House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1232
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1232”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1009
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1009”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1243
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1243”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB56
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB56”
|
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
We're going to take a couple of these bills out of order as we wait on other folks to get here. I'm sorry, before I say that, there's a sign-in sheet here that Patrick has. If anybody wants to sign in, please be sure to sign the sign-up sheet, and we will
recognize you at the appropriate time. Members, we're going to hear House Bill 1232, Representative Thompson. Representative Thompson, if you're prepared to present your
bill, you may go right ahead and do so. Welcome to House Judiciary.
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
0:30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to invite my chief of police, Norbert Gunderman, to please come
up and sit with me. Also today, I have Chuck Lang with the Arkansas Sheriff's Association in the audience. Should questions arise, that he can answer. and Brandon Baker with the Conway County Office of Emergency Services.
This is a very simple bill, and I know that's, y'all hear that all the time, but at the same time, it's the very first one that I've actually presented. When I ran for election, I made it real clear to my constituents that my objective was to come and represent them. And when my local people contacted me concerning this
and asked that we change the penalty for assaulting a police officer with pepper spray or tear gas from being a misdemeanor to being a Class D felony, then that's the whole purpose of this bill. There are no other changes as far as current law is concerned.
We sent the bill to the Attorney General's office. They reviewed it. They did not have any problems with it. Of course, we mentioned the Sheriff's Association and the Chiefs of Police. We also contacted the Director of Sentencing Commission concerning the physical impact of this bill, whether it would increase the population, and I have a copy of their assessment
But with me, the impact is minimal, and I think all of you received a copy of that. We do have it, Representative Thompson. Okay. In 2009, actually only 19 officers were assaulted using other dangerous weapons. I have a record of firearms, knives, personal weapons, and then other dangerous weapons. So that's some records
that came with me from our local Office of Emergency Services.
And you can see in there where Alabama, Florida, Illinois, and
Louisiana. I would appreciate a good
vote on this bill. Thank you for that explanation, Representative Thompson. Members, are there any questions for
Representative Thompson? Representative Nichols, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I notice you've changed the wording from, you've taken out the wording in the county jail. Is there, what's the rationale for that? And is that going to, since this now becomes a felony, will this put more people in our
state prisons because you took out county jails? I
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
4:00
would refer you to the answer that was given to me from the sentencing correction department there may be I think it says less than 10 per year so is
your bill going to increase the population of the department the Arkansas Department of Corrections hopefully
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
4:28
it would be a very minimal, and I don't really see with the guidelines that are set up where it's zero to six years, and the judge has the discretion to make that as the penalty or
Speaker 28
4:46
a fine up to $10,000. Have any of the people who have violated the
current law, what's the history of that? How many people have been convicted of the misdemeanor violation?
Speaker 34
4:58
using other dangerous weapons, which I don't know whether you would classify pepper spray as other dangerous weapons or
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
5:19
not. Maybe the sheriff or the chief of police can tell you that, But there were 19 in 2009.
19 people convicted of this particular statute, this particular charge? I cannot answer that question. Is this a problem looking for a solution? I mean, if nobody's been convicted of it as a misdemeanor, why do we want to turn it into a felony now that will increase the population of our state prisons? Representative Nichols,
Speaker 34
5:56
as far as I'm concerned, if you assault a police officer with a toothpick, it should be a felony.
I know that, but if we have laws right now on the books that can address that, and they're not being used, why go through the process of adding another felony that could potentially increase our prison population, which is growing faster than any other state? So I think this committee needs to recognize that it's easy to pass laws, making things felonies, and there are good reasons for it, but there are consequences to that when we do that.
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
6:35
So would you agree with that? I would agree with it to a certain extent, but I would not agree with the fact that we're just passing a law that would be not something that the people are asking for. And that's what I came down here to do. When my local people asked me to do this, I had made a commitment to do that, and I
fully intended to do so. And it very well seems logical to me that assaulting a police officer should be a felony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 45
7:15
Nichols. Next on the list is Representative
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
7:18
Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I audible? Yes, you are. Thank you. Mr. Representative Thompson, I've got a couple questions concerning why it was actually changed, that issue on 23 taken out
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
7:30
of the county. I mean, what was the reason and rationale behind that, making the change where it was no longer a county jail?
we'll forgive you this time just this time though Chuck no problem go ahead
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
7:50
Rep. Rogers your question is why why is a county jail why did
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
7:59
on line 23 why did you take out the option of the county jail and put in imprisonment which would obviously mean
Speaker 51
8:05
the Department of Corrections. I'm going to let
Speaker 58
8:11
my chief speak to that if you don't mind. Chief, would you please state your name for the record?
Speaker 59
8:18
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Norbert Gunderman, Jr., Chief of Police, Marlson. Thank you.
Speaker 61
8:21
Chief Arnold. The wording issue there is once it was a Class A misdemeanor, which if you are convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, you can be sentenced up to one year in the county jail once it becomes a felony then if convicted of a felony they can send you to the Department of Corrections so changing it from a misdemeanor to a felony is where it depends on where a man
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
8:45
can be incarcerated can send you to the Department of
Speaker 61
8:49
Corrections or must you have to ask the sentencing guidelines on that I don't think you can be sentenced
to a county jail for a felony. But I'm not for sure on that. But that
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
9:03
would be why the wording has been changed. Okay. My issue is that on a minimal sentence of 30 days or three months like that, it's because of the transport issue and the intake process for that short a period of time just causes me a
Speaker 61
9:25
it's just – that's going to be an issue going from a Class A misdemeanor
to a felony. Some wording may have to be changed on that, but that's the whole issue with the county jail and the sentencing in a number of
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
9:41
days. Is there someone from the Sentencing Commission that can
speak to the – We have Sentencing Commission Executive Director Sandy Mall here with us. Sandy, would you approach the
table? Thank you. Sandy, you're recognized. Please state your name.
Speaker 74
10:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Sandy Moll, the Director of the Sentencing Commission, and I've been listening to some of the questions.
Speaker 75
10:13
In Arkansas, people who are convicted of misdemeanors go to the county jail. People who are convicted of felonies go to
Speaker 76
10:21
the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Correction. So that's why I think the language in this bill was struck.
Is that the question, Representative Rogers? Yes. And
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
10:35
the Department of Community Corrections would be an option as well? I'm not
Speaker 76
10:42
sure on this crime that it would because Community Corrections might consider this a crime with violence, I think that it's possible Community Corrections might not accept this. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, Representative Rogers. Thank you, Sandy. Representative Shepard, you recognize?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
11:03
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question with regard to the sentencing. Is it appropriate that it would be a Class D felony while at the same time imposing a sentence of 30 days to three months? I mean, is not a felony a Class D felony has its own sentencing range in and of itself? That's
Speaker 75
11:30
correct. I think that this law would be changing it all to a Class D felony.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
11:39
misdemeanors would not be applicable. Okay. MR. And Mr. Chairman, may I ask an additional question? MR. Absolutely. And is it not already a felony to assault a police officer regardless of the form utilized? MS. Yes, it is.
Speaker 75
11:55
We kind of listed those other states to show you that some states just prosecute it within assault and battery. But, you
Speaker 76
12:01
know, I think that there are probably other physical aspects to those charges.
And I think probably Representative Thompson
Speaker 94
12:12
a pepper spray. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Speaker 95
12:17
Ms. Shepard. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a question? Yes, thank you.
Thank you. Once you start specifying pepper spray or tear gas, do you not omit a number of other similar kinds of offenses that are of equal character, that are not being specifically addressed by this legislation?
Representative Walker, for instance Oh, someone spits on an officer And the officer thinks he has AIDS I mean, we could come up with any number of things But I
think that the last representative Was that
Representative Shepard? Indicated that we already have Assault
on an officer That's inclusive.
That includes pepper spray or anything else. Would you not agree? I'm going to let my chief speak to that, please. May I ask the chief? Chief, why isn't this already covered by the present law? Well, the present law, and I can't be quoted on this, but I'm not exactly sure. I don't believe. Chief, would you
Speaker 102
13:28
make sure that your microphone is on? Push the little green button so we can hear it. The
green button's on. I've got a green light. Can you hear me now? Move a little closer, then. I think we can hear you. Thank you.
Speaker 61
13:41
Okay. I don't believe the present law specifies what type of actions or weapons are used. I think it just states assault. And as far as if someone spit on someone that has HIV or AIDS, I believe there's already a statute that covers that. Well, that's
the possibility. I mean, one doesn't necessarily
know that. But I'm saying there are different things, but it seems like an assault is an assault. Right. And it's up to the court to make a determination or a jury to make a determination of whether or not it offends the law.
I guess the other concern I have is why would the present law not be maintained as a lesser included offense of the law of assault on an officer? I mean, so that the jury can determine whether there is some kind of intent involved. From what you have here, you say if a person uses tear gas in any form against any enforcement officer, I mean, I don't know what that necessarily means, but it could mean that it's an accident.
Speaker 102
14:48
Well, and currently the way the statute reads is it makes pepper spray or
Speaker 61
14:54
tear gas seem as a lesser assault. It's an assault, period. It's not a lesser assault because they use pepper spray over throwing a rock. Pepper spray can incapacitate you to the point that you can seriously be harmed. So now we have two different statutes. You have one of a salt that is a felony, or you can also say, well, he just pepper sprayed him. That's just a misdemeanor.
Well, that's not true. But the salt statute, doesn't it, it has lesser included offenses?
I couldn't answer that, sir. And that gives the court and the jury the option of giving a punishment that may fit the crime. And I take it that you are an advocate of having the punishment fit the crime, aren't you? Exactly right. So in the situation where a hypothetical, like a rock or something like that, and a jury chose not to send anybody to the prison or even to county jail, that would be the jury's determination, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. Why wouldn't the same be true with respect to pepper spray or tear gas?
Speaker 61
16:01
Well, I guess you could add that language into this, you know, if it would be a lesser offense of any type. But, you know, our situation on this was, you know, back to what I
said earlier. You have two separate deals. Now, finally, my question. How many times in the last
year have your offices in Marlton been tear gassed or pepper sprayed in any way by a prisoner?
Speaker 106
16:25
My department? Yes. None that I'm aware of.
Well, why is it that we go and pass laws when we don't have any experience with facts that cause us to feel that it's a societal problem?
Speaker 61
16:39
Well, it's not a societal problem in my community, but it is a societal problem in other
communities and other parts of the country. What about in Arkansas? Is it
a problem here in Arkansas, any particular place? The possibilities are there. Well, there's a possibility that anything could happen, and I hope you're not advocating that simply because there
is a possibility that something could
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
17:11
time there is a possibility. You're exactly right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Representative Thompson would, along those lines that was mentioned,
would not putting this use of tear gas and pepper spray provision
in the other law against a law enforcement officer, put that wording, the use of tear gas and pepper spray under the other statute where
it is a felony, would that not fix this and then take out paragraph C2 under this bill?
Speaker 5
17:55
I don't understand that question. I'm sorry. Okay.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
18:03
What you're saying is there is another law? Well, that's what I understood, that there is another law regarding assault to a law enforcement officer. That is a felony. Did I not understand that? Any kind of assault against them? So if you took the use of tear gas and pepper spray to those words and put it in about the assault against the police officer, put those words in that law where it is a felony, then there wouldn't be any need for this change.
