House State Agencies and Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1005
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1005”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1292
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “if you recall, we had The House Bill 1292 from Representative Hulbert had a special order today. He h…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1353
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1353”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1370
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1370”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB204
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB204”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB206
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB206”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB219
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB219”
|
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
Speaker 1
0:00
The photographer shows up. We are going to take a few minutes and retake our committee members' photo. Members, if we take our
Speaker 9
0:38
I will let them go if they'd like to, but it happened yesterday.
Speaker 15
1:04
We have some house cleaning bills we have to take care of. Members,
Speaker 1
1:08
if you recall, we had The House Bill 1292 from Representative Hulbert had a special order today. He has asked the committee if they would defer that until next Wednesday on special order. Since it belongs to the committee, it is up to the committee to allow that. I need a motion or a will of the committee on what they would like to do as far as defer. Representative Hulbert.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:38
I move that we allow it
Speaker 1
1:43
to come before us next week. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, we will reschedule that for next Wednesday on the request of the sponsor on the special order of House Bill 1292. Representative Sanders, are you telling us you're waiting? Are you ready? We're waiting on the official
from the Secretary of State to show up but they'll have to wait until after you get through You'll take the
Speaker 21
2:15
end of the table You can present House Bill 1005 Members, it's good to be
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
2:22
back with you Let me get my stuff out here A few
weeks ago I feel older, wiser and I think I have a little more gray hair than I did last time I was here. I will dispense with sort of the colloquy that we engaged in last time we presented the bill.
I know it was long, and I appreciate your patience and your attention and all your questions afterwards. I did want to deal with first things first. Representative Pinartz requested a fiscal impact statement on the bill. That should be in your folder there and dated 1-19-2001, and you'll see the topics that nickname affected funds as blank revenue impact no effect on state treasury assumptions based on any existing materials and schedules are utilized.
Additional comments does not preclude the use of slogans, nicknames, marketing instruments, or mottos. So that was one question that the committee wisely asked, and I certainly appreciate Representative Penartz for asking that question. I'll say this. You know, when you're new to this, and I will tell you I have some folks who aren't with me on this, but I have some who are, and I have some who have a very open mind.
You know, they see, you know, this not really as a small matter. And the entire testimony that we gave, me and Dean Rutherford, Skip Rutherford last time, was based on the fact that, you know, while we want to use the land of opportunity, we wouldn't preclude the usage of the natural state. Anyway, Bill doesn't do it, wouldn't want to do it. We've invested a lot of money in that. But so, you know, I was approached by a member of this committee who said, you know, why
can't we work out in an accommodation? And being a freshman member of the House of Representatives, when you have a senior member of the House of Representatives approach you and you have a senior member who has a lot of experience, and I think even in this session has showed a willingness to accommodate and work with members on both sides of the aisle on his own legislation. And
when he comes to you and says, I think we have something that will work out, that will go to the heart of what you're saying, and that is to recognize Arkansas as the land of opportunity,
but we retain the natural state as the
official nickname. And I know we've got representatives here, and I appreciate them very much. And certainly the last thing I want to do is to pick a fight needlessly. But I think you have the amendment before you that my friend and yours, Representative Nichols, has offered. Mr. Sanders, one second.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
5:26
Are you ready to take up the amendment now? Yeah, that would be perfectly fine.
Speaker 30
5:35
Okay, we can cut to the chase here. Yeah, let's get to the amendment. If that's okay.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:42
Yeah, you bet. Representative Nichols had his hands up first. Representative Nichols. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have the amendment. Technically, it's my amendment, but it's one that the presenter is not a hostile amendment at all. It's one that he has encouraged me to run for him on the committee.
So I would move that we accept Amendment 1, which you have at your desk. Was that a
Speaker 30
6:05
motion to do pass motion on the amendment? Yes, sir. To adopt. I'm sorry. Any questions on the amendment, Representative Roebuck? Representative Bernard? All in favor to adopt the Amendment 1 to the House Bill 1005, say aye.
Speaker 1
6:32
Any opposed? Same. Motion to adopt the amendment has been passed. All right, Representative Sanders, you're ready to discuss the bill as amended. Yeah,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
6:45
absolutely, and I think I was sort of getting to that, and I appreciate the chairman sort of steering me
in the right direction. Very kind of you to do that. And, again, simply you have the amendment for you. We've adopted it, and this simply recognizes Arkansas as the land of opportunity. Let me read to you what, for those of you in the room, this is what Section 1 of the Arkansas Code says.
That's Section 14106, amended to read as follows. State nickname. Because
we've actually added a word. Because of our state's unsurpassed scenery, clear lakes, free-flowing streams, magnificent rivers, meandering bayous, delta bottomlands, forested mountains, and abundant fish and wildlife. The official nickname for the state of Arkansas is proclaimed to be the natural state. However, because the future outlook for the development of business, industry, and agriculture in the state is full of opportunities, and because our state citizens are blessed with ingenuity, resourcefulness, and a belief in and reliance on hard work,
and because our state is a place where individuals and families thrive and prosper, Arkansas shall also be known
as the land of opportunity. That's the amendment. Let me speak to that really quickly, because I know we had some discussion about sort of this idea of doing two things at once. From 1982 until 1995, we were both the natural state and the land of opportunity. That was the campaign that was utilized by
Parks and Tourism. I'll tell you, during that time, it was a pretty good time for Arkansas. Well, we celebrated the sesquicentennial. We elected a president of the United States.
During that time, from 82 to 95, I believe Walmart's stock actually split six times. So we've been here before. And simply what this does is acknowledge who we are. I was interested, and I'll wrap this up. Our friends at Parks and Tourism spent a lot of money on promoting us as the land of opportunity. And they have spent a lot of money. This past April, they went to, I believe it was Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It's a news story from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette I have in front of me where they did some focus groups to see how people think about how they view the ads of promoting Arkansas as the natural state, promoting Arkansas as a place for, you know, all of our wildlife and streams and meandering rivers, all
the things that we love. And what's interesting, I was touched. There's something in here, and this was the individual who led the focus group.
He says, people don't want more information. He's referring to the state. Said Michael Eardman, a Longwood senior vice president who served as the moderator of six
focus groups. People are looking for one or two things that make them say, that's me, and I want to go. Now, mind you, this, again, this is the focus group that was hired by
Parks and Tourism. You know, sometimes when you read the newspaper, you always want to get to the bottom. You know, that's where the smart people go. They tell you, you know, you're great, your reading level increases as you go into the story.
So if you go to the end of the story, one of the things that they found out is that the message plays extremely well, extremely well. the natural state and all the beauty plays extremely well in Texas, but
it doesn't work with everyone. And I'll quote from the story. I remember they said what you want in an advertising campaign is to be able to say, that's me and I want to go. It says, while the message plays well in Texas, Arkansas's tall trees,
lakes, hiking trails, tumbling waterfalls, and scenic bluffs didn't fare so well when the ads were viewed by a focus
group in Tulsa on Wednesday night. Quote, the Arkansas campaign focuses on outdoors and lakes, and it's not for me, one woman told Erdman.
Quote, another individual, quote, it's beautiful, a man said. It's breathtaking, but I'm sure there's more to Arkansas, end quote. My friends, I am not asking us in any way, shape, or form to abandon the natural state. I think it has served us well in many ways.
