative Rice has made a motion of due pass for Senate Bill 177. That's a proper motion. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator Disomane. The 177 has passed. You're
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
20:54
recognized to present Senate Bill 178. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members. Bill 178 deals with the fines that are able to be imposed by the bill bonds board. It raises that fine from $5,000 to $10,000.
And also in the language, at this current time, they only have the right to suspend or revoke or fine, but can't do both. and so we're cleaning that up so they're allowed to do both, which in many cases I think is needed. And if questions allow, we'll let Mr. Peters speak to that. Mr.
Peters, you'll recognize if you'd like to make a comment. Please state your
Speaker 45
21:32
name again and for the record. L.A. Peters, Executive Director of the
Arkansas Professional Bill Bondsman Licensing Board. As the Senator pointed out, this is to try to more or less update the $5,000 fine
that originally came to this statute, of course, is several years old. And as Representative Walker has pointed out previously, some of these bonds are getting quite high. If a bond company wants to, so they can go out and write a $300,000 bond and make a $30,000 premium and they're only facing a $5,000 fine, I like that math myself. So this is to try to address that situation and kind of bring us into the days and times of what these bonds have become.
Senator, are you finished presenting your bill? I am. Members, any questions for Senator Dismay on Senate Bill 178? Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 178? Senator, are you closed for your bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Schlenker has a motion of do pass of Senate Bill 178. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations, Senator. You've passed all your bills. Any other business before this committee? Senator, that's it.
Speaker 19
22:54
No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
committee members. Thank you. House Bill 1209, Representative Lovell, anyone here on behalf of Representative Lovell?
He has an amendment? Okay. House Bill 1244 by Representative Wilkins.
Representative Powers, you recognize to
run that on his behalf? Thank
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
23:54
you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I am going to attempt to
do my friend, Representative Wilkins, a favor and get these bills passed out of committee. I will tell you that I will defend Representative Wilkins' bill with every fiber of my being unless you ask a hard question, and then we will table it and go somewhere else. I'm briefly aware of these and have a decent knowledge of Mr. Muldoon, I believe, is here to help me if we have any problems. But House Bill 1244, we're actually deleting this section of the code,
and the reason being that Senate Bill 177 takes care of the language in this particular statute, and it would make redundant language of the code, and that's why we're asking to have this section repealed. I'll take questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 71
24:47
Powers. Any questions for Mr. Powers? He's happy about that. I'm closed for
my bill, sir. Okay, anyone in the audience want to speak for or against House Bill 1244?
Seeing no one, you've closed your bill. Members, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Rogers has a motion of do pass on House Bill 1244. Proper motion. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Powers.
Speaker 73
25:19
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Be recognized for House Bill 1245. thank you again and women we have an amendment to that sir I do members of members being passed
out now let's see if we can't get this amendment on the bill before we talk about it.
Speaker 50
25:52
Representative Powers, I assume you move for adoption of
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
26:30
a moment, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
And in the best interest of his legislation, we've decided to pull this amendment and this
Speaker 71
26:37
bill down at this time. That is quite all right. Thank you.
House Bill 1281, Representative Patterson, anyone here to run that for him? I know House Bill 1352
is on hold. House Bill 1386, Representative Wilkins, he's not here to run that. We're going to hold House Bill 1391. We're going to pass over Senate Bill 168 right now and Senate Bill 4. Anybody here run Senate Bill 4 on behalf of David Johnson?
How about Senate Bill 61 on behalf of Senator Madison? Representative Advising, you recognize to run House Bill 1404. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
28:00
committee. I just came back down. I wanted to see how the seats felt before I came down here for my bill today.
With me today, I'm proud to present House Bill 1404, and I have J.D. Gingrich here with us to discuss this also. This is a very basic cleanup bill that is going to clean up the Arkansas, the provisions of the Arkansas Justice Building Act. There's no new monies, no new jobs, anything like that. This is basically cleanup language, and I will yield the microphone to Mr. Gingrich to discuss further. Mr. Gingrich, you are recognized. Please state your
name and who you're with for the record.
Speaker 82
28:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm J.D. Gingrich with the Administrative Office of the Courts. This particular bill was requested by the Supreme Court. They are, I guess, secondary players as it relates to this legislation in that the justice building bonds are administered by the Arkansas Building Authority, The director of that agency is here today and has reviewed this language. The language that's being struck, which is most of the bill, relates to how the bond
issue was originally structured when it was created in 1955 when Public Service Commission and Workers' Comp were actually located in the original Justice Building, and part of of the original bond issue had the bonds being paid in part by lease payments which were made by those agencies. That all disappeared many, many, many years ago, and you probably know Worker's Comp and Public Service Commission are in their own buildings and other places in Little Rock. That's what most of the bill relates to. The only other change is on the very front page in the definition section.
And again, it relates to having more flexibility in future years should any issue ever arise for the need for additional space for any of the agencies that are designated in the current statute to be located in the Justice Building. There's a stream of revenue that was created from a court cost in 1955. That's never changed. It's still there. There are bond issues being supported by that stream, and to my knowledge, there's no additional revenue that's available to do anything.
So this has nothing to do with any plan to do anything. In the last few years, though, Building Authority hired architects to look at space issues and space needs, and one of the things that that finding came back with was that the cost of doing anything on the Capitol grounds was at least twice as much as doing it off of the Capitol grounds. So in the event, and I mean in terms of constructing new space, it's expensive to build something similar to the Justice Building onto the Justice Building.
So if that were ever to occur, it would at least give building authority the opportunity to look at all of the options sometime down the line. I'd be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you, Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Vines, any additional comments that complete your presentation? You bet. This is
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
31:10
just one of those situations where we're actually taking some type off the books, and we'd appreciate a
good vote. Members, any questions for Representative Vines? House Bill 1404. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against House Bill 1404?
Reverend Vines, you're closed for your bill? Yes, sir. What's the pleasure of the committee? Reverend Shepard has a motion of due pass. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
31:38
Vines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Appreciate the vote.
This is Senate Bill 168 for Senator David Johnson. He asked me to help him get this bill out of here. This is a bill to remove the chief probation officer and deputy probation officer from the 4th Division of the 6th Judicial District, which
is here in Little Rock. Judge Herb Wright is the judge. He no longer wants to have probation. He wants to go to central probation and that's really all this bill does, only affects that division.
I'd be happy to take any questions that I
Speaker 52
33:00
may be able to answer. Thank you, Chairman Williams. Representative
Walker, you have a question? Yes. I'd like to have this bill taken off the calendar for
today so we may put on some evidence or at least to have some other
Speaker 34
33:14
people come and discuss it as well and also to be able to to inquire of Senator Johnson.
Speaker 71
33:32
Representative Powell. I understand. Representative, excuse me, Chairman Williams, I'll let you respond to that. I'm happy to hold this for
Senator Johnson for us to find out what the issues are. I think I have spoken with one of the issues, I thought I had addressed it, but I'm happy to hold this and we can come back and talk about it another time. All right. That's
Speaker 52
33:52
exactly what we'll do then. Thank you. Thank you, members.
House Bill 1410 by Representative Summers. Anyone here to run that for him?
House Bill 1414 by Representative Wilkins. Anyone here to run that on his behalf? Seeing no one, unless someone else has business before this committee, we're going to have the unusual pleasure of being done early. Anyone else? Saying none, we're adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB175
SB176
SB177
SB178
HB1209
HB1245
HB1404
SB168
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 28
Representative Kim Hammer Chair
Unverified
Speaker 20
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 45
Speaker 40
Speaker 16
Speaker 63
Speaker 19
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 73
Speaker 50
Speaker 62
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 52
Speaker 34