House State Agencies and Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1235
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1235”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1298
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1298”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1319
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1319”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1313
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1313”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1005
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…in it. who's the first here? Okay. We're going to skip over House Bill 1005. It would come up”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1035
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “you, Madam Chair and members. House Bill 1035. This”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1292
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1292 by Representative Hubbard”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1304
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…a due pass thank you let's see representative Williams for House bill 1304 will pass over that one Okay, next is Representative Kaling…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1320
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1320”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB208
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB208”
|
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
Chair Cesar Quorum, we will start the
meeting. By way of announcement, we will have a committee picture retake
Speaker 4
0:15
next Wednesday. We wanted to get a little
bit clearer picture, I think, with everybody in it. who's the first here? Okay. We're going to skip over House Bill 1005. It would come up
at a later time. Representative Allen for House Bill 1235. You're recognized to present Thank
Speaker 11
0:59
you, Madam Chair and members. House Bill 1035. This
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:03
is a workforce development bill. And what I'm going to do, I'm going to let R.T. explain the purpose of this bill.
Speaker 16
1:13
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is R.T. Williams. I'm Director of the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. As Representative Allen stated before years, House Bill 1235, and we have a need to replace the Workforce Center facility in Hope, Arkansas, which serves Hempstead, Howard, Nevada County,
and the southern part of Pike County. That building is pretty much beyond repair. We've had advice from the Arkansas Building Authority regarding this. There is some old language in the first section of the bill that gave us authority several years ago to construct or lease facilities in the cities that you see listed, which included Hope, Arkansas. We were limited to using federal funds to replace those buildings. This was several years ago in the 60s and 70s, and some of those buildings now are becoming
quite old and need replacing. There was also a clause in the bill that restricted us to using federal funds, and if those funds expired, the state would have no obligation to continue those lease arrangements, those purchase arrangements, et cetera. We received advice from Arkansas Building Authority that if we decide, for example, to pursue a bond issue through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to construct that facility, some of this language might restrict that authority. We don't intend to use federal funds at all to replace that facility, and we'll use non-federal
funds to retire the bonds should the bond issue be approved. We're just trying to make sure we're able to serve those citizens in those affected counties. And, Madam Chair, we'd pause for
Speaker 17
3:08
any questions. MS. Are there questions from
the committee? Representative Tyler? I just have a motion at the proper time. Representative Penartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
3:25
Good morning, R.T. Good morning. I was late because I had to find a parking place. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. I hadn't had a coffee yet, so that, you know, I'm not on usual game here.
Chair
Unverified
3:47
Yeah, would you please, Larry? I was a little bit, in your presentation, I was curious, you mentioned a bond, if you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
3:57
do a bond? MR. A
Speaker 16
4:01
bond issue, yes, ma'am. Right. And you didn't tell us the amount. MR. I'm sorry. The
Speaker 26
4:07
amount is projected to be $2 million or so,
Chair
Unverified
4:12
maybe another 10 to 15 percent for related, you know, expenses to that bond issue. Okay. And with regard to that, if you're able to do that, why was there a
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
4:23
proviso made to allow the use of
Speaker 16
4:27
federal funds in the first place? Because we received a one-time allocation of monies from the U.S. Labor Department to construct or lease the facilities in the cities and locations listed in the bill.
There was a one-time infusion of federal funds for that express purpose. MS.
Chair
Unverified
4:48
And when was that, R.T.? MR. It was in the
Speaker 16
4:52
60s and 70s. MS. Okay. And so y'all have been leasing ever since? MR. In these locations, in some cases, we've leased. In Hope, for example, we actually constructed the building. We owned that building
Speaker 14
5:03
in Hope, Arkansas. So in some cases, we built a new facility and others we leased. For the most part, we are leasing
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
5:09
facilities across the state. MS. thought, and that means that that income goes into the local economy normally.
MR. Absolutely. So in this case, the bond would be – tell
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
5:18
me again, the bond would be used in this fiscal year or in the following one?
Speaker 16
5:24
MR. Whatever the, you know, the project timelines are developed because we'll have to follow the bond issue schedule, then an RFP for a contractor, whatever those timelines might be. Okay. And we also have the option, again, to lease a facility. So we'll explore all those options, lease, lease purchase, or construct a new facility.