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
18:42
Now, basically, there's a different way of skinning the calf. Is that right? I don't
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
18:49
know. You know. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm not making my stuff clear, I guess. but it would seem like that would fix the problem of changing this from a misdemeanor to a felony if you included the words the use of pepper spray and tear gas in the assault language. I understand that.
Representative. In the original law. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the sentencing commission? Mr. Walker. One second.
And Mrs. Slinger still has got the table here. Let's make sure she's finished with her question. Well, I think I
Speaker 123
19:23
am. I probably didn't word it very well. But I would think
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
19:27
that a fix to this would be to take the language regarding the use of tear gas and pepper spray against a law enforcement officer and put it in a statute where it is a felony. Well, Mrs. Slinger, I appreciate your opinion.
I've got opinions on this as well. But since it's Representative Thompson's bill, we'll let him decide how he wants to handle it.
And right now we'll recognize Mr.
Walker for a question, I think, of Sandy Mall. Have you had any documentary evidence that assault on an officer, at least in 2010 or 2011, is any special problem that differs from what it was in 2008 or 2009? I
Speaker 137
20:13
don't have any documentation like that.
Is there anything to suggest that there is a need or a reason from an objective point other than an anecdotal or personal point of view for more legislation on the subject of assault, period, assault on an officer or assault on
Speaker 75
20:38
policy matter. Oh, I understand. That you all can decide. But I think that they're probably afraid that this particular type of use might not rise
to the level of a felony assault, and that's why they're trying to do it. And yes, I do also think that it could perhaps be – the language could be put in another assault provision if that was what you choose to do. Thank you. Representative Powers, I need to
apologize. You were next on my list, and I took it out of order. Please, you're recognized. Well, I would have deferred
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
21:11
to Mr. Walker any day. The Battery Second Statute has wording in there, Chief. You may be able to answer this.
Speaker 141
21:19
I don't remember exactly the particular wording, but I know that it's something along the lines with intent to cause serious physical injury, or it may just be intent to cause physical injury, and then there's a subsection in there regarding law enforcement officers. Yes, sir. And I'm assuming that if someone pepper sprayed me in the eyes, I'm assuming I'd certainly feel like I was injured, and the capacity is there to be seriously physically injured,
I suppose. So, would not a prosecutor have the discretion of charging battery second, which is a Class D felony in that
Speaker 61
22:04
respect? You're exactly right, sir. One of the issues, this statute here was kind of a general statute covering the use of pepper spray or tear gas, which includes mace that a lot of people carry. You can go to any Army surplus law enforcement supply store as a civilian and buy mace and
similar type things so well let me just
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:36
tell you in my job I deal with juveniles and I'm certainly involved in in the the
Speaker 141
22:41
filing of the delinquency charges and I can tell you that if a juvenile pepper sprayed one of my police officers I I almost certainly would recommend to our prosecutor that be battery second now That's my opinion, and I'm wondering if
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:58
we may not be splitting hairs here a little bit.
Speaker 61
23:04
You're exactly right, and it might be a different option to alter that statute on battery to include particular things. I think what the whole purpose behind this was, too many people assumed, oh, it's just pepper spray. It's just mace. It's not that serious. It's not like they took a stick or an axe or a knife to a police officer. We have a lesser evil out here that we need to change to. It's just as dangerous as anything else.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
23:36
Yeah, and I understand your point. And criminals obviously come up with different ways of assaulting police officers over the years. But I'm kind of falling into the committee's thought here that I'm wondering if we don't already have it taken care of. And so I appreciate you coming here and trying to take care of this problem.
Thank you, Representative Powell. Representative Nate Steele, you're next.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
24:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Thompson, I think that we all appreciate the fact that I think this is a flawed law to begin with. Not your bill, but the underlying law appears already to be flawed. And I'm wondering, if I'm reading this correctly, the first paragraph here would deal with civilians. Is that correct? And that would remain a misdemeanor? Where it would be a minimum of 30 days, not more than three months, presumably in a county jail?
Yes. Okay. Then the second paragraph, we would be changing to a Class D felony. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And since the committee has been, I guess, concentrating on the fact that we've already got other statutes that make assaulting a police officer a felony, it appears that, as I mentioned, this underlying code is flawed to begin with. Could we not maybe look at just repealing this statute altogether and then altogether,
not just the second paragraph, but repealing this statute and then having a specific provision for tear gas? I agree with the chief. I think that tear gas may specifically need to be addressed since it is probably more serious than a regular battery definition might define. But would it not make more sense since this statute is flawed to repeal it altogether and maybe add a subsection of tear gas onto the assault and battery statutes. I'd just like you to consider that possibly, and if that is a possibility,
maybe we can look at pulling this down and repealing this flawed statute altogether and cleaning up the language in our assault and battery statutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Steele. Mr. Thompson, do you want to respond to
Speaker 33
26:06
that? If you would allow me, I would like to pull the bill down and consider those options.
Representative Thompson, it's your bill. You're free to pull it down and consider what other options
you'd like. We appreciate you coming before the House Judiciary with your simple bill.
Thank you very much. With the committee's permission, I'd like to go out of order again
and take Senate Bill 56. I'm going to recognize Vice Chair Wilkins to present Senate Bill 56. We have an amendment on Senate Bill 56,
and we're going to pass it out now.
Chair Wilkins, you're recognized to present your bill and your amendment if
Speaker 163
26:59
you'd like to right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for this opportunity to be
Speaker 165
27:05
before you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the adoption of the amendment to Senate Bill 56. Has it been distributed? Okay. It's
being distributed right now. let them get it out
Speaker 165
27:28
Mr. Chairman and committee, the amendment does basically two things. First, it strikes the language upon review of the proposals and adds that the Arkansas professional bill bond association will submit approved providers to the licensing board and the second thing that it does is a strike language at the
bottom of the bill and says submit to the association for approval of the board the association submits for approval to the board so it basically provides for some concerns that have been raised concerning Senate Bill 56 and I move its adoption. Thank you, Vice Chair Wilkins. Vice
Chair Wilkins has made a proper motion
moving for the adoption of this amendment. All those in favor aye.
Speaker 171
28:31
No questions. I'm sorry. Questions to Walker.
Yeah, yeah. Why is it necessary to change or to consider this at all? the present loan not working well that this amendment is
Speaker 167
28:46
designed to uh... to make more palatable the uh... senate bill fifty six which some
Speaker 165
28:51
folks had uh... concerns about mister mister walk before we start talking about the bill right
now we're only focusing on the amendment let's get the amendment adopted then we can talk
about the complete bill and whether it's whether it's needed or not if that's okay if you have questions about this amendment uh... that'd be fine but i think it's pretty it's a member's own amendment it's his bill he's handling he wants to put an amendment on it let's get the amendment on there then let's talk about the bill that's okay that's fine okay uh... the uh... vice chair wilkins has moved for adoption of his and there are any other questions about the amendment uh... if not uh... uh... all those in favor of documents amendment indicate by saying aye opposed no
i said that uh... mister vice
chair wilkins you have a doctor minute of the bill now you recognize to present
Speaker 165
29:40
the bill as amended Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to invite Senator Jeremy Hutchinson, who has joined me at the table, who will also participate in the presentation. Again, I say thank you to the committee. Over the years, I have been an advocate for the bail bonds industry because I have recognized the need in our society for bail bondsmen.
And so as a state representative, as a state senator, and now again as a state representative, I am an advocate for that industry. Also as a pastor, I have seen many times where that industry has been of great help to individuals and to families. I've even spoken at continuing education events for the Bell Bond industry. So here's basically what the bill does.
It provides for the association to be able to look at the continuing education needs of the industry and then to submit with our amendment now to submit those approved providers to the licensing board uh... and they they have the ability to have the last word in terms of uh... whom of those individuals uh...
would be and with that mister chairman i would also uh... uh... time to uh... center hutchinson uh... for his comments so
Speaker 176
31:25
much and welcome to house judiciary recognize mr chairman like you represent wilkins is hard to call you representative wilkins so many years in the Senate, but I have not always been an advocate for the bail bond industry. In fact, most of the time I've probably opposed them. But this bill came before my committee in the Senate, and there was a lot of debate. And I know you all have received
emails today, and I want to give you some context and explain to you why the Senate passed this out 33 to 1 um i'm an attorney and we get our continuing education well most of us get it through the bar association my law firm offered to pay us $2,500 a year to get continuing education um so my god i was going to take my $2,500 and go to atlanta or dc or somewhere and stay in a nice hotel and uh i did that for one year and realized that i wasn't getting any education they're
We're talking about stuff happening in New York or California, but not Arkansas. So from then on, I've gone to Hot Springs every summer for the bar convention, and the Arkansas Bar Association has put on the continuing education, and it's been far more valuable and helpful in my practice. This bill, all it does is allows the bail bond association to be able to present ideas to the board for continuing education that they think will be of most help
to their members and to their industry. They're the people in the field every day. They're the ones who are being confronted with changes in law. What does this really mean? How does this work? And I think it makes perfect sense for the people who are having to live under these rules to be able to ask and submit for the board's approval continuing education that they think would be most helpful to them and their members. What I've sensed during the debate in the Senate is that there is a sector of the industry who does not like the association.
I don't know what all is at play, but there's some inter-industry rivalry, and they've come out against this bill. I understand they formed a new association as of a week ago or so and are trying to prevent this I don't know which one's who's better but I don't think that's our purpose is to get into squabbles among industries we ought to say look does it make sense
is a good public policy for the people who are out there being regulated by the laws that we pass be able to make suggestions to the board for what they think would be the best best type of continuing education. And I think as an attorney, I can tell you, and I think a lot of people, whether it be accountants or whatever field you're in, being able to say, this is what we need, this is where we're struggling, this is what areas we'd like to learn more about, that can only help have a better industry and a more well-informed bail bondsman in this case.
So I think it's a pretty simple bill and one that I was glad to support and was asked to come down here and kind of explain what all happened in the Senate and why there's to me a lot more uproar about this bill than needed
and with that I'll be happy to take any questions. MR. Thank you, Senator. Members, are there any questions for Representative Wilkins or Senator Hutchinson?
Representative Walker, you recognize for a question? MR. Yes. Some years ago, I don't know whether it's on the books
now or not, there was a provision
to allow arrested persons to make their bond through
the sheriff's department by paying the bond fee of 10%, and then they would be released. Are you
familiar with that provision? Yes. Is that still on the books? I don't know if it's
still on the books. I know a lot of judges do
Speaker 176
35:38
it, So I'm assuming they're doing it based on some statutory guideline.
Well, now, a few years ago, I recall when I did more criminal law that judges and prosecutors had automatic bonds set. They were usually pretty high. And people were faced with the choice of trying to get out of jail or being
able to hire a lawyer, in which case they were certain to lend in jail if they could not get a lawyer. What does this do to the prospect of people being
able to make their own bond
by paying to the court the amount they would be paying
think it does anything in that regard. Does the education that will
be provided to the bail bondsman provide that these bail bondsmen will be obliged to let charged persons know about the law which in effect says that the sheriff may allow them bond on payment of the same amount that
Speaker 176
36:50
they would have to pay to the bondsman? No, I don't think there's anywhere in this bill that would require that. It may be a bill you need to run, Representative Walker, that would do that. But this bill is simply, as long as we have a bail bonds industry, they ought to be the most well-informed and informed with laws that are applicable to their
Speaker 181
37:10
daily operations rather than having stuff come down from above that they may not find particularly helpful. I'm trying
to understand what the bail bonds are going to do other than charge a 10% fee and make sure that the person shows up.
