State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (24)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1704
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “Without objections, first item on today's agenda will be House Bill 1704, Representative Richardson. You're recognized. Go to the en…”
|
TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ENTITIES FROM PAYING A RANSOM FOR A CYBERATTACK; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLIC … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1025
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SECRETARY OF STATE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1025 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CIRCULATION OF PETITIONS; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CIRCULATION OF PETITIONS; AND TO LIMIT PETITION CIRCULATION AT POLLING … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1248
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1248 Gonzales TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND TO REQUIRE MEMBERS OF … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1359
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIONS; AND TO LIMIT PETITION CIRCULATION AT POLLING PLACES. HB1359 Cavenaugh TO ABOLISH CERTAIN BOARDS; TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS…”
|
TO ABOLISH CERTAIN BOARDS; TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS; AND … | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1444
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1444 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVIEW OF CONSENT DECREES ENTERED INTO BY … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1537
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1537 A. Collins TO CREATE THE VOTER INTEGRITY AND VOTER REGISTRA…”
|
TO CREATE THE VOTER INTEGRITY AND VOTER REGISTRATION MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2023; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1593
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1593 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1596
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SECRETARY OF STATE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1596 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS AS PERSONAL INCOME; TO AMEND … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1598
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1598 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 28; … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1601
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REVIEW OF CONSENT DECREES ENTERED INTO BY COVERED ENTITIES. HB1601 Ray TO CREATE A LICENSE FOR A PAID CANVASSER; TO REQUIRE TH…”
|
TO CREATE A LICENSE FOR A PAID CANVASSER; TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1614 Vaught TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM; TO TRANSFER FUNDING FROM THE … | Vaught | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1726
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1726 Ray TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ADD…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ADD DEFINITIONS; TO ADD PUBLIC … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1753 Gonzales TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROFESSIONAL BAIL B…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROFESSIONAL BAIL BOND COMPANY AND PROFESSIONAL BAIL BONDSMAN LICENSING … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1812
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1812 Clowney TO REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ADOPT POLICE…”
|
TO REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ADOPT POLICES CONCERNING NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS OF CRIME VICTIMS. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1817
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1817 Perry TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A PERS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A PERSON TO FILE, RUN, OR HOLD … | Perry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1823
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1823 V. Flowers TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETING…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF … | V. Flowers | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1842
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1842 G. Hodges TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND TO CHANGE THE STATE BIRD. | G. Hodges | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1847
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA. HB1847 Gazaway TO CREATE THE SECOND CHANCE HIRING ACT; TO PROHIBIT…”
|
TO CREATE THE SECOND CHANCE HIRING ACT; TO PROHIBIT INQUIRIES BY A STATE AGENCY INTO … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1849 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND TO CHANGE THE STATE BIRD TO … | B. McKenzie | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HJR1002
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENTATIVE MEEKS BE AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE THE CONSIDERATION OF HJR 1002 AS A THIRD PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. LAID ON THE T…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HR1082
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATE BIRD; AND TO CHANGE THE STATE BIRD TO THE MALLARD DUCK. HR1082 S. Meeks REQUESTING THAT REPRESENTATIVE MEEKS BE AUTHORIZED…”
|
REQUESTING THAT REPRESENTATIVE MEEKS BE AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE THE CONSIDERATION OF HJR 1002 AS A … | S. Meeks | Died in the House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB235
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…amie Scott RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB235 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2023; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB380
Act 879
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O REQUIRE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE PUBLISHED ONLINE. SB380 A. Clark TO REQUIRE RECORDS CUSTODIANS TO RESPOND IN WRITIN…”
|
TO REQUIRE RECORDS CUSTODIANS TO RESPOND IN WRITING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF … | A. Clark | Notification that SB380 is now Act 879 |
|
SB426
Act 770
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB426 Irvin TO EXTEND MATERNITY LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES; TO AME…”
|
TO EXTEND MATERNITY LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CATASTROPHIC LEAVE … | Irvin | Notification that SB426 is now Act 770 |
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 6, 2026
Without objections, first item on today's agenda will be House Bill 1704, Representative Richardson. You're recognized. Go to the end of the table.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
0:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott Richardson, District 13. Thanks, Committee, for hearing this bill. I think it's an extremely important bill. You know, this session we have passed a number of bills associated with the adversaries of the United States
and trying to keep them from playing in our sandbox, so to speak, here in Arkansas. This is a bill that tries to approach the same thing once again. I learned this year that we have a number of our institutions, a number of our agencies within the state and local governments that have been forced to pay ransomware. And if you're not aware of what ransomware is, essentially it's a computer virus that encrypts data files
and stops you from having access and then provides you with a phone number and or an email address and or a website so that you can go out and negotiate with that group to pay them a ransom. This has happened to us in this state too many times. Even once, from my perspective, is too many times. According to a number of studies, these primary, these organizations, and they are organizations and for-profit businesses, are coming from three primary locations, Russia, North Korea, and China.