But I have to say I do agree with the individual at the Parks and Tourism's own Focus Creek that said, yes, while it's beautiful, there's more to Arkansas. What this bill as amended does is it says, yes, there is, in fact, more to Arkansas. We are the natural state, but we are for all the reasons we stated last time. Clinton, Huckabee, Stevens, Hunt, Arkansas Children's Hospital, UAMS, all this cutting-edge, bleeding-edge technology that we have in this state, all this opportunity that exists, the fact that we are one of the only states in the
union not having to cut, cut, cut, or raise taxes, all those things, yes, we are indeed a land of opportunity as well. So there is more to Arkansas. That's what this bill does, and I certainly would appreciate a good vote on this. Representative Sanders, are
Speaker 40
11:48
you willing to take questions from the committee? Of course. If any of
Speaker 41
11:52
the members have questions, I'd be more than happy to take
Speaker 44
11:55
questions. Representative Cheatham? You're first on the list. Representative Cowling.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
12:04
Thank you. Do you – what I have to figure – what does tourism bring in state of Arkansas? I'm not
Speaker 49
12:12
sure what that is. It brings a lot. I think it's a testament to the efforts that they've done. Well, I'm
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
12:21
up and down the road quite a bit, and I've visited with people at service stations as they're getting gas in the
out-of-state. I've asked them a question. I said, what attracted you to come to Arkansas? And they'll say, well, the natural state, we're coming to the streams, the lakes,
the apple blossom festivals, all of that nature. All things that's natural to the state of Arkansas. And I don't know whether they come here for the opportunity to go there and they stay or what, But I think we've
got a lot of opportunity through our tourism act. We make lots of money and everything. And your –
what was your former job? And wasn't you on a television show or something before
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
13:07
when you – I did participate on AETN's Arkansas Week a little bit.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
13:11
Yes, I did and had a little – And at that time you was kind
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
13:18
of promoting the natural state at that time, wasn't you? I don't think I – I don't know that I ever openly – I mean,
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
13:24
I promote Arkansas, certainly. You talked about everything changing and how everything has changed and all and
how we kind of waste our time here and all. We're not wasting our time here. You said this was basically a bill that did do nothing.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
13:37
Well, no, I don't think this bill doesn't do anything. I think opportunity is a big thing.
I would also say to your earlier statements that I think it's fantastic. Arkansas is a vacation destination for many people, but I think we would all be better served if Arkansas was a destination where people actually moved, lived, grew their businesses, grew their families. I don't have any qualm at all with the natural state representative Cowling. I think I would agree with Parks and Tourism's own focus group. I think it's great, but I think there's more to Arkansas.
And I think, you know, sparking something
inside a small child in the Delta, telling that you can do anything in your state because you live in the land of opportunity, I don't think that's one small matter. That's my story. Well,
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
14:27
you're going to be changing the logo, basically. No, no logo
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
14:30
changes, sir. No nickname changes. The natural state is still the official nickname of the state of Arkansas. So I basically see this as a bill that we're
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
14:45
not doing a whole lot in.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
14:47
Well, I think it is. I think it's an
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
14:57
acknowledgment of who we are. Motion that's proper time. Rep. Hutchinson. Thank you, Rep. Sanders. I got a call Sunday from one of my constituents. He had an opinion about this bill. What he said hurt me. I became angry, but after I hung up and started thinking about
it, he said, don't you dare vote to change it to the land of opportunity. He said a third of our students fail military exams. Over half of our students need remediation. A fourth of them can't read. We're next to the bottom in graduation rates. The federal government gives us a D in Student Achievement. He said that does not describe the land of opportunity. Don't you dare adopt that as a motto. So how would you react? Representative Grushenot, first thing
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
15:46
I'd say, have him call me, and then I would react
and say this. In fact, Arkansas is the land of opportunity. For all the examples, I mean, look, I'm looking around the room. Look at your members. I mean, it's been the land of opportunity for just about everybody sitting at this table in one way or another. I mean, there are people here who have vast backgrounds in education, in business, in health care, you know, in the law. You know, I think I would disagree with him fundamentally. Particularly, I don't see how anybody could say that coming from northwest Arkansas and seeing all the economic activity.
So there's certainly opportunity for economic activity in northwest Arkansas. We're making progress in education. I think we've heard that a lot. But we're making progress in a lot of things.
I think this helps tell that story. I think it's an introductory, sort of begs the question, well, you're the land of opportunity. Well, why are you the land of opportunity? And you can tell. That's what I would say. But you can have them call me. I'd be happy to talk to them, Representative Hutchison.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
16:54
We have Mr. Joe Rice from the Tourist Industry signed up to speak against your bill. Mr. Rice, are you ready? Yes, sir. Would you take the end of your seat and give us your name and who you're
Speaker 71
17:05
with for the record? Please, sir. Do you want to send this out? Okay. Thanks. Appreciate
Speaker 75
17:20
it. Mr. Chair, I'm Joe David Rice, the Tourism Director with the
Department of Parks and Tourism, and Chairman Hall, I appreciate the chance for you to let me speak today. As we all know, Land of Opportunity has a nice ring to it and not to mention a very solid historical footing. Since its founding, the United States has provided the original Land of Opportunity for millions of immigrants, probably to include ancestors of many of us in this room. That phrase, Land of Opportunity, remains a favorite today and not just in reference to America. In fact, we've done an Internet search in recent days to discover just how popular it
is, and I believe Ms. Thomas and her colleagues are passing out some handouts that give some examples. We
Speaker 77
18:10
have found that Afghanistan is now positioned as the land of opportunity. India is
Speaker 75
18:16
the land of opportunity, Brazil the new land of opportunity, Canada the land of
Speaker 80
18:29
opportunity chile india iraq israel peru understand which is somewhere
Speaker 78
18:57
in asia Vietnam and in that two hours ago CNN released a new report
Speaker 75
19:03
done by Fortune magazine and they said that based on all the ongoings in Egypt the Middle East is now the land of opportunity also some folks in North Dakota now touting themselves as the land of opportunity And that's really our problem with Mr. Sanders' bill, HB 1005. The land of opportunity is a global phenomenon.
Speaker 75
19:36
you look, Eastern Hemisphere, Western Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere,
Southern Hemisphere, you've got another land of opportunity. It's not that it's a bad phrase, but we think that it's reached the point that it's a cliché. As Mr. Sanders pointed out, we have spent years investing lots of your tourism dollars trying to get Arkansas's brand established as the natural state. Business experts tell us that we need an identifiable slogan that's catchy and readily and quickly represents our product. To make it successful, we need to hammer it home with constant repetition via consistent marketing campaigns.