And if not, try to find
Speaker 176
37:26
the person and get him to jail. Well, I share some of your concerns about the industry. That's why I've said I'm not always agreed with everything they've brought before this legislature. But on this, I think it's simply trying to get them better information and having a better trained industry. And it doesn't remove any authority from the board. It doesn't allow for any monopolistic type of activities.
It's just simply they're able to do a survey or conversations with their members and find out what issues they're confronting every day and what would they like to learn more about, and then presenting the board with this is what our members are wanting to learn about. And it seems pretty simple to me. Well, it
seems like a do-nothing bill. It seems like they can do that, which is being
Speaker 176
38:18
proposed right now anyway. Well, they can certainly ask, but I get my guess is that they've been frustrated with the type of education that they've been
given the opportunities they've been given so they want more education they want more they want more I don't know if they want more education if they're going to have to get
Speaker 190
38:40
educated they at least want something that's topical and that is beneficial to them
Speaker 191
38:45
I think is the purpose thank you Mr. Walker any additional representative Deffenbaugh you work and ask
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
38:54
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator and Representative Wilkins, I don't know much about this, but can you give us
an idea on what's the main opposition to doing this? Is that a
Chair
Unverified
39:06
fair question to ask y'all? I think that's a
Speaker 165
39:10
fair question. Let me tackle part of that, and then Senator Hutchinson may have a response as well. I've heard two pieces of opposition, main opposition. One has been, and it's been in emails that probably many of you have seen, that the Attorney General's Office has said that this would be unconstitutional, which I was concerned
about when I first heard that. Not that the Attorney General's Office, per se, makes that determination, as we all know, determination gets made in front of a court however I spoke with the attorney general personally because I had seen these emails and that represented the attorney general's office as being against this and in fact the attorney general said number one that he has no heartburn that's a direct quote concerning this bill I do have another bill that he has heartburn over and we
won't be running that bill today so first he does not have any heartburn over it and secondly the amendments to the bill clear up the concerns that the legal staff at the attorney general's office had so that was one issue the other issue I think Senator Hutchinson kind of hit on which has to do with some conflicts within the industry and I don't know all of the inner workings of that.
I do know that there are some people here today who are going to testify to what they believe that issue or problem is. My concern is that the association has a broad perspective on what the needs of the members is and having their finger on the pulse of the needs of the industry just as the Bar Association hopefully has its finger on the pulse of the needs of the legal industry then
offering continuing education that helps those who are in that profession and that's really all this this bill is designed
Speaker 168
41:25
to do a representative Diffenbaugh thank you Mr. Diffenbaugh representative Eubanks
can ask for a question thank you mr. chair
Speaker 195
41:36
based on the emails that I've received I can agree that there's some disagreement within the industry I guess my question is how do we know that this association is necessarily representing a majority of the people involved in
Speaker 165
41:51
this industry well I don't know what the exact numbers are but But over the years, the bail bondsmen that I've known personally, most of them are members of this association, and I'm sure that there will be some testimony here today from bail bondsmen who will indicate whether
Speaker 198
42:10
or not they're a member of the association and what their affiliations are.
Speaker 176
42:16
And, in fact, this association, and again, I've proposed them in the past, but they've been around a long time.
This other group formed a new association, I understand it was the afternoon before they came before the Senate committee. That would be the equivalent of me not liking the Bar Association and me starting Hutchinson Bar Association and then fighting. It's a, you know, there's ways to deal with conflict within the, I don't think, trying to kill a good bill that is, gives them no additional authority, it's just a way that They can try to monitor and have some input into what type of education they're receiving.
I don't think coming to the legislature and I don't know. I think we ought to look at the bill on its merits. The association has been around a long time. It's very well recognized within the industry. And, you know, if not them, who? I don't think there's any entity out there that could speak on behalf of bail bondsmen nearly as well as the association. If I'm wrong
Speaker 165
43:24
and there is some entity that could, then they ought to have that type of input. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might also follow up with Representative Eubanks, the concern, I think, at the heart of this, it has to do with an issue of control.
from my perspective it has to do with an interest in balance and I think having the association to be able to then submit those providers to the board gives input from both perspectives and for that reason I see this as a good I know there are some folks who said yesterday in a meeting that how dare those folk over
on the Hill try to do this and that. Well, I believe that it is our responsibility to set policy, and we are not afraid or ashamed of our responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Eubanks. Mr. Wilkins, are there any
other questions from the committee? If not, we're going to
go to public questions, and we've got an extensive list here. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, no
Speaker 180
44:41
further questions of me, I'm going to head back to
the Senate side. That's quite all right if you'd like to. You may want to respond to some of the citizen testimony, but you're welcome to stay or go, whatever you'd like to do, Senator. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. First on the list to speak for, we're going to go for and against, we're going to rotate here. let's just speak for the bill is
um... eddie cooper from resident cooper welcome uh... to house judiciary in a different capacity
Speaker 58
45:16
direct that speak for the bill please introduce yourself thank you
John Maldon
Unverified
45:22
mr chairman uh... my name is uh... eddie cooper i'm a consultant now with the uh... arkansas professional bail bonds association and uh... it was always a pleasure to serve on that side of the table and i hope that this will end up being a pleasurable experience on this side as well and representative wilkins has done an excellent job of explaining this bill
i believe and uh... there has been a a lot a lot of uh... contention about the bill uh... there were some misunderstandings and early on about it uh... you'll hear testimony i'm i'm sure later on i'm my would like to come back here with your permission after some other testimony and respond to uh... some of the things that you're probably going to hear but uh...
i will say this that uh... that the most of you know many you know that uh... that i would never come to this committee with uh... anything that uh... was not absolutely one hundred percent true you'll also find that uh... the goal of this bill is to make this industry uh... a better industry they are somewhat self-regulated they've they operated under this capacity for
several years i believe you will pop possibly hear testimony that it is about the money and i i can assure you right now that at one point in time the uh... association did have a surplus of money years ago and uh... with that they the senate wilkins alluded to that they help other people at times in the end they uh... chose to help the victims of domestic violence with that surplus money at that time
so uh... you know if you hear that i hope that offsets what what you with that think about that because uh... they actually see probably more domestic violence firsthand and uh... any of us have the opportunity heard this this opportunity to say the because of the uh... nature of the business
with that in mind uh... also uh... there are the the association has been an in effect for i believe since ninety three the new association that most of that all of the emails that you've received came from either the association or someone associated with them i was formed at uh... three fifty more in the afternoon before the senate committee uh... i believe that uh...
this bill has been spoke about within the industry for uh... uh... several months prior i do believe that everyone had some knowledge of it this has been said earlier the attorney general's office has no heartburn with it have they willing to say that the governor's office as a neutral stand on this because it's a uh... industry issue and uh...
i really honestly truly believe that when all of the dust settles on this and this bill goes into effect that all parties involved will come back together and uh... have a better continuing education class curriculum and because it the uh... information will be looked at by people in the industry prior to it being approved and uh...
i've got this don't see any problems with it and uh... and like say when it's over with i think the whole association will probably come back together the people who spun off of it i would hope would come back to the association and and join forces with them and move forward with the this legislation to help make the industry better for all the citizens of the state of arkansas and be glad to answer any questions if i can and if i can i would
actually allow me to get someone who can because i don't for some of the numbers and things that I probably won't be able to answer but I'll try thank you miss could we have a
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
50:14
few questions for you first representative Gillum thank you mr. chairman scooper kind of following up on representative Eubanks question earlier would you might have the numbers on the association in the makeup kind of a an industry even ballpark is
it three-fourths of the industries in the association is it more than that actually I do have those numbers around
John Maldon
Unverified
50:32
because that was asked yesterday and in an effort to try to bring the bring all parties together on this we look those numbers up last night if i could ask mister uh... john maldon to come to the table in with those numbers
Speaker 214
50:50
please state your name and uh... who you
Speaker 216
50:57
with for the record my name is john maldon i'm the president Arkansas Bell Association.
To answer your question, sir, at this time
Speaker 217
51:06
we've got 20 members in our association and they licensed approximately 326 agents in the state. Thank you
Speaker 219
51:20
very much. Yes, sir. Members, any additional questions
Speaker 217
51:26
or powers you recognize? Repeat that, please. Right at this time, sir, we have approximately 20 members in our association, and we license those companies that are members of the association, license approximately 326 agents.
Speaker 141
51:38
Okay. How many bail bond companies in the state? There's 52, sir. So you
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
51:43
have 20? I have 540 agents. You have 20 of 52? Is that what you're telling me? That is correct. So, you know, roughly, you know, a little
Speaker 141
51:56
over, maybe 40 percent or so, something like that? Yes, sir. And I think if
Speaker 216
52:01
you was to look at the numbers for the actual
Speaker 217
52:04
agents that are licensed in the state, like I said, the companies that are members, they license approximately 326 agents.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
52:19
Okay, thank you. One more question, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair. And I want to make the distinction between you are an association and there is a separate licensing board to become a bail bondsman. Is that correct? Well, your association doesn't license bail bondsmen? No, but in order for
Speaker 217
52:38
a bondsman to be licensed in the state of Arkansas,
they have to be sponsored by a bail bond company. They just cannot on their own go to the bail bond licensors and request a license without a company sponsorship, sir.
Speaker 227
52:53
But there is a separate licensing agency. Yes, sir. In 1993, our
Speaker 216
52:57
association lobbied this legislature to create that entity, and we're able to get that in place. Thank you.
Speaker 114
53:04
Mr. Walker, question? Well, I hadn't planned
to ask this question, but it occurs to me that if I want to be a bail bondsman
and I have to go to one of my competitors to get his or her support, that may be a problem. So are there any objective standards that must apply for a person who's applying to be a bail bondsman, a bail bondswoman, whichever the case may be? other than
that you've got to get a likely competitor to sponsor you.
Speaker 215
53:45
If you're speaking to just the individual in the state of Arkansas that
Speaker 217
53:49
wishes to be licensed, what you're asking, in order to do that, sir, you'd have to go and get a company, a Bell Bond company, that would sponsor you to the Bell Bond licensing board. And then the Bell Bond board has a series of... Or start a new thing. Or start a new thing. Yeah, or start a new company. The association doesn't have a say
over that. Is that what you're getting from it? No, no. My only
concern is that in history, when people wanted to get into industries where they maybe underrepresented,
if they had to get the approval of someone already within that industry, they oftentimes found themselves unable to get into it. Contracting is one of the areas, aside from bill bonding. So I'm wondering why it is that in order to be a bail bondsman, I've got to get your approval as a company already in existence. That doesn't mean I'm
not going to vote for this bill, but, I mean, it's a question. There isn't,
Speaker 217
54:50
let me try to answer this correctly to you because I think I follow your train of thought.