They're also coming out of Iran as well. These are obviously adversaries of the United States. We are paying them money, tax dollars that are coming from our citizens and off of their work. we are paying them as a ransom to unencrypt the stuff they shouldn't have encrypted in the first place. The rest of them are just criminal organizations trying to make money. This bill makes it illegal to pay that with tax dollars going forward. That would stop that from happening.
They are for-profit businesses. If we no longer put a target on our back as a state and we stand up and say we're not going to pay these anymore, then it should help us reduce our risk and start pushing them to look elsewhere. There are a number of concerns. I spoke with both the counties, associated counties, and of course DIS. DIS is concerned they'd be able to meet the requirements. Basically, the recovery option is having a good solid backup and being able to recover from that with a disaster recovery or backup system. They feel in the next two years
they should be able to do that. The counties, they're less confident, so I've provided them with a little more time, along with our public school systems, a little bit more time to get compliant. Some of them are ready, some of them aren't, and I know the counties are going through a bunch of stuff right now to try to figure out exactly where they are and how they can address this. So with that,
I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions for community members? Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richardson, I feel like you were just explaining this and I
had to have another conversation for just a second so can you just tell me again i mean i really obviously agree that we should not be paying money to these to these countries um or to folks within them who are holding us hostage but what is the recourse if we are losing access to this information i think i heard you say have better systems of backup but can you kind of talk more about where are our, you know, where would the city of Fayetteville, for instance, be if they
were suffering this kind of attack and were not allowed to pay ransom and didn't have an adequate backup established? What happens then?
Speaker 12
3:52
Well, you're in a tough spot, obviously. So the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
3:55
key here is prevention, right? And that's the focus point that I think we have to get to, and hence the reason for providing time for our entities to get where they need to be to make sure that we've put them in a position they can put in the systems that will provide them that protection to
provide the education to users, almost all of these ransomware attacks. And I've had in my company, and I don't know if just for informational purposes, I serve as director of technology and responsible for end-user systems. We've had to recover from these kinds of attacks on a large number of systems more than once. The key there is having a solid and adequate backup system. If you have the disaster recovery system in place, then you can recover from these. So that's the
key. It's making sure an ounce of prevention, so to speak, versus trying to come back on
the back side. Representative Scott, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Jamie Scott
Unverified
4:57
Mr. Chair. just a quick question have you talked to I know you said you've talked to the counties I'm concerned because I do know that the counties received several threats and attacks on their just IT and you know they house the information where you pay taxes and stuff like on a daily basis and Pulaski County specifically
they had problems just even keeping IT personnel and I know if that's an issue in Pulaski County I can only imagine how challenging it might be in smaller counties to keep the certified IT professionals that you're saying could kind of help us prevent these kind of attacks, but they do happen, and we're just kind of like hands in the air if an attack happens
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
5:42
at Pulaski County? Well, specifically, we're related this to ransomware attacks, and we have had a few instances
that that has occurred in the state. Now, the key here is a lot of the counties, and I guess we've got some folks here from the counties, they can come and speak for themselves if they'd like to. But I know the counties, some of that is outsourced. Some of the cities outsource that to professionals outside of that. I know the counties are, the bill we just passed in technology provides us an organized approach to cybersecurity. But you have to think of this from a weakest link perspective.