Speaker 38
5:47
Okay. Well, thank you very much, R.T. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 39
5:59
Chair. Representative Cheatham, we have a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Mr. Williams answered my question on
Speaker 43
6:07
the last statement. Option to lease or to bill? Yes, sir. If you build,
Speaker 16
6:12
will it be on the same site the facility is located at now? No, sir. We actually own property on Smith Road in Hope, Arkansas,
where we operate the Hope Margaret Farm Labor Center. That will allow us to actually consolidate operations in that one location. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Is there any one in the audience who speaks for or against the bill?
Okay. Representative Allen, would you like to close for your bill? We're closed. Okay. I recognize Representative Tyler for a motion.
Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. What are the oh all those in favor I Any against nay Thank you motion passes. Thank you. Thank you manager Okay
without objection We have a special order of business for
House Bill 1292 by Representative Hubbard
scheduled for next Wednesday, February 16th at 10 o'clock. Okay, the next item
is House Bill 1298, Representative Roback. If you'll go to the end of the table.
Speaker 54
8:09
Thank you, Madam Chair. You're recognized.
Speaker 56
8:14
Committee members and colleagues, almost a year ago on March 11, 2010, the House Committee on Aging, Children, Youth, and Military Affairs met. And on that agenda that day, and some of you will remember, we considered the Morgan-Nick-Amber alert and the process for that alert and notification of the proper authorities. And we found out that in some cases, the local law enforcement agencies notify the state
police immediately, and some do not. And all of us were very sympathetic that day when we listened to a mother describe painfully the situation of her daughter being abducted, and then hearing that the local law enforcement agency did indeed do what they were supposed to do and notify the National Crime and Information Center, but did not notify the state police until some days later. So in trying to assure that the process is uniform throughout the state, I began to talk
to Major Cleve Barfield, and I'm sorry that he's not here today, but he helped me, and we've made some amendments to the existing statutes that will keep that from ever happening again. So here's what the bill does. It requires that the local law enforcement or any law enforcement officer or the Attorney General, when that group is notified by parents, guardians, or other persons having custody of the child that the child is missing, then the law enforcement officer or the attorney
general shall, and you'll see that on lines 30 through 33, shall notify and enter the information into the missing persons information clearinghouse, and that is immediately then entered into the state police data bank. It also clarifies that within five business days of being notified by the parents or the guardian or the person having custody of the child, and then you'll see there how that change is made as well. It also adds school administrator after superintendent so that the school administrator of actually the building where the child is attending
will be notified and that that information can be attached to those school records. Now why is this important? Because already in 2011, just six weeks into this year, we have We have had reports of 372 missing children under the age of 21, and those have been reported to ACIC. Now, locally, due to the outstanding work of our law enforcement agencies all around the state, 292 of those children have been returned to their homes.
Outstanding. Last year, 2010, the total number was 3,407 missing children and 3,233 being returned. So I think that's a great percentage, but we all know that the first 24 hours of a child being abducted is critical to the safe return of that child. And so on behalf of all those children that were not returned to their homes
and the many children who regretfully may be reported missing in the future, then I bring you this bill.
Speaker 59
11:30
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there questions
from the committee? Who was first? Representative
Speaker 61
11:47
proper time. Okay, Representative Garner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Roebuck, I don't want
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
11:53
to assume anything, but the first number you quoted,
was that the number of children missing in Arkansas so far this year, 300?
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
12:07
372. We – there have been 372 children in Arkansas reported missing as of what's February 9th. Correct. A month and
Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none. Okay. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized for a motion. Do pass, madam. We have a motion do pass on House Bill 1298. All those in favor, please say by saying aye.
Aye. Any opposed? to roll back you have a due pass thank you let's see representative Williams for House bill 1304 will pass over that one Okay, next is Representative Kaling, House Bill 1313.
Chair
Unverified
13:43
Representative Kaling, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee and all, I've got the lucky 1313, not only one luck, but two luck. So I hope y'all, this is a bill that I was asked to run for the Association of the Academy, the Police, Municipal Police Association. And what it is, is the president of this and all is, he basically serves a one-year term.
Everybody else serves seven years. and it's just designating him that he can run or have a designee in his place for the voting. And it's just a little cleanup bill that they wanted to do. So basically that's all this is that they've asked me to do for them. Other questions from the committee? Representative Pernarts, you're
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
14:34
recognized. Motion at the proper time. Okay. Is there anybody
in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the bill?