The companies and bail bondsmen are licensed in the state of Arkansas through the Arkansas Professional Bail Bond Licensing Board. In order to become a company, there are certain requirements that have to be met in order for that to occur. And in the same respect, in order to become a bondsman in the state of Arkansas, you have to be sponsored by a company. The board itself has complete power over the licensing of companies and bail bondsmen. Does that answer your question, sir?
let me let me follow or there's a state agency sir that look let me follow up on that if I if I want to again a bail bonds license I and I can't
find a company to sponsor me there's nothing preventing me from starting my own company is that correct and then becoming an agent is that correct that is correct
Speaker 217
55:46
okay you'd have to meet the criteria the board in order to do that but
exactly exactly so if a competitor didn't want to sponsor me as an agent there's nothing preventing me from becoming agent by starting my own company. That is correct, sir. I want to make sure of that
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
55:59
clear. Representative Shepard, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the licensing board, it appears that we are maybe taking away or that the amendment at the very least changes some of their responsibility.
Do we know what their opinion is on this particular
Speaker 216
56:18
bill? I can answer that. Yesterday they met and the way the language was they were not for because they felt they lost all final approval
Speaker 217
56:26
powers. This morning we came to this committee with the offer of an amendment to give them
because the intention of the association when we looked at this originally was not to take away the final approving power of the state agency. And that's where the amendments come from. We just want to be another step in the ladder, if you will, between the private career education providers that oversee continuing education in the state of Arkansas and the board's final approval it gives us the the opportunity and responsibility at that time I might add to oversee a portion of the curriculum
John Maldon
Unverified
57:04
to submit to the board represents shepherd also the the amendments were what one was in writing at the meeting one was partly offered at the meeting and you know we do that all time in committee meetings as you all know and that wasn't acceptable to the board as as good enough I it met all of the all of the questions that I've seen that the concerns were the two amendments addressed but anyway they chose
not to recognize that at the meeting and they can testify on however they choose to on that but that's the way I understood that and you know if that's the way the system works we come together on an agreement and we we have offered those to as a negotiation to try to make it please everyone President Shepard we're going to have several folks
here speak against it I bet they'll be able to answer that question better for you Mr. Cooper do you have any additional comments you asked to reserve some time unfortunately
on that side of the table you don't get to reserve time so you better get all out you want to say now
John Maldon
Unverified
58:19
because I'm not sure I'm gonna let you come back I certainly appreciate a good
vote mr. chairman and members of the committee thank you mr. Cooper next unless to speak against the bill is Lisa Douglas Lisa please take your place to
Speaker 239
58:45
I'm Lisa Douglas. I'm an attorney here in North Little Rock, Arkansas. I used to be a bail bondsman, worked as a bondsman for 14 years, and then after I licensed as an attorney, have taught in the industry and have taught for seven years. So total I've been in the industry for 21 years. This is the second time I've had to come before any committee meeting.
I'm rather nervous. The first Senate committee meeting I came to, I opposed the bill, and I still oppose the bill. I think that you guys are being handed a wonderful, excellent, beautiful snow job. This bill is all about the money. It has nothing to do with their input for the education. That already exists. If you look at the bill the way it currently exists, it's not broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed you know for since the seven years that I've been teaching I've not had a company owner or anyone come up to me and express any concerns about the
safety health welfare anything like that regarding the education and now suddenly this is being raised because really quite frankly if they really tell you why they want the law changed it has to do with the money and that's not as It just quite frankly isn't. The $10 that was spoken of a while ago, let me just explain that to you. That $10 that the representative spoke of going to the battered women's shelter, what
that is is that's collected from the defendants that are bonded. And the reason that occurs is when the insurance companies came out from underneath the insurance companies and the insurance commissioner, what they did is they had to agree to collect $10 for every bond that was written. Then probably about, I don't know, maybe four or five years ago, I'll have to look at the exact date, there was a surplus of funds from the $10 that was collected for every bond,
someone found out about it. Well, what they did is they now take $7 from every $10 that is collected, that is paid for by the defendant that is bonded out of jail. That $7 goes to the battered women's shelter. And then the remainder of that money goes to fund the bail bond board. So that's where that money comes from. Not that they're not doing a good thing. I mean, And the bondsmen are doing a good thing. I used to be one of them.
I respect them, but what is trying to be pulled over your eyes right now is a snow job. The old association, I'm going to refer to an old association and a new association, and that's referring to the one that currently came into existence. The old association is only made up of company owners, and agents are from my understanding
not allowed to be members of that or have a voice, so the new association that has developed allows both the owners and the agents to have a voice and have status as a member. The old association represents I think they said 19 company owners and alluded to the 19 have 320 licensed agents. Well really not every agent believes in everything that the company owner promotes.
So ultimately all you have is the 19 or so and assuming that's the correct number I don't know. I know when they were trying to push the bill through they lost quite a number of people. So I don't even know if the 19 is correct. But what you end up having is just a few out of a pool of 535, 550 agents, licensed agents that want to control the industry. And that's what this is about. The education, again, can be addressed from the standpoint of approaching the board and
or the providers. it's it's just a misstatement to tell you that that's lacking as far as uh... talking about the uh... bar association and how they provide education this is not synonymous with that because the bar association guess what folks is a provider just like me it's the supreme court that oversees our programs and approves our programs art educational programs have not been put into the hands of a private entity
putting this into the hands of a private entity it it just is creating monopoly uh... i know you've received quite a few emails i did speak to the uh... chairman of the board this morning before i came over here several of them are in northern part of arkansas and have been snowed in and and won't be able to be here today to uh... speak against the bill but I do wholeheartedly oppose it. I feel like you are not being given the whole truth
because if you look at the way the statute currently exists, it allows for everything that they're trying to say that they're trying to do, which really what they are doing is opening themselves up to receive monies. Currently, if you were to log on to their website today, Bail Bond Association, you will find that there's one provider listed on that site. Really there's three providers in the state of Arkansas. The one provider that is listed, and if you read my email and my brief, you'll know what
I'm talking about, he provides kickbacks to the association at approximately $100 a head or gives them deep discounts for providing education. That's not the way I feel a quality education should be promoted, and really to me it's It's an insult for them to sit up here and say that the education is not the quality that they want it to be, and really that's a snow job, plain and simple. I'm not a politician, and I
Speaker 248
1:05:19
don't pretend to be a politician, and I'm just going to
tell you like it is. It's a snow job. Thank you, Ms. Douglas. We've got several questions, if you don't mind. Let me start off. Do you currently provide CLE for bail bondsman or continuing education, not CLE, CE, I guess, for bail bondsman? Yes, sir. And are you paid to
do that? Yes, I am. And the money goes to you as the provider, not to the association, correct? Correct. Okay. And in your memos you provided for us, you talked about you having an ethical concern if you were to share legal fees.
Right. I don't understand that. You're paid to do providing, you know, continuing education. Then you receive legal fees. That's totally separate. The law says we as lawyers can't share a legal fee with a non-lawyer. Can you explain to me how you'd
have an ethical problem with that? Well, I do have an
Speaker 239
1:06:16
ethical problem with that, and I probably didn't explain myself really well in that brief that I did. But in my opinion, those are kickbacks, and according to the ethics,
we are to avoid even the very appearance of impropriety. I've been approached to give money back to the association and even told that if I did give them monies that they would send more students to my school. And I won't say the association, but some members of the association, I'll just preface that. And I refuse to because I don't feel ethically as an attorney that I can do that. And one of the reasons is it's the very appearance of impropriety. I mean, I don't know of any other industry where the members of that industry go after the providers and say,
give us money, give us half of your proceeds. You know, they have the option to have their own classes and do the same thing I'm doing. Why can't they do that? What's the problem with that? A couple more questions. You mentioned the members of
the licensing board, which some of them are not here, and we received e-mails from them, and I also got an e-mail from the chairman expressing his regret for being here, but he had a surgery plan. A couple of questions along that line.
The bill that you all voted or the licensing board voted on yesterday, that's
not the bill currently before us. Am I correct?
Speaker 239
1:07:43
That was a different bill. MS. Well, the bill that was proposed to the board does not contain the amendments.
If that's your question. And now with these amendments, the licensing board continues to maintain complete authority over who provides CE. The bail bonds when association only make recommendations
to the licensing board. Is that not how you see this amendment? Well, what it says
Speaker 240
1:08:07
is the schedule of fees submitted to the association shall be subject
to the approval of the board.
Correct. Similar to the Professional Conduct Committee, I'm sorry, the Bar Association, they are provider, but ultimate authority still rests with the
state agency who regulates the lawyers. Here ultimate authority still rests with the licensing board and not the association to set the fee as well as to decide who
will be allowed to provide CE. That's how I read this statute. But, sir, to
Speaker 239
1:08:40
take it out of context and just read the amendment and ask my opinion without
incorporating it into the entire proposed statute, I don't believe you can just look at the amendments and say, do I believe in that? Because you'd have to read the whole thing in totality. Well, we've got a little practice of
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:09:01
doing that here. This is how we have to do it because
we can't get it – it wasn't engrossing the bill. So if you look at the bill as amended, which would include the amendments here, what this bill now does is it says the association will submit to the licensing board continuing education
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:09:19
providers. Ultimate authority of whether that continuing education provider actually
provides any education rest with the licensing board, how much is charged that rest with the licensing board, not with the association as the bill is before us now and amended. So I don't understand the
kickback argument. I don't understand how the license board is losing any
Speaker 239
1:09:40
authority here. Well, sir, it's not conclusive in that the association, and again, I haven't had time to sit down and look at the amendments, but I'm still opposed to it as the previous
and as amended, but it still leaves it open for the, in my opinion, the association to come in and say, well, in order for us to review your curriculum or to provide any sort of recommendation for you to the board, we're going to charge you $100 per head per student that comes to your class. I think it's broad, and if they want to change it, it needs to be – the language needs to be tightened. And if that happened, let's say
that happened to you as a provider, would you not have the
right to go to the licensing board and say hey these guys are or shaking us down to be provided with
Speaker 239
1:10:31
this is something to make you from doing that I I suppose but that's I mean that's again leaving the door open for them to come in
and make demands of the providers are we have additional questions let me go to representative right you have
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:10:45
a question thank you mr. chairman you kept referring to it's all about the money it's all about the money is
Speaker 261
1:10:51
that Listen to you further, is that what you're referring to as the kickbacks?
Speaker 239
1:10:55
Is that what you're talking about? What I'm referring to is the underlying reason for the pursuit here. And the underlying reason for the pursuit is to get money for the association. They don't have any money right now. I've looked at their financials, and I have a copy of it. But some of the members have had to give significant amounts to pay the bills of the association. And $33,000 of that went to their lobbyists.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:11:28
And so you're saying that they're getting that money from
Speaker 239
1:11:33
the alleged kickbacks. Is that what you're saying? They're getting a portion of that from the alleged kickbacks. The remainder came from the members of the association who had to dig into their pockets and submit money to
keep the association afloat. Thank you. MR. Mr. Nichols, you recognize your question? MR. Yes, and I
share your problem in trying to mentally incorporate an amendment into the bill.
I also share that problem, but that's what we deal with here as Chairman Williams' mission. But now, does this bill require all proposals to flow through the association before they get to the board? And maybe somebody... You're asking me to interpret their proposal... Well, that's where I'm... Mr. Chair, that's where I'm... And you've studied this more than I have.