Focus groups, notwithstanding that one person over in Tulsa, have confirmed that we've done exactly that, that the natural state is recognized by and resonates with the traveling public. Additional Internet research reveals just how well we've got the natural state established and ingrained in the Arkansas culture. I believe that Ms. Thomas passed that out. As you might expect, there's a lot of companies across the state have adopted the natural state in their own titles. The natural gas industry has said natural gas makes sense for the natural state.
the Russellville Chamber of Commerce has said, has positioned the city as a natural choice for the natural state when the U.S. Navy hosted a big concert in Little Rock last summer its press release said Navy drops anchor in the natural state. Scattered across Arkansas you'll find the natural state credit union natural state carriers, natural state general contractors, natural state wholesalers natural state distributors natural state electric and the natural state health center, and so on. Writers in the Little Rock paper regularly refer to the natural
state. Last week, there was an article about trumpeter swans that said, Arkansas is, after all, the natural state. And, of course, it's very common to hear news anchors and weather forecasters on the TV stations refer to the natural state. The National Weather Service 11 days ago issued this news release, a weather alert. Two more winter storm systems to affect the natural state this week. All this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's no getting around the fact that over the years the natural state nickname has acquired
tremendous equity, valuable recognition that continues to grow. In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that we encountered a problem with the slogan about a decade ago. We had a Japanese journalist spend a week touring Arkansas, and he went home and wrote a glowing story about the state. Unfortunately, our natural state slogan got garbled in the translation and somehow implied we were a bunch of friendly nudists. Far as I know, until now, that's been the only problem with our slogan. To sum up, we believe in the philosophy, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The natural state is a strong, healthy, memorable, and effective slogan. It doesn't need to be diluted by another phrase, which would both confuse the public and diminish its value. I've got time for questions
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
22:41
if you all have any. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would this bill, as amended, require you to change anything that you're doing now?
No, sir. Okay. Did you also look at other companies in other states? They may be called the natural, may be using that. And I also know we, you know, Razorback. I mean, Razorback is used for, what, pizza and transmission shops,
credit unions. It's a common name. But wouldn't you agree that a state that, like Arkansas, even with all the problems that Representative Hutchinson's constituent pointed out,
We can still produce a President of the United States. We can produce, you
know, I think General Wesley Clark, you know, Commander NATO, Mike Huckabee, who ended up with the second-highest delegate count total for the Republican nomination for his party's nomination for president.
And looking at our sale, and I see the land of opportunity, even with all those negatives that that constituent pointed out to Representative Hutchinson, there are people who are going to rise up from that because of the opportunities that they take advantage of that are in this state. Wouldn't you agree with
Speaker 75
24:20
that? Yes, sir. We certainly would not dispel the notion that Arkansas is a great opportunity base for all of us.
But at the same time, we think the natural state works. We think that Arkansas is a natural for business. It's a natural for retirement. It's a natural for relocation. It's a natural for the arts. It's a natural for all the things. And it's especially
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
24:42
a natural for the tourism business. But this bill, would you agree, does not change your ability to do that at
Speaker 75
24:48
all? It doesn't change our ability, but we're absolutely convinced that it would add confusion to the marketplace. We don't need two nicknames out
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
24:55
there. Well, I don't think we have changed the nickname.
You're just saying Arkansas shall also be known
as a land of opportunity. And to me, that is a broader category than pigeonholing one industry to recognize by the state. If you see a
Speaker 75
25:12
dozen other places are known as the land of opportunity, I think
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
25:17
it just diminishes its value, sir. So what about the natural health food stores? Do they diminish the capability of you to use the term natural in the state?
I mean, people use that. And it has no connotation to our streams and lakes and mountains that we have, but they use the word natural in their business names because they may sell natural food, natural products, or whatever. When I first thought, you know, I think the last time we had this up, you did not want to be schizophrenic, and you felt like that's what the original bill did. But I look at this amendment thinking of the land of opportunity and the natural state maybe being fraternal twins.
But yet, you know, they're not identical, but yet they do speak to various needs of the state. Would you agree with that? No,
Speaker 75
26:14
I don't think we have room for or need for another one. And back to the natural foods, we'd be delighted if some health food aficionado opened a store and called it the natural state natural food store because that reestablishes our brand out there and gets the phrase again in the mindset of the public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
26:42
Representative Klemmer, did you have a question? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Representative Nichols
Speaker 96
26:52
addressed my question. Thank you. Any other representative centers? Are you ready to close for your bill? I need to amend the
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
27:04
fiscal impact statement on my bill because I think we just spent a ton of money on printed materials for the state of Arkansas. And I
would commend your ability to get on the Internet and search news stories.
I think it was one of them that actually had
a question mark. North Dakota, the land of opportunity? So, I mean, headline writers. You know, I always hated headline writers when I was a columnist. they could mess things up. Look, the fact is, I will go one step further. The fact is, Rick Perry, governor of the state of Texas, Republican, he
goes around touting Texas as the new land of opportunity. Maryland on the eastern shore has a little campaign called Maryland of Opportunity.
You notice they're not calling themselves the land of opportunity. And there's a very simple reason why that is. There is but one land of opportunity, and my friends, we happen to be sitting in it. The bill that you have before you today doesn't do anything to change, doesn't confuse, doesn't do anything to change what we're doing. Was it
my first choice? Absolutely not. Am I willing to accommodate? I have appreciated the spirit of bipartisanship that has proliferated this building, our work on ethics.
I've seen numerous bills, Ed Garner's capital gains. I mean, we've worked together, and I certainly want to be part of that. Now, that may surprise some folks, but I want to continue on in that. I think this is a good bill. It
doesn't do anything to change, diminish, or redirect any funds that we are currently spending on highlighting Arkansas as a natural state. Many of you all know the American Taekwondo Association Master Lee,
Grandmaster Lee, who's no longer with us.
his biographer is a guy named Steve
Bronner who took my place as a columnist with the Arkansas News Bureau on Wednesdays and Steve wrote a column about my bill he kind of wanted to call Arkansas the place where the east meets the west but I guess the COO of ATA called him and said I want to tell you something I read about that and I want to tell you when Grand Master Lee came to the state of Arkansas he did so for two reasons and Representative Nichols
I think this sort of goes to the heart of what you said the beautiful trees and mountains of northwest Arkansas reminded him of his home in Korea and that was one of the reasons why he came here but the other reason he came here is because Arkansas was known as the land of opportunity and I'm sure Joe David Rice could tell you all the money that the ATA competition brings in not only for the city of Little Rock, but for the entire state.
I think this works together. I think it works in concert. We are, in fact, a natural state. But for reasons that we could go on and on and on and tie up all the business of the day's activities, we are also the land of opportunity. And I would appreciate your support and your vote on this as amended. Thank
Speaker 96
30:16
you very much. Thank you, Representative Sanders. Committee, this is, we've heard the testimony on House Bill 10.05.
Speaker 44
30:23
What's the will of the committee? Representative Nichols?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
30:30
We have a motion to do pass any, as amended? We have a motion to
do pass, as amended, any discussion from the committee? If not, all in favor of the motion, as amended, say aye. Aye. All is opposed? No. I'm sorry, Representative Sanders, you didn't make it this time.