Speaker 76
14:53
Seeing none. Yes, I'm closed. Thank you. Okay. Every single
Chair
Unverified
15:05
point, aren't you recognized for motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Do pass. Okay,
committee, we have a motion to do pass. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed, nay. You have passed your bill.
Next we have House Bill 1319, Representative Tyler, you're recognized. Representative Tyler,
you're recognized to present your bill.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
16:01
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm bringing forward House Bill 1319, and it is a Department of Corrections bill. We've already talked a little bit about law enforcement officers today and law enforcement today, but our Department of Corrections is an important part of our law enforcement community in Arkansas, too. This bill provides for the awarding of a service weapon upon retirement of certain Department
of correction employees so that they would be able to receive a service weapon that would be an award, a memorable piece of something they can take home that reminds them of their service and honors them for their service. So I would be glad to take any questions. And I have with me Ms. Donna Tyler from the Department of Corrections. We
have questions from Representative Wilkins, saw you first.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
17:06
Madam Chairman. Thank you. Madam Chairman at the end of the table, this is pretty well common among state law enforcement officers. I think all of them do, but the Department of Correction may make that award at the end of service. Yes, sir. That
Speaker 86
17:21
is correct. It is a very common practice. Thank you, ma'am. Thank
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
17:33
you. Any other questions from the committee? Oh, Representative Pernartz. I'm sorry.
Chair
Unverified
17:36
That's all right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Linda, I'm in support of Representative Tyler, excuse me, I'm in support of your bill, but I was trying to remember, and maybe Dinah knows, who else does this? I mean, it seems like last session we did this for someone, and I'm trying to search in my memory
Speaker 89
17:58
who that was. Representative Penartz, I think it was the Department of Community Correction. Oh, Community Correction.
Okay. That's why it sounded familiar. And this came to light for us upon the retirement of Larry Norris, who retired after being director for 16 years, and he had been with the department for, you know, like close to 40 years. He had the same pistol that he had had since he was warden of the MAX unit in 1983, and we wanted to award that pistol to him. We eventually got to by working with the Department of Finance and Administration and having a pistol donated to take its place.
Speaker 90
18:38
But we got to thinking after that that it would probably be a good thing to
Chair
Unverified
18:45
be able to do that in certain cases. Well, let me just ask this, and maybe it's covered by that last one. they would still have to have a –
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:56
they wouldn't have to have a
Speaker 89
19:00
concealed weapons permit, would they? Well, if they wanted to carry it on their person after they were retired, they would have to. And this wouldn't be for all employees. It would be those employees who are qualified and are issued a weapon through the department.
For instance, I don't have a weapon, probably for good reason. I don't know. Maybe you should. So upon my retirement, I would not
Speaker 85
19:27
receive one. Especially since Ms. Tyler told me this morning
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
19:32
she's anxious occasionally. And one last question, if you may, please. I
Chair
Unverified
19:37
noticed that the employee's spouse is eligible to receive the weapon also. And in this case, they also, if they were to carry it, would have to have a concealed weapon.
Speaker 89
19:48
Yes, ma'am, that's correct, and the spouse would receive it only if the employee was one that died in the line of duty. I'm sorry, say that again? If it's awarded to the spouse, it would be because their spouse had died in the line of duty. Well, it
Chair
Unverified
20:12
doesn't say that in the bill, so it just says they're eligible to receive it, and that's the eligibility criteria, that their spouse died in the line of duty?
Speaker 89
20:23
Yes, that's the way we would do it. Okay. I suppose we could do it another way, but our plans are that if we have an officer who is
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
20:36
killed in the line of duty, then the spouse would receive
Chair
Unverified
20:40
it. Otherwise, then the employee would receive it. Correct. Okay. That's – it's there, I assume. I'm going to take your word for it. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
20:52
Madam Chair. Thank you. Representative Garner, you have questions?
Speaker 99
20:55
Oh, okay. Representative Rogers. Thank you,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
21:01
Madam Chair. My question goes back to the question about whether or not the spouse would receive it, but if you had an employee that unfortunately died with a terminal illness of some sort, but who had been one of these officers that would have, you know, that had the authority to use that, wouldn't you want their spouse to
Speaker 101
21:23
receive that also? So the line of duty really isn't the requirement.