If you have, let's say, a school system that has access to data on a large scale in the overall DIS system, and you have a weakest link attack that comes through there, then they also have the ability to access not only the data for that school, but they also have access to data across the board. So the idea here is to provide an opportunity to bring focus to this much-needed and a very vulnerable state that we're in
to be able to start addressing the information security and information technology perspective and try to start coming to a point where we can protect the people's data, that we can protect our organization. So that's the key. How would they address it? Well, with the bill that we just passed and is moving through the House, and you'll see later on today from Information Systems Technology, we are implementing an infrastructure. Representative Meeks is driving that bill, and it's a really good, solid bill to provide them options for going to handle cyber attacks.
Absolutely. Representative Moore, be recognized for
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
7:25
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richardson, excuse me. It was a long night in committee and judiciary last night. Thanks for bringing this bill and this very important issue to our table this morning. I've just got a couple questions, and the first being I'm not super familiar with this topic, but I know it seems that we're discussing access to data,
but what about access to actual programs that help us, these counties and agencies do
Speaker 23
8:00
their job? Sure. So this specifically is not addressing that. We are addressing data-specific.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
8:10
Follow-up? Recognized. In Section 3, I see you have varying effective dates in 2025 and 2027. Could you expound on that?
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
8:23
Yep. So that was in conversations with both the IS and with the city counties. They feel like that they're not ready, but they are working toward that. I'm not sure that the counties will be able to get to that point, but this gives them some leverage from us. The reality is this is a very important issue and probably one of our biggest security concerns going forward. And we're going to have to approach it from a legislative perspective. We're going to have to give them the resources that they need, and this gives them an opportunity to say this is what we have to do to comply with this
and to make our people's data safe
and secure. Representative Richman, you're recognized for
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
9:03
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richman, I truly appreciate what you're trying to do here. I mean, you're absolutely right. The vulnerability of this country, I just don't think the public or even a lot of times our government realizes how vulnerable we are. But my concern is that with zero-day type attacks, so much of what our protection seems to be reactive instead of proactive.
Is there technology or something coming along that's going to allow us to be more proactive against these zero days? Because if not, then I don't see a way where our cities and counties are going to be able to get their information back if we're still trapped in this reactive situation. Do you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
9:49
understand what I'm asking? I do, and I appreciate the question. It's something from a technology perspective that we deal with every single day. Environmental constraints, having data that's displaced or misplaced, having data that becomes corrupt or encrypted,
these are things that we have to deal with in an overall systems perspective. Yes, technologies are changing constantly to provide us with opportunities. Right now, unfortunately, from a ransomware perspective, there are very few options, depending on the encryption level, depending on everything else. However, the great bill that Representative Meeks has already presented and ran through gives us the infrastructure to work toward finding these resolutions, setting up the team to be able to deploy best practices,
and then the ability for us as a state to audit those practices to ensure that all of our different organizations are following along with that. The key here is compliance. Can you prevent every attack? No, you cannot. There are 10 million of them out there trying to stop it, and we've got 100 of us trying to get in, and we've got 100 of us trying to stop them. So without adequate and sustained disaster recovery techniques, then you do have some difficulty. And that's one of the things that we need to get to as a state and as our individual organizations.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
11:10
Follow-up. Thank you. You said we can't prevent every attack. I go back to what are the counties and cities going to be able to do
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
11:23
if they can't go ahead and recover their information? What are they going to do? There will be, speaking from a technical perspective, once you've established the backup and restoration processes, you will always have an opportunity to do a restore. There is the potential in any situation for a bit of
data loss you can provide you can recover from that from manual entry or whatever you have to do to recover usually that in even in the worst circumstances you see less than a 24-hour data loss situation in best cases where you have multiple environments doing standard kinds of backup and during stores and data that's in multiple sites you usually can have a much faster recovery. But generally speaking, you might look at a day's worth of data in that kind of environment.