Speaker 101
30:59
Thank you. 13.04, Representative Williams. Senate Bill 206 Representative Bernard are you running this bill
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
31:25
on Senate Bill that's the one we're on now
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
31:31
yes ma'am Good morning, members. Senate Bill 206 by Senator Fowles is a bill that does some additional cleanup language
in our rules. If you remember two years ago, we did clean up some of the code references. So this bill strikes at trying to clean up those same things
in our rules, and it's pretty straightforward and requires all the state agencies to complete this task by January 1, 2012. I'd be glad
Speaker 110
32:21
to take any questions by the members. Representative Klemmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
32:36
Representative Penoritz, I have such high respect for everything you support, and I'm not sure this is any different, but I guess I don't understand what the negative connotation to disabled is, and I'm not sure that I think there's a
substantive difference between saying an individual with a disability and simply saying disabled. I believe in speaking as clearly as possible, and one of the things, although I fail, I try to speak clearly, and to me, an individual with disabilities is just not
substantially different than saying disabled, and I guess I'm asking the point.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
33:17
There was a question at the beginning. Absolutely, and I agree with you. It's hard sometimes for me. I've been especially blessed by God with many abilities, and so it's sometimes hard for me to understand some of the terminology and the effect it has on those individuals who have these particular conditions. And I worked in community mental health care for many years, and until I worked there,
I didn't really understand what it was to be labeled crazy and the use of that term rather than saying a person who had a mental illness. And I think that when we look at all these uses of these languages here, that's what we're asking for the state to have sensitivity in our rules, the same sensitivity we have shown in the codification in the use of language which is sensitive to those who have those
conditions. I've asked Dr. Green to come up to the table, and Dr. Green, if you would please, if you You may allow Mr. Chairman to answer directly Representative Klemmer's question. And if I could
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
34:32
just clarify, it's not that I don't see some of these as being, I mean, obviously to call someone a cripple is different to
me, though, than calling them disabled. I have rheumatoid arthritis. I am disabled in some ways. And I don't understand, my question is not with all of these, but maybe with some of
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
34:53
them. that we're only amending the bill. These terms have already been asked and debated on to be changed in the code. This is only with regard to rules and regulations. But in this sense, I would like Dr. Green, if he could, because he works in that field every day, and I think he has more sensitivity about it probably than even I do.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
35:24
Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. We had a little conference back here, and I had to get it straightened out. What
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
35:42
was the question? I've asked Dr. Green to come up to the table, if you would
Charlie Green
Unverified
35:46
so allow. Yes, ma'am. If you state your name for the record
Speaker 128
35:49
and for your wish, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Charlie Green. I'm the DDS Commissioner. Mr. Clemmer, you made a good point, and I thought Representative Pernard did a good
job of answering. I don't have a disability, and so when it comes to issues of sensitivity, I always turn to our advocacy groups and our self-advocates, people who have disabilities themselves, and this is the term that they've pushed, and it seems like the particular point of contention is what they call people-first language, which is in code, which has been
a strong, that's what the advocacy groups and the self-advocates have pushed for a couple of years now, and it's been more than that. They want to remind people that they are people with a disability, not a disabled person, And while I can't speak from their perspective, and I'm like you, I thought, surely it doesn't make that much difference, but listening to them talk here for all these times, I'm willing
to go with what they want to be called, and that's why we're advocating that. They said, we've already changed it in the code. Let's just ask people to change it in their rules and regulations, too. I'm like you, it probably makes a lot more difference if you have a developmental disability and you're being referred to as the people part of that comes first before the disability, and so I'm with them on that.
Speaker 71
37:34
Are you willing to take questions, sir? Of course. Representative
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
37:41
McLean. Could I finish my question? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just had a follow-up, and then I'll certainly yield back to you. Does this change, then, the use of disabled vets on our license plates and things like on the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
37:59
Arkansas license plate? No, it does not. This bill only deals with,
since the bill already says that these terms shall be used
in the code and everything, we're asking that that same sensitivity
be applied to administrative rules. So, no, the response is
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:17
no. MS. Okay. I understand that, but would it not lead to other changes? If we have it in the code and in the rules, why would we issue license plates that say that? MR. I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:33
don't know. MS. It seems like there would be a natural. That's been done, and if someone wishes to run a bill to change that, they can do that.
But this bill only deals with the rules. That's outside the content of this bill.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:49
Okay. I guess I was wondering if there would be a natural progression of events where someone would say, well, we're issuing license plates that have labels that run directly counter to code and to rules and regulations. Well, the only response that I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
39:06
can give you, Representative Klemmer, on that is
what I've said. That is an issue that will need to be dealt with separately.
That's a license plate bill. And as of today, I don't know anybody that Senator Fowles may choose to run that bill. I don't know. But I believe that particular license plate was requested by veterans groups. So I'm sure that anybody that would choose to run that bill would certainly be in communication with them. Thank you for taking all
Speaker 137
39:39
my questions. Absolutely. Any time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 141
39:44
Any time. Rep. McLean. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Rep. Penhart, just for my clarification, certainly the State of Arkansas we have expunged over the years any language. The word cripple or mentally retarded is long gone. We certainly don't use that anymore as language, and is
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
40:07
that correct? Well, we were using it. When I first came to the legislature, it was in the code, and I was appalled that it was that way.
And when this bill was run, the original bill that we're amending here, I certainly was on board real quick because I was really appalled that in the year 2007 and 2009 we were using terms in our code. But as you well know, Representative McLean, there's a lot of code.
Speaker 141
40:37
Well, absolutely. I mean, the term crippled and mentally retarded to even be used in the year 2007 is shocking to me.
So I appreciate this very much. Thank you. Thank you
Speaker 139
40:51
for bringing it forward. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
40:56
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Pernartz and Dr. Green, wouldn't you say there's a difference between a medical diagnosis and then what we call someone? I mean, there is such a thing as a medical diagnosis of mental retardation. There is also a medical diagnosis of hypertension, but they don't call me hypertension.
They call me an individual with hypertension, and I think that's the distinguishing characteristic there and the fact that we have a responsibility to be sensitive to everyone in the loads they carry as they come to this world.
Speaker 146
41:39
Would you agree with that? I absolutely would, and I think
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
41:43
it's a good analogy. Though there are some that I know that would call you hyper.
Speaker 101
41:53
You got a lot of energy. Thank you, ma'am. Since there's no one left that has signed up to speak
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
42:08
for or against, there's nothing on the list from the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
42:12
committee, Representative Bernard, do you want to clap? I would appreciate a positive
Speaker 101
42:18
affirmation of the intent of the bill. Ladies and committee, we have a close for the discussion on Senate Bill 206.
What's the will of the committee? We have Representative Hobbs and Representative Wilkinson both do pass this bill. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
42:36
Any opposed? Congratulations to the Senate, Ian. They have passed the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 144
42:43
On behalf of Senator Files, my thanks to the committee members. The next bill
Speaker 101
42:51
on our list is Senate Bill 208, Senator Fretcher, is anyone here to run that
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
42:57
bill? Mr. Chair, I'm carrying that bill for him, but we had several questions from committee last time that the crime lab was going
to get for us. I don't know if anyone's here representing the crime lab or not. Without someone here, I'd
Speaker 101
43:18
rather pass over that bill. Okay. Well,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
43:22
we'll pass over that. Senate Bill 204. Anyone here to run that?
Speaker 71
43:28
That represents Senator Taylor. Welcome, Senator.
Speaker 155
43:46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this bill, a few sessions ago, a bill was
Speaker 156
43:53
introduced to take the Department of Corrections and the Department of Community Corrections.