It's, you know, their service basically is
Speaker 102
21:31
what it's based on. Correct. And I guess
Speaker 89
21:34
you could do it either way, but we had, you know, anticipated it being used if someone were killed in the line of duty. But you all are absolutely right. You could award it. Okay. Thank you
Speaker 105
21:51
very much. Representative Kaling. Okay. Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for – oh, excuse me.
Speaker 28
22:05
Excuse me. Representative Wilkins. I just want to clear up a little bit
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
22:12
of something here. Retired law enforcement, certified law enforcement officers do not have to have a concealed carry permit. They have to recertify every year. If they're a certified officer when they retire, then every year they have to recertify on the law enforcement
Speaker 89
22:32
shooting range. There is a certification for correctional officers.
Our correctional officers are certified by us to carry a weapon. We have some that are certified peace officers, but they're different than the law enforcement officer certification you're talking about, though we've got some officers now going through that. But we're mainly talking about our certification through the Department of Correction. And that wouldn't apply to a retired
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
22:56
peace officer? Okay. Okay, thank you. I didn't know that. Are there other questions by the committee?
Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the
bill? Representative Tyler, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you. Okay. And then we're ready for a motion. Representative Cowling. Do pass.
We have a motion to do pass. All those in
favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Representative Tyler, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Tyler, you're recognized to present House Bill 1320.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
23:49
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. House Bill 1320 is to provide, there's this term called emollience that I think Ms. Tyler will be able to help me explain better, but it's things that we, the Department of Corrections has had authority to sell to employees of Department of Corrections, and it requires
a certain accounting for the sale of those items. The Department of Corrections no longer sells those items, and this bill addresses that and removes that requirement that they They have to make those reports, even though they're not selling those items any longer. That's what this bill does, and we'll be glad to take any questions. Other questions from the committee?
Okay. Who is it? Oh. Okay. Representative McLean, you're recognized. Okay. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 117
24:58
Chair. Is there going to be any selling of, it says here, surplus items, and you have the
Speaker 115
25:04
capability to sell them if you need to. Is that going to occur? MS. Yes, sir.
Speaker 89
25:11
There's actually, we, for a bazillion years, the Department of Correction issued what are
known as emoluments to certain employee positions, those who were part of the emergency response team primarily. A position was approved to receive emoluments, and those were monthly draws. staples, meat, vegetables, that sort of thing. Over the years, they haven't been used as widely as they have before, and as a matter of fact, the last four years we did this, there were only like $40,000 worth of food
staples that were drawn. What we have done now is stop the issuance of those emoluments, but if this bill passes, we would still retain the ability to restart an emolument program sometime in the future. Now on the other side of that is when we have excess farm items, then we do sell those from time to time to the employees. Since I've been there in the past 15 years, there have been times when we've sold some corn, some sweet potatoes, watermelons, pumpkins, and that's done when we have an excess amount
and then the employees can purchase a set amount, like it may be two bags of corn or two pumpkins, something like that. So we would still be able to sell those excess items. We would also still have emoluments. We'd have the ability to have emoluments. But now, under statute, it says we shall have emoluments, and we don't. When I
Speaker 117
26:47
read this, there was a bill two years ago that former Representative Rick Saunders ran, and it was not received well. and so I immediately was kind of thinking of that
but you have cleared that up for me and now I kind of have a clear picture so thank you very much thank you thank you Madam Chair are there
other questions from the committee anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the bill
seeing none would you like to close for your bill Representative Tyler We're closed. Thank you, ma'am.
What are the wishes of the committee? Do pass. We have a motion for do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Representative Tyler, you've passed your bill. Anyone here to run Senate Bill 206 by Senator Files?
This is Senator. We'll pass over that. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 208. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
28:34
I've invited Director of State Crime Lab, Kermit Channel, at the end of the table with me. This is really a pretty simple bill. It brings State Crime Lab up to the beginning of the 21st century anyway. It raises a few fees. that really have nothing to do with law enforcement or the fees that are raised or civil or, in some cases, federal prison, autopsies and that type of thing.
You know, the crime lab does such a great job for the state of Arkansas. We should all be very proud. And it's hard for someone outside law enforcement, I think, to realize how important they are to everyday life and everyday crime in this state. And with that, I'm going to ask Director Kerman, Director Channel, if he has any statement. Director, please
identify yourself for the record, please.