Does all the proposals have to go through this association before they get to the License Board, where I'm used to continuing legal education, and the Bar Association is just one provider of many, but all the other providers don't necessarily go through the association for to send it on to the Supreme Court Committee, I guess, that assigns the credit for these
courses, but they're not set up to deal with the pricing of it. That's just a concern I have, if somebody can answer, does this require every provider to submit their proposal to a particular private association, and then it's up to that association to vet and then send on whatever they want to to the License Board. So if anybody can answer that question, that would help
Speaker 18
1:13:29
me. And I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 240
1:13:36
I think it's written to the broad expanse of
Speaker 239
1:13:39
they can throw anything in there that they want to. The current law is not broken. They have that ability right now to come before the board or the providers and say, hey, we have a problem in this area. They have that ability right now. The law is it works. It's not a problem. Representative Nichols, let
me see if I can get an answer to your question. Representative Wilkins, can you answer Representative Nichols' question or is there someone from
the association that may be able to answer that
Speaker 165
1:14:12
question? Mr. Chairman, I believe someone from the association would have to answer that question. Is
there anyone here from the association? If you think you can answer that question, if you come to the question really is
about the amendment, whether – actually, why don't
you come to the table and identify yourself and then we'll ask the question.
Mark Alton
Unverified
1:14:38
Yeah. Mark Alton, Secretary of the Arkansas
Speaker 281
1:14:47
Bail Association. My name is Mark Alton. I'm Secretary of the Arkansas Bail Association with John Muldoon and
– what was the question? We're going to – Representative Nichols has a question for you. Yes, the way I'm trying to incorporate the original bill and the amendment to it, if I provide educational programs that bail bondsmen might like to attend, and so I present a proposal
for an education program for eight hours of contact credit. Yes, sir. Under your proposal, what are the steps that I would have to follow? Say I'm licensed, okay, by the Provident Career Education, what are the steps that I must follow to be able to have my education program approved for credit under this act? Yes, sir. This would
Speaker 284
1:15:50
pass the law, and then we would put up rules and regulations for a vetting process, basically.
Okay, who would do the vetting? Would it be the
Speaker 284
1:16:02
board, or would it be the association? Our association would appoint a special
Speaker 287
1:16:07
education committee that will handle that, and then they'll pass them
on to the regulatory board. So you will be a step that I would have to go through in order to provide training to bail bondsmen. Would your association also provide its own training?
Speaker 284
1:16:28
No, sir. We'd use third-party providers. This is common throughout the United States. other you know quite a few most of the states uh... do they have
Speaker 287
1:16:38
this process work with the associations take for the regulatory authorities lot of regulated by the insurance commission what
Speaker 284
1:16:46
what this is is it was while we got to this it's been dominated by special interest you've got the the chairman of our regulatory board right now here's the chairman of these
Speaker 289
1:16:58
not responding to my question okay I'm going to
recognize Representative Powers for a motion here. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:17:06
Chair. I think we've had some excellent debate for and against, and I would like to make a motion at this time that we limit debate to this issue to 10 minutes aside. That's an undebatable
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:17:18
motion. Takes two-thirds of the quorum to pass. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? That sounds like two-thirds of the quorum to me.
So now, debate is limited to ten minutes per side. Are you finished, Mrs.
Douglas? Yes, sir, I am. All right. We are now on the four side. Next on the list to speak for the bill is John Muldry. Mr. Muldry, I want to remind you, your side has a total of ten minutes
and there are two additional people who want to speak for the bill. i don't
really care how you guys divide up your time but you don't get more in
ten minutes so i'll just keep that in mind mold molding i'm sorry but i apologize for that i'm
Speaker 216
1:18:05
going to yield my time to mr mark out in the secretary of the association
Speaker 284
1:18:11
at this time go ahead go ahead thank you uh... basically what's happened is the education has been dominated by special interest the bill did a chairman of our regulatory uh... agency his wife is an educator so they put together this quick special meeting for yesterday to discuss our bill that he's known about for six months.
He even joined our association so he could be a part of it and gather our information. Now he acts like he doesn't know anything about it, and he had already kind of worked his politics with other board members, which I think is improper, in order to vote against this. As chairman of the board, he should have served in a neutral position during that meeting. It's a special interest. You see this bottom line wants to approve the fees that are charged to us.
Right now, we're currently being charged $200 per agent to attend a six-hour class. Mr. Wilkins spoke in one of our classes last year. We had 56 people at the class, and our company had to pay $200 each for them to attend that. No, you didn't get any of it. Yeah, the educator did. So we just feel like it's overpriced. We'd like to have more say in the curriculum. At one point, I did have to call Lisa Douglas in the very beginning when she taught.
She was teaching agents how to fight forfeitures through a legal process. You know, we need to be learning how to make sure our defendants appear in court. We're for this bill. We think it serves the agents and the public good. Last thing I want to say is our association represents well over 50% of the licensed bondsmen in Arkansas. Not every company is a member. There's a bunch of small companies, and then some don't want to be a part of the process.
But if you take the companies and the agents that they represent, we represent well over 50 percent of the licensed
Speaker 296
1:20:14
agents in Arkansas. Are there any questions?
Thank you, Mr. Muldoon. Are there any questions for Mr. Muldoon? Representative Wilkins,
Chair
Unverified
1:20:24
you recognize? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question to Mr. Alton. Mr. Alton? Yes. That's Mr. Alton. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:20:33
We changed, don't you? I apologize. Left the table. So part of what
Speaker 165
1:20:39
I didn't know about, Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this.
You said that there's a relationship between the chairman of the board and the provider?
Speaker 284
1:20:49
His significant other is a provider. And so he has sat there as chairman of a regulatory board and basically dominated the meeting yesterday. He had already personally talked to all the members to vote against this. And his wife
Speaker 24
1:21:07
is an educator. So the wife gets paid to provide the continuing education?
Speaker 301
1:21:18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any additional
Speaker 302
1:21:23
questions from Mr. Alden, Mr. Baker? Thank you. I want to know who issues the license for a bondsman. The professional bell bomb
Speaker 290
1:21:31
board, which is a separate state agency, regulatory agency. Is it a department
Speaker 304
1:21:39
of the insurance department? No, sir. No, sir.
Speaker 287
1:21:44
It's a standalone regulatory agency. And is there more than one? Just
Speaker 281
1:21:49
one board. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir.
In additional questions from members, I'm going to recognize Jeff Rosenzweig to
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:22:00
speak against the – not this one wrong. Oh, I'm sorry, Jeff. Let's see. Mr. Rogers, you
had a question? I apologize. I didn't have you on the list. Is this for Mr. Alton?
I'm sorry. I apologize. We have an additional question. And just for the record, you guys are not – your time is not counting against you during our questioning. Yes,
Speaker 68
1:22:25
sir. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:22:28
want some clarification as to who is this significant other. I'd like that person's name. MR. Theresa Ray. MS. Okay. Thank you. MR.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:22:39
Any additional question, members? Representative Hammer? MR. I'd
like to know on the – and trying to keep it all sorted – you represent the
original group or the new group that's been newly formed?
Speaker 284
1:22:54
one of those are our represent the original but agency or bail bond association we've been in business for think they said since ninety three i thought it'd been longer than that uh... uh... i've been a part of it ever since you know our company's been in business twenty one years and uh... the new association was formed lisa douglas you know got some of her people to form this quick association i guess about five days ago which was all new to me until I walked in the meeting yesterday.
Second question. Go right ahead. It seems like money is one of the main issues here. I'm just curious, who audits your books, and who do you financially account to for money received and dispersed, and who's accountable for the handling or where
Speaker 287
1:23:49
the money's going? Our association. Yes, sir. Well, we're the association members. Everything's disclosed. We meet quarterly. All income, all expenses are disclosed.
We vote on everything. There's no, it's all right there on the board. Obviously, Lisa Douglas has a copy of it. I mean, it's not a secret how we handle our finances. Okay, thank
you. Yes, sir. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Walker? Maybe it's a comment. But in view of the fact that
statements made here may or may not be true, I would hope that we would not induce, and this representative Rogers, I would hope that we would not put a person in a position where that person may be slandered or liable without an opportunity to either hear the position one way or another.
I understand it's already happened. It may or may not be true, what he said.
But nonetheless, now, she's, in effect, tainted forever. And whether it's true, I mean, it's something we don't know.
But if we can avoid identifying individuals, unless we have rock-solid evidence, it would probably be the better thing to do. That's the only point I made. I apologize. President
the questioning stage and look around the members that we're
supposed to question and not necessarily make comments. We will have a chance to make comments. It was
really a question to him. I know that I was speaking to a colleague and I know that as a lawyer she may not – since I am, she may not be aware. So it really went to him and he answered it. Okay. I just
want to remind that we're not – this is not a court of law and we're
– and the The rules do not apply necessarily here, and I don't want any members to feel like they're not able to ask any question they would like.
That doesn't mean the witness has to answer the question, but I will not want to discourage any member for asking any question that they would like. Representative Rogers, would you like to respond? You raised your hand. I don't know if you had additional – no, no you didn't? Okay. Any
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:26:10
additional questions for Mr. Gilliam? Question? Mr. Chairman, currently, right now, how is the continuing education, I guess, distributed around among the providers in the state?
Speaker 287
1:26:21
It's a person's choice, wherever they want to go. No one is, no agent is required to attend any particular class unless a company, you know, requires an agent to attend a particular class, but I don't think that's the case. I think it's pretty much open reign. and you can go to anyone you want to. May I ask a follow-up, Mr.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:26:46
Chairman? Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Okay. With this bill as it's amended now, would anybody be required to go to a particular continuing education?
Speaker 287
1:26:53
No, sir. They would still be the same process. Of course, they would have to go through the association to, you know, get vetted to be approved by the board, but it'd still be. The provider or the agent or whoever?
Speaker 320
1:27:05
The provider. the provider would have today agent would still agent
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:27:11
still get the freedom of choice yes there are nothing there was yes sir thank you mr. chairman no further
questions any additional questions members if not we're going to recognize Michael Steele to speak against the bill
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:27:25
Mr. Steele, you're recognized. Please state your name and who you represent, and you
Speaker 323
1:27:44
may speak. My name is Michael Steele. I'm
Speaker 324
1:27:46
the investigator for the Arkansas Professional Bell Bondsman Licensing Board. As you've all heard, my executive director had pre-scheduled surgery today, so he could not be here, and because of the weather in northwest Arkansas, some of our board members
couldn't make it. I want to clear up a couple of points that I've heard asked today very quickly, please. To become a new bail bond company in Arkansas, one of your owners has to be previously licensed two of the previous three years. So you can't just jump up and say, I want to be a bail bond company owner. You have to go through the process of being a bondsman the way it is set up and be a bondsman for at least two years of the previous three before you can open a company. The other issue I'd like to tell you about is the provider who was previously discussed
and described as the chairman's significant other, that is not a correct characterization. She is his ex-wife, and she owns her own bail bond company. Her interest in the industry is twofold. She provides education, and she owns her own bail bonding company. I would like to tell you that yesterday this bill was presented before our board and we had six members present. As it was presented yesterday before the amendment, five of the six members were opposed to it.