Can you hear me all right? This seems to be outstanding. out of the requirement that they give out information. Now, this is an adjustment to the Freedom of Information Act is what it is. And as you all know, that's guarded pretty heavily. And any time you introduce a bill to change that, it's scrutinized pretty heavily, as it well should be. but they were taken out of this because they would get requests from different agencies
for a lot of things that the prisoners really didn't need to know. So what happened then soon thereafter when the prisoners realized that they couldn't get their information from the Department of Corrections, then they immediately, for instance, if they wanted a plan of the institution where they were incarcerated, they might go to building services. All this bill does is add all the other state agencies to that exemption.
Like I say, the Department of Correction has been exempted for quite some time, maybe, I think, four or maybe, well, maybe two sessions ago they were exempted. and all this bill would do would exempt the other state agencies. And I've got here, I believe that Ms. Tyler would be just glad to come up and help me with this, and she can tell you some real stories about what has happened and some of the requests that they've got, if anyone needs to hear that.
Speaker 71
45:41
Is there any requests? Would you like to have? Yes, Representative Hutchison. I'm
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
45:51
always amazed by the creativity of those who are in jail and think if they put that toward a good profession, they probably would have been successful. Would this just pass on the responsibility of an inmate asking family members or friends to get it for them?
Speaker 156
46:08
Well, the only person that can get that information from a state agency under this bill would be their attorney.
Their attorney obviously has reason to get that
Speaker 155
46:18
information, and he could, but not a family member could not under this bill. Representative Cowley? Any other questions from the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
46:35
committee? Senator, are you ready to close? I am closed.
Speaker 162
46:40
Appreciate a good vote. So is anyone from
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
46:43
the audience who would like to speak against the bill or for the bill?
If not, what's the will of the committee? Representative Cowley has a motion to do pass. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion of the Senate Bill 204, A-I? A-I. Any opposed? Congratulations, Senator. You passed your bill on this
Speaker 156
47:07
end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it,
Speaker 20
47:14
members. House Bill 1353, Representative Tyler, are you ready to run that?
Speaker 71
47:43
Mr. Chair, may I proceed? You're recognized,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
47:51
Representative Tyler. Okay. I'd like to have my guest introduce herself for the record. Donna Tyler with the Department of Correction. Representative Tyler, you have the – you're ready. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, House Bill 1353 is – we've had a couple of these already. I think it's a government efficiency bill, and particularly the Department of Corrections efficiency.
We are working very, very hard, and I have to give Director Hobbs a lot of credit for this, working very, very hard to make sure that we step up and manage our prison bed population as efficiently and effectively as we can. What this bill does is it gives the state Department of Corrections the authority to engage in a contract with political subdivisions of a state in order to obtain additional beds for prisoners.
And specifically, this would be an example would be the northern parishes of Louisiana. We would be able to contract with those parishes. We already have the authority today, of course, to contract with the state, but we would be able to contract with those parishes to be able to utilize beds at a much lower rate than what we are utilizing in our Department of Corrections and would assist us in relieving some of the county jail backup situations that we have. That's what this bill does.
That's the sole purpose of it, and we'd be glad to
Speaker 15
49:23
take any questions. Are there any questions
Speaker 141
49:28
from the committee? Representative McLean Thank you Mr. Chairman Representative Tyler when you're talking about so I kind of know what's going on here those who have been sentenced to prison in Arkansas we would place them in parish jails
Speaker 170
49:42
until space was opened up in Arkansas correctional facilities I'll let Ms. Tyler
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
49:49
answer that if that's alright with you and the chair
Speaker 96
49:54
Ms. Tyler, do you have the floor? Ms. Thank you,
Speaker 171
49:58
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Whoa. We could do it a couple of ways.
Speaker 173
50:03
The first way would be to put them there on the front end, but more than likely, if we were to take advantage of this kind of change in contract with a political subdivision, it would be with inmates that have been sentenced to the Department of Correction, have been
housed there for a while and have pretty much finished up their programming needs because at a lower rate like that there won't be programming available so they need to have finished their programming on this end. So the idea would be, the best idea at this point, and it's still early, is to take those kinds of inmates, lower security inmates, the ones without programming needs and move them from ADC facilities into Louisiana or another state, and then reach
down into the county jails and pull up some of those backed-up inmates and put them in the beds that have just been made available so they can start their programming and other needs within the department. Tell me what programming is. Programming, most inmates who come to prison have shortcomings, I mean, obviously, and many of them go through substance abuse treatment. Many of them don't have a high school education, and if they don't, they have to go to school. They have to try to get their GED. We also have VOTEC, anger management, parenting, sex offender treatment, a myriad of programming.
When they come in and go through intake, a correctional counselor sits down and talks to that inmate, looks at everything, and tests are performed on them, and they make a correctional plan and say, before you get out of here, this is what you really need to do. And when it comes time for parole, the parole board looks at that plan and sees whether or not they've achieved everything in it. And that then is reflected in whether or not they get parole.
Speaker 141
51:54
Have we ever, has this ever happened before in the history of corrections in Arkansas?
Have we ever maybe had to send some
Speaker 173
52:04
Missouri? We did in 1996 when we were very, very backed up. We had a contract with the state of Texas to house up to 500 inmates in the Bowie County, Texas facility, which is Texarkana, Texas. As a matter of fact, that facility was right across the street from our Texarkana facility. So they were housed there for a few months to give the sheriff some relief, and then we brought them back. And that was the only time we've ever done anything like that.
But, again, that contract was with the state of Texas. This change would allow us to contract with a county in any state. I
Speaker 179
52:41
guess a city, too, but I don't think they would ever have the space. Thank you very
Speaker 139
52:46
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Cowley. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
52:51
Chair. What would be the basic savings that we would, the cost of what it costs to us, maybe what it's costing down there, and how much we would actually save the state? Well, that would depend on the deal.
Speaker 176
53:04
What we are able to negotiate, we have had preliminary offers
Speaker 173
53:08
from Louisiana to house our inmates there for $28 a day. But, again, that's no programming. That's just them there, and there probably wouldn't be work opportunities. And this probably isn't something we would want to look at for a long, extended period of time. But when we're backed up as we are now above 1,700 people, we have to really, really start looking at all of our options
so that we can give those county jails some relief and return them the ability to manage
Speaker 181
53:54
their jails. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tyler, I live
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
53:57
almost on Louisiana. They call it L.A., Lower Arkansas. Yes, sir, they do. And I just, have we used Louisiana prisons before?
Speaker 173
54:06
We have not. No, sir. The only one we used was the Bowie
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
54:11
County, Texas facility. And the reason I asked that question, I know a few years ago they were doing
Speaker 184
54:17
a lot of privatization in their prison system and had a lot
Speaker 173
54:22
of trouble. Are we concerned about that? If we keep the proper monitoring in place, I think we'll be okay. I mean, obviously, you cannot just take 500 or 400 or 1,000 of your people, your inmates, and move them to another locale and turn your back on them, and we wouldn't do that.
We would make sure we monitored it and the facilities and how they're being housed, how they're being managed, so we would keep a close eye on it. And
Speaker 187
54:48
I guess my next question would be, would we be concerned about liability if that prison didn't meet the standards that we have here
Speaker 188
54:56
in Arkansas? Of course we would, because we wouldn't erase all of our liability by moving across
Speaker 173
55:02
the state line. That's going to stay with us, and that comes under the monitoring. You've got to watch everybody.