Speaker 122
29:42
I'm Kerman Channel. I'm the director of the State Crime Laboratory.
Speaker 124
29:48
MS. You're recognized. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically, what this bill does, it does bring us up to date with civil filing fees, and those would be cases if we do a FAA autopsy or a death in the federal system, we'll do those autopsies. It also increases the fees if one of my
Speaker 122
30:07
staff has to testify, including a medical examiner in a civil case, which aren't very frequent, but they do happen, and it's a considerable
amount of time that we spend even on one case. We wanted to bring that up to date. The other thing that this does, it
Speaker 124
30:23
gives me the authority to hire and fire the chief medical examiner for cause with approval of the board. So it basically reverses that role that has historically been there as
well. Are there other questions from the committee? Representative Lee?
Speaker 101
30:46
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here today. Question about the fees. Is the purpose of the fee increase to scare off people asking you? because I know you've struggled with personnel for a while. So, I mean, that's a significant raise in fees. It is a significant
Speaker 122
31:08
raise, but it's only a significant raise because they haven't been changed since 1995. And it's not really meant to scare off anyone because ultimately if we're served a subpoena in a civil case,
we're going to respectfully attend for that, whether it's a pretrial or a deposition. I think that from my position as a director, I would rather not waste the state's time with having, for instance, a forensic pathologist testify
Speaker 124
31:37
in a hearing that's just for a civil matter because I don't think it's right to the
Speaker 101
31:48
service that we do for the state. Follow-up, if I could. But how many autopsies were requested last year that were non-law enforcement?
Speaker 124
31:58
MR. Last year, we did four autopsies. Three of those were for the FAA,
Chair
Unverified
32:18
penitentiary. MS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. MS. Okay. Representative Panarch, you recognize your question? My questions are along a similar line as Representative Lee. I was a little concerned of the difference in the adjustments from 75 to 225 and from
600 to 1,800 and, of course, in the last one the thing tripling, and I understand that you I'm wondering if does this bring the state crime lab up to what the market prices for these things are? It was pointed out to me during another
Speaker 124
32:57
committee hearing that this bill was almost passed down because they didn't think
Speaker 122
33:02
I was asking for enough. And that was based on attorneys that do civil work and what they experience out there when
they retain a physician to come and testify. So
Speaker 124
33:14
I think it brings us close, but they're actually still probably quite low for what attorneys experience out
Chair
Unverified
33:22
there in the civil community. Well, do you have any figures that could give us an actual comparison? I mean, I'm wondering, I don't personally know whether these fees are the market price or not. I mean, if you, as you've indicated, you've said that some attorneys you've talked with said these are too low, then my question to you is, what is the appropriate market price?
What is, you know, what are other state crime labs charged and how does that compare to what they charge for these similar services? because if it is too low and you're already asking for too low, then you may come back here in another couple of years and say these are, you know, still too low. So I guess what I'm asking you, is this in fact what is needed and how does it compare to the surrounding states' crime lab charges for these similar services that you all provide?
I would think you would have
Speaker 122
34:28
that information. We've had a very difficult time trying to ferret this type of
Speaker 124
34:33
information out from specific crime laboratories. What I was able to find is expert witness fee lists and what typically goes on around the country. And for expert witness fee, it's around $250 up to $550, $550 specifically per hour for a physician to testify or render an opinion in court. One of the things that we looked at when we did this is to we want to encompass all the
laboratory personnel, the analyst, to include a
Speaker 122
35:01
medical examiner so we didn't have a more complicated bill that would be choppy depending on the discipline the individual was
Chair
Unverified
35:13
do you have, I mean, you don't have any other information for us other than just to say that these fees are still lower than the market would bear. Is that your generalization? MR. Yes, ma'am.
That would be my opinion. MS. And these fees, I assume you know how much money these projected fees and additional revenue will bring in. Based even if you use the past fiscal year numbers, you have some idea of what the projected revenue for once these fees are, if these fees are instituted. MR. It's kind of a
Speaker 122
35:56
moving target. I can tell you historically from 2009 we only brought in $1,500, and in 2010 we brought
in $2,200. MR. For which of these services? MR. These are primarily autopsy services for
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
36:11
the FAA and the federal. MS. For which of the services? There's like three
Speaker 131
36:16
different fees here. MR. Those would be primarily for autopsy fees for the FAA and also autopsy fee for federal death and the penitentiary. MS. So if you did four,
Chair
Unverified
36:25
which you said you did the prior year, that would mean an extra $8,000 for that? MR. That's correct. MS. Yeah.