The member who could not make it because of an illness in his family sent an email to the board directing that he was also opposed to it, although he did not participate in the vote. The board now is responsible for education for bail bondsmen and has extended – I've been here since May and they have – since May I'm 100 percent sure they have had an open invitation to all of the association and all of the company owners to have input on the education process. To my knowledge, not a single time has the association or any bail bond company owner
directed anything towards the board complaining in any way about the education that the bubbles were receiving previous to their licensing and during the continuing education that's all well you have a still
any questions for mr still present hammer you recognize would you mind
telling us again what your title and position is and what do you do exactly as it relates to to this matter you've said something about being an investigator would you
Speaker 324
1:30:12
expand on that and i'm the investigator for the board and my responsibilities include investigating complaints of rules and law violations against bell bondsman and bell bond companies the reason that i'm involved in this process is simply because my boss could not be here today we felt it was appropriate for a representative of the board
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:30:39
to be at this meeting Mr. Gilliam, you recognize for a question? Mr. Chairman, has you referenced your boss on this?
Have they had a chance to
be notified of this amendment and possibly have changed their opinion? As previously stated, this
Speaker 324
1:30:55
amendment was halfway produced on paper yesterday at that meeting and then the rest was done verbally. This whole package has not been presented
Speaker 320
1:31:04
to the board for their – to give them the ability to approve it as it stands now. Okay.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:31:11
Have you seen this amendment and had a chance to read it? Yes, sir, I have. Okay. Before us as committee today, do you have a problem with this amendment and the bill
as a whole? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Members,
Speaker 219
1:31:27
any additional questions for Mr. Steele? Thank you, Mr. Steele. next to
speak for the bill is Eric Nathaniel
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:31:40
pass Nathaniel is not to speak alright we're going to go anyone else we have time left on the forest side anyone else to speak for the bill if not
that time is going to be expired we're going to go to
John Wesley Hall to speak against the
Speaker 333
1:32:10
bill Mr. Hall, you recognize? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Wesley Hall, a lawyer here in Little Rock. My practice is limited
Speaker 334
1:32:19
to criminal defense. I've been doing criminal law since 1973. The plainness of the unconstitutionality of this bill, even as amended, is obvious as
a nose on your face. This is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the state agency over to a private board or private association. The private association under this amendment gets to vet and decide who the providers are going to be. If they decide they don't like the ex-wife of the chair, that she won't be a provider anymore. decide that they don't like Lisa Douglas, she won't be a provider anymore. They're the gatekeeper on who the board gets to approve. The board cannot operate that way.
Right now, the board has the power. There's nothing wrong with the law the way it is. Why do they want to change it? Who knows? I'm not going to get into that. But there's nothing wrong with the law the way it is. The private career board has to regulate who teaches the classes. I've been a lawyer for 37 years. They wouldn't take it on faith that they can go to the Arkansas Supreme Court's website and see that I'm there. I had to provide my transcript from Fayetteville to prove I graduated to the career board so I could teach classes. I teach classes on the law for bail bonding, and I do it through Lisa Douglas' school.
That's a disclaimer. So you know that I do have an interest. I teach classes on one side and also write a book with her on the law of bail bonding for the benefit of all bail bonds in the state. Secondly, it creates a monopoly in the association as being the one who vets. That's why it's unconstitutional. There's nothing wrong with the law the way it exists. The bail bond association wants to get into it somehow so they can have a hand in regulating what's already
being well regulated by the state. The free market should have control over this, not the association. If somebody decides they like one provider more than the other, they can go to that other provider. If they want to go to one that's cheaper than the other, they can do that now. But why do they have to change it? There's nothing at all wrong with the law the way it was. When this bill came before the Senate, it was represented by a member of the board. I found this out yesterday at the billboard board meeting, the three-hour meeting. It was represented to the Senate that the board was in favor of it.
Then we find out yesterday that only one person there even knew anything about the bill before it went through. Six of them said, I knew nothing about this thing before it was passed. Yet it was represented to the Senate, who passed it 33 to 1, that the bail bond board was in favor of it. Now, they were opposed to it as it was written, and this cures nothing. This amendment cures nothing. I could say to you as a lawyer, go ahead and pass this so I can sue the state and make a fee off the state for having to do it.
But no, don't even bother. Just leave the law the way it is. There's nothing wrong with the way it's been in the past. And anybody can get in who wants to teach. As long as they get approval from the private career board that their instructors are at least competent, that's the basis for it. Everybody has to go through the private career board first and then the bail bond board. Why the association needs to be a gatekeeper, I have no idea. But this bill, the way it's written, gives them veto power.
Hall? Representative Walker. Do you know of other associations and other similar situations where the private party is the gatekeeper? In other words, there's a condition for doing something that the state's doing. Do you know of any other situation like this? I can't think
Speaker 334
1:36:09
of any offhand. An analogy was used before the Senate of the Bar Association,
but the Arkansas Bar Association is just a provider, just like Lisa Douglas is one of the providers. The chair's ex-wife is one of the providers. Ronnie Minnick is one of the providers. Anybody can be a provider of continuing legal education. You submit your materials to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Programs, and they approve of it. They look at the curricula, they look at the instructors, and they say, approved or denied. That's all they do. Anybody can do the providing. They can charge as little or as much as they want.
They can give it away. For instance, for the federal court system, if you're a CJA lawyer like I am, where you take cases on appointment from the federal courts, they give free CLE for the lawyers that do those appointed cases. And they pay for it. They register it with the Arkansas Supreme Court. We pay nothing. We just show up and sign in. It doesn't cost a dime. I was president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We charge $395 for a CLE for 12 hours, but we have to pay the cost of the venue where
it's provided. We have to pay out of pocket for that. We have to pay money to the state. All the states in the union, out of the 51 licensing jurisdictions, including D.C., only two do not have CLE requirements, so we have to provide to 49 states. There might be a small filing fee, a registration fee, and that all comes out of what we pay for. And our association paid money off of our CLE. That's one of the things we do. But the free market decides who the providers are, and that's what this legislature should
decide. Let the free market do it. There's nothing wrong the way it is
now. Mr. Hall, you mentioned that you think this is unconstitutional. We
may differ on our legal opinions here, but let me ask you, given that the state licensing board, the state agency has final approval, can you explain why you think that's unconstitutional since they actually have final
Speaker 334
1:38:14
approval? MR. Because the bail bond board will submit the names, and then the bail bond board – or the board itself has to select from the names provided by the association.
MR. Well, they can select no one, correct? MR. They could say, well, we don't want anybody. MR. Right. though, but by making them the sole gatekeeper, that makes it the monopoly I was talking about. It's an unlawful delegation of power on one hand, it's a monopoly on the other. Either one of them has sufficient
Speaker 300
1:38:45
reason to say it's unconstitutional. Any additional questions for
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:38:50
Mr. Hall? Mr. Gillum? Does a monopoly currently exist now as far as who is directed to go to a particular
Speaker 334
1:38:58
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Nobody is directed to go anywhere. There are three providers. They provide their classes at opportune times. The requirement is that the education be obtained by December 31st, so the classes usually fall in the last half of the year. As people get aware, we've got to get our time in. And in Ms. Douglas' case, she even provided a class in late December after Christmas, So people who didn't get it in could get it approved.
You had to go to the private career board and the board get approval to do that at the last minute. But some people didn't get their hours in and she worked in a fifth
Speaker 343
1:39:40
class of the year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And additional
questions for Mr. Hall? Thank you, Mr. Hall. That's everyone who is asked to speak for or against the bill, so we're going to go back to members' time, Representative Wilkins, would you like to close for your bill?
Chair
Unverified
1:40:02
MR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. Thank you. MR. We recognize. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 165
1:40:10
Chairman. Thank you, Committee. I have heard all of the testimony on both sides of this. Somebody stated earlier who testified that it's all about the money. I certainly did not know that it was about the money when I made the choice to support this legislation.
It was because it looks good to me in terms of broadening the opportunities and the prospective providers. Right now, as you've heard testimony, there are only three providers. I believe this bill would help to open the free market even more than what Attorney Hall suggested. It is true that the board did say that they were opposed to Senate Bill 56 in its original
form. The amendments that we've added today have helped to address the concerns that were expressed. And it is true that there was testimony on the Senate end in favor of this from the board. Let me just say to you that the testimony that was made on the Senate end from the licensing board was made by the director of the licensing board in favor of this legislation on the
Senate in, and for whatever reason, since that time, the director has, I believe, recanted perhaps and maybe it has something to do with the politics that are going on. But I'm not involved in those politics. I have obviously no concern with the money. What I want to do is open this up so that there will be more providers and that the The association will be a rung in the latter that helps to make sure that all bail bondsmen
get, bail bondsmen and women, get good continuing education. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for your indulgence. MR. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. What's
Speaker 148
1:42:24
the pleasure of the committee? MR. I move
to pass. the proper motion do pass as
amended directly that's right thank you very much motion was made to for bill do pass as amended all those in favor aye
opposed no eyes have it congratulations mr. Wilkins your bills passed thank you mr. chairman and committee members we have ten minutes
power we have some folks who have come a long way to be here and with your indulgence I'd like like to ask this committee to stay in session just a little bit longer unless that's a problem for you all. I told you that we would have days like this where this committee is pretty busy. And since they've come a long way to be a part of this process, I would ask with
your indulgence that we just go ahead and hear a few more bills before we
get out and We'll still have time to eat lunch and get to our 1.30 time.
Representative Woods, you're recognized to present House
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:44:42
Bill 1009. Mr. Woods,
a question before we get started. 10-09 and 12-43? I believe so.
Those are the two bills we're going to hear? Okay,
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:44:58
thank you. You're recognized to present House Bill 10-09. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and committee members. And I want to just apologize. We have a lot of state agency groups here today, too, and I apologize. Public health just got out as well, and we'll just have to come back to some of these on Thursday. But I would like to jump into House Bill 1009, and just what I wanted to just point out is that local law enforcement agencies need a tool in the toolbox to be able to go out and post notifications for when an individual moves in from out of state that is a convicted sex offender.
There really just isn't anything on the books right now that gives them that tool to go out and post notification while the assessment process in Arkansas is taking place, which can last anywhere from three months to six months or longer. So I've had a lot of individuals contact me in the community, constituents, and I've visited with Department of Corrections. I've had there are a lot of individuals here that would testify but I won't bring them here unless you feel it's necessary but I wouldn't ask for a good vote it's just kind
of straightforward it is what it is I do I will point out that I do have Sheriff John Montgomery from Baxter County that is driven to driven down today that that feels very strong about this and he is here to help take any questions if the committee feels appropriate so I just I'd like to stop right there and ask for a good vote thank you Sheriff
Montgomery Welcome to the House Judiciary. We appreciate you being here. Are there
any questions for Representative Woods, members, or Sheriff Montgomery? Representative Radliff, you recognize for a question?
Representative James Ratliff
Unverified
1:46:43
Well, the question I have is this happened at my town Saturday. We had an out-of-state person move in. The sheriff came up, contacted me. It lives 300 feet from my grandkids. there's nothing we can do because we're gonna go through this process so we need this expedited so we can get this big members any additional questions for
Speaker 219
1:47:06
representative woods or sheriff Montgomery is anyone in
the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1009 representative Jeff Rosenzweig
would like to speak on the bill please identify
Speaker 352
1:47:26
yourself and you recognize I suggest there's
Speaker 353
1:47:29
a way it could be tweaked a little bit. I think there should be some recognition that sex offenders of different levels are coming into the state, and I would suggest that it be tweaked to have a notification level consistent
with what the sending state had decided. You have a number of sex offenders who are required to register here or there who were subject to the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws, consensual sex among teenagers, which we basically have now gotten rid of those problems in the past few years. But you have people coming in who would not even be required to register in Arkansas because He wouldn't be convicted of anything, and all of a sudden they're treated the same way
as a serial rapist with the notification problem. And so that would be our suggestion, is to track what the sending state's notification level would be. CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Thank you. And I'd actually like
Speaker 355
1:48:47
to respond to that. The problem with what he's suggesting is that Arkansas does not recognize the other states' levels, and that's a good thing.