I mean, we know that. The Department of Correction in Arkansas does a very, very good job of managing its inmates and stretching its dollars as far as it can. And not to come across as bragging, but we know it's going to be harder for anybody to do better than we do, but we want to get them as close
Speaker 176
55:26
to us as possible, and that's where the monitoring comes in. I guess that was my concern. I
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
55:31
know what a great job you do under very difficult circumstances, And I also know what has gone on in some of those prisons that are now shut down in Louisiana.
But I'd just like for us to be cautious about where we put
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
55:53
our prisoners. Thank you. And we will, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. The $28 fee, that's what we pay our county jails right now. So would that be or
did you say it would depend upon the negotiations or it would not be greater than $28 a day?
Speaker 176
56:12
I can't say that it won't be greater than $28 a day at some point, but
Speaker 173
56:18
that has been the amount that has been talked about. But, again, that's not written down anywhere. We don't have a contract with anyone, and so that would be up to negotiations. And then that would be the initial fee. And, of course, any contract, they build in an increase. So we'll just have to see. But that is, at this point, a very good
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
56:40
number and a very attractive number for us. Would you only do that type of contracting if, in fact, our own county jails could handle no more of the excess?
Wait a minute. I'm not sure. All right. Let me phrase it another way. If all the beds that we utilize in county jails right now at $28 a day, would you only engage in contracting with political subdivisions of other states if all the beds that were allowed to be utilized through the contract with county jails, if those were
Speaker 121
57:15
all full, would you wait until they were all full?
Speaker 173
57:23
Well, I think we're pretty much there. I mean, we did have our backup get above $2,000 for a while, and none of the sheriffs could breathe. At $1,700 plus, they're wheezing pretty hard. I can hear them right now. At $28 a
Speaker 194
57:39
day, I can hear them right now. But to think that we would take everybody and
Speaker 173
57:48
them in Louisiana, and then where the sheriffs did not receive any state funding, I doubt that would happen.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
57:55
Okay. Well, motion at the proper time, Mr.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
58:04
Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tyler, you said
that once the prisoners had completed the programs, that basically they were, I mean, they're still to be incarcerated, and you're sending them to a facility that doesn't offer programs to essentially free up space.
Speaker 201
58:26
Is that correct? That's correct. That would be correct. At that point, are these prisoners eligible
Speaker 173
58:35
for halfway houses? Some of them might be. I mean, there is legislation on the books that allows for transitional housing where certain offenders who are within a year of release could be moved out of the Department of Correctional Facilities into transitional housing. The only problem with that is that it, because of the economic situation, it's never been fully funded.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
58:58
Okay. Are there, is there capacity in halfway houses in Arkansas for those type prisoners?
Speaker 173
59:07
Not at this point because a lot of them don't exist because there's no money for them to house those people so they haven't really been developed. These transitional housing, those aren't state-owned facilities. Those are facilities that a group, an individual creates.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
59:28
They're privately owned. Well, I say this because I've
benefited greatly from employing people from halfway houses. They've been some of my best employees. I mean, they're still very monitored. My own experience has been great with that. And I just wondered if this money were directed towards privately owned halfway houses in the state of Arkansas.
I don't know the rates that it costs per day to house someone in a halfway house in Arkansas, but, you know, if this program, could this program be directed to fund additional halfway houses in Arkansas? Does that mean that money would then exist for them? Well, you're talking about two different agencies. Yes,
Speaker 173
1:00:27
ma'am. Department of Correction and then Transitional Housing is overseen by the Department of Community Correction. And at this point, not all of those inmates that would be moved there would qualify.
Some of them wouldn't be within a year. But to say, but if the question is, would transitional housing benefit us? Sure, it would. Sure, it would. But, again, there hasn't been the funding there. And right now what we're doing is trying to face what amounts to a crisis because we are so backed up and try to find something that can be done quickly and relatively inexpensively so that those county jails can start to run themselves again. Because when we're so backed up,
sheriffs have very much difficulty being able to manage their own offenders, the misdemeanors and pretrial detainees, because we're taking all the
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:01:24
beds. Right. Okay, so I understand we're talking about an additional agency here. transitional housing authority, but they get those prisoners from you? Correct. Okay. And they are not receiving money for those prisoners. When you transfer someone to traditional housing, does that money then come from your budget?
If we transferred them to Louisiana? No. If you transfer them, if you send people from prison and they're moved into the transitional housing authority, does money then flow to them? No, that is picked up by funding to the Department of
Speaker 176
1:02:06
Community Correction. And then the bed
Speaker 173
1:02:09
they have emptied then is taken by someone we move up from the county jail. Okay.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:02:19
You're following my train of thought here. Yes, sir, I think I am. Okay. Now, I don't know how to move that money from your department into transitional housing to fund halfway houses in Arkansas because you're saying they're underfunded, and you're also saying not everyone would qualify for that. Do you know the percentage or the number of people that we're about to give you permission to send them to Louisiana? What percentage of those people, if Transitional Housing Authority was funded, could end up in privately run halfway houses in Arkansas?
Speaker 209
1:02:59
Well, that would be difficult because we don't know who those 500
Speaker 173
1:03:03
are. But if I were to take a guesstimate and just say of the 500, and those would be obviously hand-picked inmates, cherry-picked inmates, lower security. because of certain crimes and the length of their sentence, I would guesstimate, and again, that's
Speaker 188
1:03:19
what this would be, probably maybe 50. Okay. All right. Thank
Speaker 206
1:03:23
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Klammer.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:03:32
Representative Cheatham asked most of my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I do have a quick follow-up. What kind of monitoring will we be doing with the prisoners that are
housed in Louisiana? What is a standard? I don't know what monitoring consists of, but I'd just like to get some idea. We
Speaker 176
1:03:50
will have staff assigned. Either they will be there all the time or we will
Speaker 173
1:03:56
go over there frequently. In other words,
Speaker 211
1:03:58
every few weeks? No, more than that. No, more than that.
Speaker 173
1:04:02
I mean, everybody's definition of frequent. And it could be that we take, if we're able to, we could assign somebody there full time where they stay there and they're there every day. There was a time, y'all may remember, when we had state-owned but privately managed facilities, our Newport facilities, when they opened in 98. And we had monitors that were ADC employees in place at both of those facilities every day to make sure they were doing what they said they were going to do and they were honoring our contract.
So it could be, depending on how many are down there, that we have someone there all the time. But again, those decisions haven't been made. If they're not there all the time, I can promise you they'll be going more often than every few weeks. So you would
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:04:46
say they're going to be pretty closely monitored? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you very much. I mean, there's once a year monitoring,
once a month monitoring. I just wanted to check. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:05:00
Wilkins. Mr. Chair, my question has been answered. Thank you. Representative Roebuck.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:05:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to go back and clarify something. You talked about the rate currently is $28 if you're using one of our county jails. Correct. Is that a negotiated rate? That is a rate set by the
Speaker 173
1:05:19
Chief Financial Officer of the state. Okay. So that leads me to
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:05:23
my next question. You talked about Bowie County. You talked about that's a negotiated rate. It was. It was. What is the rate?