Well, I appreciate your response, but your responses are sort of incomplete for me. And I wish you had additional solid information where you could have presented that to us. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative McLean. Representative McLean. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 117
37:01
How many autopsies do you all do a year?
We do approximately 1,300 autopsies a year. Okay. I figured there's something along those lines. And out of those 1,300, four were considered non-law enforcement requests? That's correct. Do you get requests from families that want autopsies? No, we
Speaker 122
37:21
don't. We don't do any private autopsies for families at the state facility. What would be another example of a non-law enforcement request? An example would be if we did an autopsy and it was determined a suicide and there
was controversy over that, even though it was ruled a suicide, we could have and have had civil
Speaker 117
37:45
litigation in those types of cases in the past. Okay. Like a county coroner can request an autopsy and it wouldn't fall
Speaker 122
37:52
under this $3,000. Well, he could request an autopsy thinking that it was suspicious or thinking it was a homicide. We deem it a suicide. the case is adjudicated, it later comes back two or three years later
Speaker 124
38:05
as a civil litigation. I guess what I'm trying to get
Speaker 117
38:10
at is I'm from Independence County and would my coroner
be charged $3,000 for an autopsy request?
Speaker 122
38:17
Absolutely not. There's no fees incurred for
Speaker 124
38:20
state government. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Representative Tyler, you're recognized.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
38:36
Representative Hutchison. Thank you. I would really like to know what the surrounding states charge for this.
And I know your lead sponsor isn't here, but we have a great research bureau here that if you just ask them, they could find that information out. I was wondering if you would take this down and let the research team find out what the surrounding states charge for this. Would that be a problem? No, it would be no problem. I'd be happy
Speaker 119
39:16
Madam Chair, I'll make that request to
we take another question? Representative Garner,
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
39:34
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, and I appreciate that. But I just wanted to follow up on Representative Penartz's line of questioning. On the other fees that are here for testifying, $225 an hour or $1,800 per day,
Do you have any figures of what the current revenue you receive from those requests is and what you project the revenue increase would be? And since you're fully funded, are you not, by the state? That is correct. Okay. So what do you anticipate doing with the additional money? Any money we get in this category
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
40:27
basically for operating supplies within the state, within our agency. So you would be enabled to spend more money in your department? That's correct. You wouldn't be coming back to us to offer a reduction in how much the state funds your department because of the revenue increase? I would not anticipate that. I wouldn't anticipate it either. So I guess I don't know the impact of what you're asking,
how many hours you're being asked to testify, by whom, is this just civil litigation that a lawyer can call up and say, we want you guys to come testify and you go do it? This would be civil litigation in
Speaker 122
41:12
cases that have been adjudicated in the state of Arkansas on criminal work we have already performed. Okay. Okay. Okay, so there would
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
41:21
have to be some kind of criminal activity, whether it was, it may have been discharged, but you were involved in that, and then in the civil court they call you back because you were involved and ask you to testify.
That's correct. Okay, so this is just not open ball for anybody to access your department to say, come testify for us. That's correct. Okay. Could you come back with figures on just how much you have to do that and what kind of impact those fees for testifying would be? Yes, I'd be happy to research them more. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Representative Cowning.
Representative Wilkins has agreed to pull his bill, pull down his bill. Is that correct? Yes, Madam Chair. Okay. Your
bill is pulled down. Anybody here or anyone here to present Senate Bill 204? Seeing none. Representative Cheatham. Madam Chair,
Speaker 144
42:34
I just have a comment at the proper time when you get through with your
Unknown speaker
42:37
business. Okay. Are we through? we're finished thank you
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1235
HB1298
HB1313
HB1319
HB1320
SB208
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 11
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 16
Speaker 17
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 26
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 38
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 54
Speaker 56
Speaker 59
Speaker 60
Speaker 61
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Speaker 67
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 89
Speaker 90
Speaker 85
Speaker 99
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 101
Speaker 102
Speaker 105
Speaker 28
Speaker 117
Speaker 115
Speaker 122
Speaker 124
Speaker 131
Speaker 135
Speaker 119
Speaker 141
Speaker 144