In my county alone, I can tell you of numerous, more than I can count on my hands, where someone was required to register in a state. Massachusetts, New Hampshire comes to mind recently where they were actually assessed as a level one. And in Arkansas, when they're assessed, the assessment is based on the likelihood that they will re-offend. And there's a complete process they go through. In two cases in particular, they were level one from another state. And after the assessment process, they were level three in Arkansas, a high risk to re-offend.
So we think it's a great thing that Arkansas does their own assessment. And we certainly don't want to do that. In our county, just as of this morning, I have 12 sex offenders on the books that are unassessed. And the process can be cumbersome because sometimes it's hard to get paperwork from the other state. So there's a process that takes some time. In this case, I've got 12 individuals who are obeying the rules.
They've come in. They've signed their paperwork. They've told law enforcement where they're living. The problem is I can't tell anybody else. And so they can live. next to your kids or grandkids uh... and i'm not allowed to do to disclose that information until the assessment uh... it is a huge problem uh... in a very dangerous problem in my opinion and uh... bill simply gives us the tool to notify the public uh... during the process there are any questions for mr roses like
thank you so much Anyone else in the audience want
to speak for or against the bill? Yes, sir. Please state
Robert Combs
Unverified
1:50:57
your name for the record and let us know who you're with. Robert
Combs Good morning. My name is Robert Combs. I'm with a group called Arkansas Time After Time. We're a sex offender support education and advocacy group.
We're affiliated with some national organizations, RSOL, which is Reform Sex Offender Laws, SOSEN, Sex Offender Support and Education Network, and CureSort, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, Sex Offenders Reintegration Through Treatment. And our goal is to create safer communities and to reduce recidivism. Our mission is to develop an education network to help legislators and the general public
review sex offender laws as to their possible unintended consequences. And in regards to this, if someone were to move in from out of state, Arkansas has one of the best sex offender assessment programs in the country. I agree that they assess based on likelihood of recidivism rather than on the crime itself. And so to take someone coming in from out of state who might be a level one, two, three, or even four, without the Arkansas review process taking its effect, would the local sheriff,
the local law enforcement agency, have the ability to notify the community as a level four if the person will be eventually adjudicated as a level one? Will they be able to put their name on the database as a level three? which would violate the rights if they were going to be adjudicated as a level one or a level two. I have no problem. I think people need to know there are some dangerous, violent sexual predators out there, but they are not the majority.
And once the sex offender assessment program in Pine Bluff has reviewed this person's likelihood of reoffense, they will determine the likelihood. In the meantime, I think it's perfectly reasonable and legitimate for the local law enforcement agencies to notify at the level one notification level. Anything above that might put a person who would be eventually adjudicated
as a level one in jeopardy of having the wrong notification level. That's all I have to add. Thank you, Mr. Collins, and thank
you for – you actually signed up. I apologize. I didn't see your name.
I've got a question for you, though. Representative Rice, you recognize? Yes. Would you agree that
these people have the option not to come to the state of Arkansas? I would agree that these people sometimes have the option not
to come to the state of Arkansas, if they are released from federal prison to the state of Arkansas, they do not have that option. Well, we all have concerns about our families and reasons we're all for the fairness of law, but it seems we many times overstep those that do right and those who want to protect
their families for the rights of everyone else, and if their charges have been proven, regardless of what level they are, there is concern from families who are trying
to live their lives. Would you agree that that would be? MR. I would agree that there
Robert Combs
Unverified
1:54:02
is significant concern from families of sex offenders as well as families within the community that people receive the proper adjudication for a level. Yes. MR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Members, any additional questions? Thank you, Mr. Combs.
MR. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience you want to speak for or against this bill? President Woods
Speaker 350
1:54:27
you're recognized to close for your bill
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:54:29
thank you mr. chair you know I just like to say that that I respect Mr. Combs and and other gentleman that spoke earlier and and there there needs to be a point where we have all the basis is covered you know for for this type of offense and we can all tackle other issues that no doubt about it and you know this this has been carried by
You know, one legislator, Dawn Creekmore, who I have a lot of respect for the last three sessions, that's a lot for one legislator to do. And so during my last session, I really looked at the issue after having a constituent that had a bad experience with this. And when things happen, you have another legislator that has time, like myself, and to start looking around, you see little holes that we need to close and to close the gap, and this is just one of them. There are a few others, and then I'd like to move on to other issues.
So – but I would ask for the will of the committee to vote for this. It's just giving the local law enforcement agencies the ability to go out and post notification if they feel necessary. They still – it's not they shall or they have to. It's just another tool in the toolbox if they feel it's
necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative
Woods. Representative Branscombe. I recommend do pass. Proper motion. The motion before the committee is the recommendation of do pass for House Bill 1009.
All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Congratulations, Mr. Wood. You got a bill out of here. Members,
the last bill for today is House Bill 1243. three and we have an amendment on it
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:56:18
that has been passed out resident would you recognize to go ahead and present your amendment I guess we'll do that first get good get
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:56:27
the amendment on absolutely I'm I'd like at this time to
bring our request to Brad Cazart with ACIC Brad if you don't mind just come to there's some interesting statistics as to why we're doing this but The bill has to deal with a fee being applied to an individual that's already been convicted of a sex offense who's late on coming back in to register. That was ordered by the judge, whether it's quarterly or every six months or every year.
And so what we're trying to do is encourage these individuals to come in and register when they need to and not to be late. And I saw some statistics earlier, and we have quite a bit of individuals that are not coming in that are registering on time. Representative, let me cut you off. Are you talking about the
Speaker 194
1:57:18
amendment right now? No, I'm sorry. Go ahead and get the amendment on the
Speaker 372
1:57:22
bill so we can talk about the whole thing, if that's okay. Okay. And the fee that
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:57:27
goes into this pool, the amendment basically goes more in depth of the pool and how the fee is divided.
And we're trying to create a fund. fund, and that's what this bill does is it creates a fund. It's called the monitoring fund, and then that way we can easily track the money more better once a fee is applied. Thank you. Representative Woods has discussed his amendment. What's the pleasure of the committee with regard to the amendment?
Actually, if there's anyone in the audience who wants to speak for it, he can send this amendment first. Let's get the amendment adopted. We can talk about the bill. Representative Gilliam, I recognize you for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:58:02
I make a motion that we do
Michael Steele
Unverified
1:58:06
amend. That's a proper motion. It's been recommended that we amend, accept the amendment to
the bill. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Like sign. Representative Woods, now you may present
Speaker 350
1:58:17
your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just House Bill 1243, what we're
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:58:23
trying to do is to encourage these individuals to come in on time. And when they're not coming in on time, there will be a fee assessed.
And we have different penalties for a different amount of days late. And right now, resources are limited with ACIC and the Sex Offender Division, with state police, and also just with local law enforcement agencies. And so if there are individuals that are not coming in to register like they're told they were supposed to, then I feel that a fee could be justified. And I think that this is new monies that could go and help local law enforcement agencies
and statewide agencies for the betterment of our state and protection of the people. And I'd just like to ask Brad if he can just share a few interesting numbers here, and then I'm ready for the will of the committee. Thank
you. Please state your name, and you're
Speaker 375
1:59:25
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brad Cazort with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. I just want to give you
the numbers. This is, as of this morning, that in the Arkansas State Sex Offender Registry, we have 10,554 persons registered, names in our registry.
Out of that number, 5,190 are in full compliance. 1,461 of those are currently incarcerated We have 1,203 people who are currently delinquent Delinquent does not mean we don't know where they are They're slow in going back and filling out their verification paperwork Fortunately, we only have 340 that we just don't know where they are Those are the absconders And that's actually a very low number for our state compared to others
We also maintain records of those on our system who have moved to other states who have died or been deported at the request of Victims' Rights Group. So we have 1,780 on our registry who have actually moved to other states, 497 who are now deceased, and 83 who have been deported. Thank you. Members,
are there any questions for Representative Woods or Mr. Cazort? I think I saw Representative Walker first, Followed by Representative Hammer. Is that correct?
Yeah. I have several questions, Mr. Chair. Go right ahead, Ms. White. If an offender is incarcerated and therefore unable to go and make his or her appointment, does this schedule still apply?
Representative Walker, if they're incarcerated, they are
Speaker 375
2:01:02
not delinquent. But their status is incarcerated, so this would not apply to them because
they're not in a delinquent status.
But by incarcerated, I mean assuming that a person has a traffic offense and is being held in jail
Speaker 375
2:01:18
or something like that? If they're in custody, if we
have that information that they're in custody, that's the status that they would
have on our system, and that would not be delinquent. All right. Now, if
a person comes and says, I know that I have to pay this, but I don't have the money, is there a punishment because he or she doesn't have the money?
Speaker 382
2:01:43
There is no proposed punishment in this bill, and there is really no proposed
punishment in the current sex offender law. This would be akin to other fees. This is not, as I spoke to you, this is not a Class C felony. A Class C felony under the sex offender registry applies for anybody who has violated either compliance with the assessment process, has failed to register, failed to verify, willfully failed to verify, or provide change of address information. And I'm assuming that this being a cost will be similar to like a probation fee,
and if not paid, would be up to the courts
on how to deal with that. I see. But the person can be incarcerated at the judge's discretion for failure to pay, notwithstanding the fact that
the person, because of circumstance, may be so tainted that he or she is unemployable. Reverend Walker, I
assume that applies the same way as people who've been out and assessed probation fees who are unable to pay this and they take that up
Speaker 301
2:02:44
with the judge. Thank you. That's all your question, Representative Walker?
No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All
right. Representative Hammer, you recognize? The numbers that you were reading an awful while ago, 10,554, and then you began the breakdown of those numbers. I didn't have time to add them all up. But if all that added up, would that equate to the 10,554? Yes, sir, it would. Okay. Okay, and 1,203 of those are delinquent, you said, but you specified paperwork. Is that the number that represents also those that are delinquent currently in paying fines?
Well, I think that's two questions. The 1,203 are people who are delinquent. They're in our system that have a scheduled verification date come and go, and they have not, in fact, gone in and verified their address as required by law. It does not mean we don't know where they are. They have passed their verification date and have not done what the law requires them of. Of that 10,554 right now, the number we have of people on our system that we do not know where they are,
police do not know where they are, they are absconders from
the system, is 340. May I ask you, Matt? And what I'm leading up to is how many currently are not paying their, Of all the numbers you gave a while ago, how many are not currently paying their fines? And if this law is passed, what
are the chances of them paying what they're not already paying? So
what number? There is no fine currently. No fine currently. And this proposal is for a cost to be distributed to assist with local law enforcement to help keep up with those who are delinquent.