Speaker 173
1:05:33
Well, they're not in Bowie County anymore, and that was back several years ago,
and I want to say it was, I thought it was like 27
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:05:47
back then. It was 35 at the time, but it included medical costs. Okay, so when you're talking about using these out-of-state facilities and you talked about it being negotiated, is there a maximum? Or you're talking about we'll try to get the best deal
Speaker 173
1:05:58
you can? We'll try to get the best deal we can, and it might reach a point where it's not a good deal. And, you know, medical cost is another thing that would have to be considered in there.
Right now, our medical contract, we pay more than $300 per inmate per month. Our medical contract this year is $53 million.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:06:16
So the $35 million was a really good
Speaker 214
1:06:18
deal if it included medical costs, correct? Yes, ma'am, it was. Thank
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:06:28
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we don't have a negotiated amount,
but can you give us a guesstimate on how much
Speaker 173
1:06:39
money we'll be leaving the state? That depends on how many inmates we sent and the rate. But if we sent 500 inmates at $28 a day, okay, my math is terrible, but that's a bunch of
Speaker 161
1:06:56
money. What is 500 times 28? So 500, how many? What is that? 14,000 a day? How long will they be
Speaker 188
1:07:06
keeping them? Well, that's another thing that is up in the air.
Speaker 173
1:07:12
If – I'm getting way far afield here, but let me just – if we get sentencing reform in place, and as that starts, hopefully to affect our population, and the number being sent to us were to decrease, and we were to open beds, then we could start bringing them back. I mean, the idea really is not to put them over there and keep
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:07:39
them for years. I am concerned about our money leaving the state.
I'm concerned about our staff leaving the state and not doing their job that they usually do here. So let me ask this question. I know a few states that are facing this. They've set up tents and just told everybody if our military can live in a tent, some of you can for a very short time also and kept the money and the staff in the state. The problem with tents
Speaker 209
1:08:08
is they sound real good on the surface, but when you have inmates
Speaker 173
1:08:14
in tents, you also have to have an officer in the tents.
We can't see in those tents. We can't see our officer. We also have the good fortune to live in Arkansas and the bad fortune to be situated in the middle of Tornado Alley. If we were to have inmates in tents and a tornado were to come through, I don't know if we could ever recover from the losses and that hits close to home and also to my heart when I remember that it wasn't that many years ago when we had a tornado approach our maximum security unit luckily it did not
hit the unit but it hit our free line pretty hard our staff housing so between the fact that we can't see in the tents we'd have to put a staff member in there there and not be able to see, and the fact how Mother Nature likes to batter us from time to time, that is not a very attractive
Speaker 15
1:09:19
option for us. In fact, it's scary. Is there anyone else? Representative Blair?
Speaker 222
1:09:24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you believe that we can send inmates to Louisiana and provide them with the same
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:09:31
basic level of treatment that they would get in the state of Arkansas, is that correct? That's what
Speaker 188
1:09:37
the contract would call for, yes, and that's what we believe. And if we can't, then
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:09:42
we wouldn't send them. And you believe that we can do that at a lower cost by sending them out of state? Correct. Have we explored the reasons that they're able to provide this service for a lower cost?
I mean, you know, I'm just wondering, you know, are there things that we can do to lower the cost of corrections in the state of
Speaker 173
1:10:05
Arkansas? The difference has to do with a couple of things. One is the fact that there would be no programming. That's a large cost right there. Another thing is the security level. As your security level increases, obviously your supervision increases, so your costs go up as well. These would be lower security inmates. If you look at the cost of, like, our work release center, the cost is low.
It's down in that area, too. But if you look at the cost of, like, our maximum security, or if you could separate Supermax out from Barner overall, then suddenly it gets up to about $80 a day. So these would be lower-level offenders. There wouldn't be programming costs. And then medical would still be negotiated. Also, when you don't take inmates outside the institution for work assignments, then your staff costs go down as well. So it's the staffing, it's the security level, and it's not having programs that makes the difference.
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:11:05
but it sounds like if if you know if these are um you know inmates that just inherently have a lower cost that i mean is it they're actually a lower cost to the department of corrections in the
Speaker 173
1:11:20
state of arkansas is that correct they are depending on where we can house them but they're lower cost now because they were a higher cost to begin with we got them to that
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:11:33
point So we got them to that point, but I guess what I'm saying is, is there really more of just an illusion of cost savings?
Because, I mean, if these are lower-cost inmates, I mean, we're really not, I guess in the end we're not saving money. Is that what it
Speaker 173
1:11:51
comes down to? We're just getting more space? Well, we're getting more space to work with, and there's two ways to look at cost savings. Obviously, if you take somebody that our cost is averaging $60.03 a day to house them and move them to a $28-a-day facility, if that indeed is the cost, there is savings there. But if you reach down in the county jails and take $28-a-day inmates,
because that's what we're paying the county jails to house them, and move them into the $60 beds, I mean, it's kind of a wash. But you have to look beyond that as well, Because what that means is we're not building 500 beds. So you've got to look at the construction costs of that. So we're a 500-bed facility or a 1,000-bed facility. That's about $50 million. So we're not building that. We're not operating that facility. So you've got to look beyond just the chest move of moving these inmates here and these inmates there.
But look at the construction costs we're saving. And every time we don't build 500 more beds or 1,000 more beds, then we're saving money. Okay. Thank you. Representative Tyler, are you
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:12:59
finished with your presentation on this bill? Yes, sir, I am. Thank you. Is anyone from the audience like to speak against the bill for the bill? I recognize Representative Bernard for a motion. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass.
Any discussion from the committee? All in favor of House Bill 1353, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Speaker 71
1:13:25
Motion passed. Thank you, Representative Tyler. You have passed your bill. The next on our agenda
Speaker 96
1:13:39
is House Bill 1370. Representative Shepard, would you take the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:13:43
end of the table? and you have guests. Would they identify themselves for the record, please?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:52
I know they're with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My guest is my former sheriff from Union County, Mr. Ken
Speaker 233
1:14:01
Jones, and I'll let him introduce himself. Thank you.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:14:08
I'm now with the Commission on
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:14:11
Law Enforcement Standards and Training. Representative, you have the mic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. House Bill 1370 concerns the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy. It provides a clarification that the academy can be used by other law enforcement agencies
and that the academy may be reimbursed for any expense in allowing that training. And then secondly, it allows the commission to extend an invitation to certain individuals to participate in law enforcement training. In this day and age, law enforcement faces new threats, and the training involved may need to incorporate first responders, police, fire, doctors, EMTs, emergency room personnel.
And so that's the second part of this bill,
House Bill 1370. And I'm sure Mr. Jones could answer any questions, and
Speaker 148
1:15:16
I'll be glad to answer any questions
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:15:24
the committee has. Do we have any questions from the Representative Bernard? Good morning. Representative Shepard, on page 2, lines 15 through 17, you're adding some language where the Commission may accept reimbursement could
you give me I can understand the public part of that could you give me representative Shepherd an example
of a private entity that would have a need to use the training Academy representing arts I believe
Speaker 237
1:15:54
mr. Jones could could provide an example of that lucky Martin
Speaker 238
1:15:59
for instance is a defense contractor in East Camden that has a large security force and they possibly would like to use our firing range facility on a weekend when we wasn't using it to to
qualify their security force would be permissible to allow them to do that and reimburse the state for that use that sudden incident where it could be used Well, I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:16:25
could see as – and, of course, that would only be allowed, sir, if there were no conflict of priority of the academy to have use of it, correct? That's correct. Yeah. And how would
Speaker 136
1:16:37
those rates be established? Would they be private market rates? Should be. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 148
1:16:45
Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 96
1:16:55
Chair. Are there any other questions from the committee?