There is no charge to people who are staying compliant. I think if there was, people who were compliant would suddenly
Speaker 377
2:04:33
be delinquent. We want people to register, and obviously, if they stay compliant, they will not have to pay this fee. Thank you. MR. Representative Branskin? Mr.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
2:04:45
President Deffenbaugh? I'm sorry. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope I pronounced your name
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
2:04:51
right, Mr. Cozart. These 1,203 that are delinquent now, what do we do with them? MR. Cozart? Cozart? Cozart?
Cozart? Cozart? these two hundred three that are delinquent now what uh... what do we do with them i mean what what's been done with him
Speaker 375
2:05:07
there is a good question and then the answers very same in many cases the police department that has jurisdiction over them has gone
out and found them and and got them physically got them in and got them uh... re verified uh... in some cases that police have been a and unable to do that prosecutors have been following non-compliance charges against them the goal most police department the goal is
to make sure that they get in and get verified because they want that as much as we do we want
to know where these people are represent words or mister cosardo can can you tell me what these now are assessed on sex offenders just just in general I mean I know that and he had a bill about $250 that may be assessed what other
fees are assessed on sex Right now, Mr. Chairman, on the bill, there's a $250 sex offender fee that goes into a fund to be divided between ACIC and the Department of Corrections.
There have to do the assessment process in order to run the sex offender registry. That, right now, is a conditional fee in the way the law on the books. There is a mandatory fee on the books of the $250 DNA fee that the law does not provide any options that the court may not assess that. And those are
Speaker 384
2:06:27
the only two fees that are talked about in the sex offender law.
And do you have any stats on the mandatory fee?
Since it's mandatory, I assume everyone's paying that, and if not, what happens? Well, the $250 fee, it says it's mandatory unless the judge finds for good cause not to assess it. All I can tell you is that given that we average about 800 new sex offenders registered every year, and the vast majority of those are from Arkansas, and that $250 fee is assessed one time against people convicted in Arkansas, So that should be generating around $200,000 a year if everybody was paying that.
Actually, ACIC is receiving $5,000 to $6,000 a year, which means the Department of Corrections is receiving $5,000 to $6,000. So it's either not being assessed or not being collected. As to the $250 fee for the DNA, I can't speak for
Speaker 377
2:07:23
what the crime lab, but I think the crime lab can tell you they're not getting that fee
either. And do you have any sense on why people are being delinquent in verifying their status? Do you have any sense of why that is and whether a fee charge is actually going to encourage
them to comply? I think that's a great question, and this is an educated answer based upon my experience with the system. There are certainly people who are delinquent because they don't want people to know where they are. skirting the system as much as they think possible. I think there's a large group of people that are delinquent, maybe inadvertently. They're just not keeping track, not keeping up with their responsibilities. I think those type of people, this bill will do a lot to get them to be compliant,
and they will not be paying this fee or being assessed this fee. But there is a group of people out there who intentionally seem to try and skirt the law, play with it on the edge, try to get away with as much as they can, and wait until the last minute until they're about to be charged with noncompliance and then
go in and verify. And those that are intentionally scurrying the law, they are potentially can be charged with noncompliance, and that's a felony offense? Classy felony, yes. And with regard to those who just may forget, what's the process?
Are they sending a letter of reminder? What notice is given to them that
it's about time for them to verify?
Speaker 391
2:08:54
Currently, under current law, and again, one bill that's already gotten through the House, we're
going to go to an electronic system. But under our current system right now, they have a verification date based upon when they first registered. And ACIC sends them a certified letter every six months or four months if they're a level four assessment level. We send that to them certified mail. They sign for it. They take it down to the local police department or sheriff, whoever has jurisdiction of them, and fill out the paperwork.
Or if they do not do it by that date, we do not automatically send another date. But when the police department calls us and says, we found Mr. Smith and would you send him a duplicate verification, then we send that out and they take it into the local law enforcement and have it completed. So law enforcement works very closely if those dates pass to find these people and ask us to send further notice. Now,
Speaker 382
2:09:45
again, when we have this new electronic system up, it will go even faster
than that. MR. And is it your opinion that these new fines are going to encourage more folks to
actually verify? MR. I think it will. I mean, the ultimate goal would be if you put this on and we collected nothing because everybody was in compliance, I'm afraid that's, you know, as a practical human matter, that's not going to happen. But this would be one of those fees that ultimately the goal would be you collect zero because everybody stays in compliance.
MR. and and and it may resume woods will can you give us a rationale on what how you set these fees is amounts on I mean if we've got a mandatory twenty fifty dollar fee
I'm if you're late 10 days it's a hundred and twenty dollars I applaud what you're doing I'm just
trying to figure out the rationale behind the amount set seems steep in comparison to the fee that's initially set for sex offender right
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
2:10:41
well yet to start somewhere and and it was actually a little bit higher when we started out and then we kinda just agreed on this, and we have it in an odd number for a reason. So if it's $30, $10 will go to ACIC. $10 will go to Department of Corrections.
$10 will go to local law enforcement agency. And at this time, I'd like to ask the committee permission to bring John Montgomery, Sheriff Montgomery, to the table as well. The $60 and the $120, I do understand. I can see a little bit of a, you know, that might get some attention. I would agree, but we're really going after the individuals that really need to be compliant and not dodging the system. And so if we feel that that is a high dollar amount, my hopes would be that the sex offender
would also feel that these are a high dollar amount and would register on time. But I was contacted by Sheriff Montgomery, and he was a major force in asking me to add the amendment that the committee just voted on just a little earlier and so and what that fund would do and help it out local law enforcement agencies so this would really help out quite a bit and also I think all the way around just encourage individuals to come in on time and those that don't it's not a burden on our local law enforcement well of course if this bill is
successful there'd be no fun created because we would encourage everyone to register so it's It's really not a good
funding source, I would suggest. Sheriff Montgomery, would you like me to comment? I wholeheartedly
Speaker 355
2:12:19
agree with Mr. Quzart that we have certain individuals that skirt the system. Now, it's a small number, but we actually have a large number that are late. And that lateness, if you will, creates an extra burden on us because now I've got to
send officers out. We've got to go look for them. There's a lot of things involved. So you're correct, and I hardly agree. I hope we don't collect a dime. But I think for those that are just, I'll call habitually late, after the first time, they will most likely decide they'll become compliant. If they don't, that's where the fund that's set up. And the amendment, I just would like to add, the only reason the amendment was put in, it specified what we could use it for, but it really didn't specify where it went.
And so that's why the amendment was just to create a fund. It's easy to track, so we know how much is coming in and how much is going out. It's much easier to track and to audit. But I really believe with all, you know, those groups that are habitually late will become compliant. Those that skirt the system, we have other ways that, and if we need to make an arrest, we will. Thank you. If there was any
additional questions, I have one person signed up to speak against the bill, Robert Combs.
Would you like to be recognized,
Robert Combs
Unverified
2:13:52
speak against the bill? Again, my name is Robert Combs with Arkansas Time After Time, and we wholeheartedly agree that registered sex offenders should be in compliance, but if they're situationally unable to be in compliance, if they're, for example, hospitalized, where they're not incarcerated,
where they're not accessible to meet this window. Or perhaps in this economy, they may be traveling out of state temporarily seeking work, registered in the state of Arkansas, but working in disaster relief in the Gulf or whatever on a temporary basis. They may not be able to be in compliance right away. I agree that these are situational, noncompliant standards that need to be addressed individually. There are some people who are situationally noncompliant, but there are some people who are habitually noncompliant.
And those people are a challenge for the whole system. I think we need to make a difference to recognize that there are people who may have problems that arise that are beyond their control. Also, the fee structure, up to $60 for being five days late, up to $120 for being 10 days late, and more than that, up to $240. One of the problems that registered sex offenders face is unemployment. We feel that if you're recently released from prison and you are not able to access housing,
if you're not able to secure gainful employment and you're not able to engender family or community support, your rate of recidivism is very high. You're probably going to go back to prison without those three elements. And housing is a real problem, but so is jobs. And if you don't have a job, paying any kind of assessment fee will be very difficult and you'll probably wind back up in prison. The other issue is there already is a law that addresses this, and that's the failure to be in compliance with the regulation. It's a Class C felony not to register by this date. And if a Class C felony is not a threat enough
to get someone to register who can, I don't know that a fee of $30 to $240 will do it. A classy felony is a little bit more of a threatening over your head than a $240 fee. But my concern is that we address the differences between people who are situationally unable to respond in time
and people who are habitual problems. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Collins. We have one question for you before you
Speaker 196
2:16:16
leave. Vice Chair Wilkins, you recognize for a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You acknowledge the concern about those who
Speaker 395
2:16:23
are habitually late. So how then would you address that concern? How would you get at handling that? I mean, I see these fees as being somewhat steep for, you know, just a few days. but if you've got people who are habitually late. I think the law already addresses that
Robert Combs
Unverified
2:16:45
as a Class C felony. So,
Speaker 395
2:16:48
okay, I thought I heard you say that you see there a need to do something about dealing with those folks.
Robert Combs
Unverified
2:16:57
For people who are not in compliance with state law, yes, unless it's a situational problem that can be addressed separately.
Speaker 395
2:17:05
So you don't feel that there's any other remedy that we need to look at for people, So, not the situational folks, but the habitual folks. People who are habitually
Robert Combs
Unverified
2:17:14
violating the state requirements, I think the law is already in place. Thank you. Members, any additional questions?
Thank you, Mr. Combs. Thank you. Representative Woods, would you like to close for your bill? I have a motion pending okay you
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
2:17:42
know I've been working on this bill for a while and I appreciate your help so I'd like to thank the committee for your time thank you thank you represent rice recognize you for a motion due pass as amended there was a motion before
is due pass as amended for
Michael Steele
Unverified
2:18:04
House Bill 1243. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Thank you. Reverend Woods, you've got two bills out. Congratulations. Members, thank you for your indulgence, staying over an extra 25 minutes. I appreciate it. We may do this from time to time, but thank you very much.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1232
SB56
HB1009
HB1243
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 34
Speaker 45
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 51
Speaker 58
Speaker 59
Speaker 61
Speaker 67
Speaker 74
Speaker 75
Speaker 76
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 93
Speaker 94
Speaker 95
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 106
Speaker 115
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 123
Speaker 137
Speaker 84
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 141
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 163
Speaker 165
Speaker 171
Speaker 167
Speaker 176
Speaker 181
Speaker 190
Speaker 191
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 168
Speaker 195
Speaker 198
Speaker 180
John Maldon
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 214
Speaker 216
Speaker 217
Speaker 219
Speaker 226
Speaker 227
Speaker 114
Speaker 215
Speaker 239
Speaker 248
Speaker 240
Michael Steele
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 18
Mark Alton
Unverified
Speaker 281
Speaker 284
Speaker 287
Speaker 289
Speaker 296
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 35
Speaker 301
Speaker 302
Speaker 290
Speaker 304
Speaker 68
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer Chair
Unverified
Speaker 308
Speaker 276
Speaker 320
Speaker 323
Speaker 324
Speaker 333
Speaker 334
Speaker 103
Speaker 300
Speaker 343
Speaker 148
Representative James Ratliff
Unverified
Speaker 352
Speaker 353
Speaker 355
Robert Combs
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice Chair
Unverified
Speaker 350
Speaker 194
Speaker 372
Speaker 375
Speaker 382
Speaker 377
Speaker 384
Speaker 391
Speaker 196
Speaker 395