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:17:01
Representative Wilkins, I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Motion at
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:17:05
the proper time, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Is there any, may I help you ask you a question if I may? Sure.
Reading here, and I'm sorry because I'm just now reading this legislation.
And you reference to the use of private entities using the firing range. Is it anywhere, and I haven't read this bill very well, I apologize for that, and then you go down on page 925, page 2, where you talk about doctors, nurses, firefighters, and Homeland Security are persons otherwise engaged in protection of the public welfare. Is this – are you going
to certify these people when they get through with it?
Are they going to go through the law enforcement?
Speaker 238
1:17:54
No. Let me give you an example of what that situation could be. After 9-11, of course, we're trying to all come together as first responders and emergency personnel. So let's say that the Law Enforcement Training Academy decided they want to put on a training course in weapons of mass destruction to law enforcement. They'd like to be able to invite EMS firefighters and everybody else to the table to be a part of that training with them.
Under the present law, only law enforcement is permitted to train at the Law Enforcement Training Academy. So that part of the amendment would allow us to invite for specialized training the other emergency responders disciplines to the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:18:40
table to train. But, again, they're going to have to
Speaker 238
1:18:45
pay for the cost of this training? Not necessarily. We're talking about state firefighters or local EMS government entities, not necessarily
that would be determined, you know, if there was a lot of cost involved or if the academy could absorb the cost in their budget to put on a multiple agency discipline training within their
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:09
budget. Mr. Chairman, I think as a point of clarification, I think that the bill, the purpose of the bill or the intent of the bill is really twofold. The first part would deal with the situation where Lockheed Martin, the FBI, or other law enforcement agencies want to use the facilities outside of what would normally be Alita's
normal courses. This would allow for the facility essentially to be utilized and then those costs reimbursed. The second part would concern actual courses that are put on by the commission through Alita that would allow at the invitation of the commission for certain other individuals to participate in actual training put on by the commission and the academy itself. So one point is more or less just use of facility. The second point would be the situation where
they actually are participating in a LIDA or commission-sponsored training.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:09
Thank you very much for that explanation. Any other questions from the committee? Are you through representative on your presentation? I am. I'd appreciate a good vote. Is anyone from the audience who would like to speak against the bill or for the bill? Representative Wilkins for a motion? Do pass. We have a motion do pass. Is there any other discussion from the committee? All in favor
Speaker 71
1:20:37
of House Bill 1370, say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? You have passed your bill.
Speaker 15
1:20:50
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We are now going to have a Senate
Speaker 247
1:21:08
bill, 219. I think Representative Linker is going
Speaker 248
1:21:13
to run that bill for the Senate. Thank you.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:21:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you all hear me now? I have invited, with your permission, two gentlemen here that will be recognized to speak for this bill. Would you ask
them to identify themselves and who they're with for the record? Thank you,
Dennis Sternberg
Unverified
1:21:47
Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dennis Sternberg. I'm the Executive Director of Arkansas Rural Water Association. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 254
1:21:58
members of the committee, I'm Paul Berry, representing Beaver Water
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:22:02
District in Northwest Arkansas. Welcome to the committee room, Madam Co-Chair. You
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:22:09
have the mic. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Representative Andrea Lee would probably be running this for Senator Lamoureux, but since she wasn't here, I agreed to do this. And we have Representative Baird and Representative Hobbs who also are familiar with this Beaver Water District and the other water systems. What this bill does is simply continue the expiration date regarding the Freedom of Information
Act provisions regarding the records of the public water systems in Arkansas. This is necessary. This has to be done every year for an extension of the date, of the expiration date, about the records, the security of the records of public water systems in Arkansas. It does include an emergency clause because of the – that the expiration date would
be July 1 of this year and and we do need to
Speaker 96
1:23:21
extend that date for another two years are you ready for questions yes
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:23:29
representative I'm in favor of this
bill but I was just wondering and you may not be able to answer this question why in In fact, there was a proviso put in here in the first place to have an expiration date
because if it's a public water system, it would seem to me that anything that they do is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So maybe your guests down there could tell me why was there even a proviso put on here that it expire in July 1,
2011? It seems to me there's they really should, you know, always be open. MS.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:24:14
I will yield to my guest here for that answer, Representative.
Dennis Sternberg
Unverified
1:24:19
Thank you. MR. Again, my name is Dennis Sternberg. I'm the Executive Director of Arkansas World Water. This is only protecting the vulnerability assessments of the water system and dedicated records due to 9-11. After 9-11, the EPA come down and mandated that all water systems 3,300 and above have to complete a vulnerability assessment, and the only ones who could have access to that was EPA headquarters and the system, and that is the protected information.
The Sunset is with the press association. They're the ones that encourage that we don't try to do away with the sunset clause, but all other records are open,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:25:04
if that helps explain that. So you're telling me that the use of the term on line 28, page 1, certain records, those would be records that would be harmful for persons who intended to do harm to us so as that exemption applies to those kind of records, but just everyday efficiency or
operation records, those are open to the public now without expiration? Yes, correct. Okay. I understand now, since you made that statement, I understand the reason for the need to go ahead and change the dates rather than just
simply in general. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does anyone else from the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:25:49
committee have a question? Representative Slinker, are you through with your presentation?
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:25:55
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:25:57
Does anyone from the audience like to speak against this bill, for this bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? We have a motion to do pass from Representative Bernard. Any discussion? All in favor of passing Senate Bill 219, say aye. Aye. Are you opposed? You pass your bill
down there. Thank you, ma'am. we're going now to
Senate Bill 156 is anyone here to run
Senate Bill 156 today 156 House Bill 1409 is Representative Carter here to run House Bill 1409 if not That's all we have on our regular agenda. Committee members, because of the picture, we'll have to be postponed until Friday morning
Speaker 1
1:27:01
and we'll try to have all the committee members here to do it first thing. We'll try to have the Secretary of State's office here at the same time. We kind of got confused on the time between coordinating this, so dress up again, ladies and gentlemen. We'll see you all Friday morning. Good job.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1005
SB206
SB204
HB1353
HB1370
SB219
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Speaker 15
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Speaker 30
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 41
Speaker 44
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
Speaker 49
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 75
Speaker 77
Speaker 80
Speaker 78
Speaker 79
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 101
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 110
Charlie Green
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 137
Speaker 141
Speaker 139
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 144
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 156
Speaker 162
Speaker 20
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Speaker 173
Speaker 178
Speaker 179
Speaker 176
Speaker 181
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 184
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Speaker 121
Speaker 194
Speaker 148
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 209
Speaker 206
Speaker 211
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 214
Speaker 161
Speaker 222
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 233
Speaker 237
Speaker 238
Speaker 136
Speaker 247
Speaker 248
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Dennis Sternberg
Unverified
Speaker 254