Representative Clowney, you recognize for a question? Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
12:18
you, Mr. Chair. So just to follow up on that answer, if that's the case, that we can restore it that quickly, why are any of these cyber attacks done or successful? What is the benefit to the attackers if we can just get the thing, all of the information restored? And I guess my second question with respect to that is, does that cost money? Does that cost me? What is the downside to people that
Speaker 18
12:42
have to do the restoring? Absolutely. Good
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
12:45
question. Thank you for that. The key is that not every environment
is compliant. And I don't want to get into specific details here about some of the conversations that I've had, but I can tell you that we have a lot of challenges to be able to get to the point that we have good, solid backups. These things are just not occurring in the state government because of lack of funding, because of lack of awareness, because of the lack of ability to understand that that's what you need. Whatever it happens to be, we're not in a good position. And part of this, the bill that Representative Meeks is championed, is to address that and find
out exactly where we are and how we have to make changes and then look for those opportunities to implement those changes as we go forward. Without knowing, you can't possibly get to a position that you're protected. So the first step is making sure that that bill gets through and that we do have good, solid intel and understanding of where we are and how we're going to move
forward. Seeing no further questions from committee members. Representative Rich, if you would, just step aside. We've got moved from the end of the table and we've got
someone signed up to speak against the bill. County Judge Ben Cross, if you would, just have to sit at the end of the table. Judge and identify yourself to the committee and you're
Speaker 35
14:08
recognized to thank you mr chairman i'm pope county judge ben cross uh pleased to be the opportunity to come here and speak today it is in opposition to this bill because i'm probably the most uh recent ransomware attack survivor and pope county went through a ransomware attack in january of this
year. We did pay a ransom to get our data back and to limit our ability as a governmental entity to be able to take it upon ourselves to be able to negotiate such instances really would handicap counties, cities, other entities of public government due to the fact that there is so much based on county and municipal hardware servers. And for our case, we didn't lose a days worth of data, we found out we had been hacked nearly a year prior and that the actors,
the bad actors as they're referred to, had been crypto mining through our own servers. Now, the process by which they infiltrated and how they did it is a very technical one. And I'll be the first to say I'm not a technical IT savvy guy, but I've become very much aware of how they're combated and how they are addressed. I'll be glad to say our ransom started at $550,000. We think it was based out of the country of Moldova. And I hired a very specific
technical group to handle this situation for our county. And we were able to recover 100% of our data for $65,000 in the end. This process was very technical. It dealt out over about a 30 day time span. But just to give you one increment of data that was held hostage, that was encrypted and unable to recoup, was unsolved homicides through our sheriff's office, active homicide
investigations that are underway for prosecution, active child rape cases. All that data was encrypted, withheld from us, and we had no access to it. And had we not had the ability to pay a ransom as much as we hated to do it, we paid that ransom and recovered 100% of our data so that we can now prosecute those cases. And that's just one snippet. Obviously, they had all of our operating systems. We were essentially dead in the water for a month. But the ability to negotiate, to hire
high-tech individuals to do this case for us, and they do refer to it as a case. It's a criminal case of which Representative Tosh and I are well aware. Those kind of case and that bit of flexibility saved our county. Now, it cost $65,000. Now, I'll give you the follow-up. The follow-up is, after this, we did, we learned how we were lacking, and I have since spent over a quarter of a million dollars on new hardware, new backup servers, new cloud-based technology,
as well as what will be referred to as the antivirus of the future, which is artificial intelligence-based, human-based antivirus that's in our system now. So going forward, we are a hundred times more protected. This was a costly learning experience, But the moral to the whole story is, is we were able to recover for $65,000 all of our county's data and all these critical cases that will be available for prosecution.
So that's just one snippet. I don't want to expend too much of your time.
Speaker 36
17:53
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions if you have them. Representative Berry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Judge, for your service and your many years' service to the Arkansas State Police as well. And so do you guys not have LifeLock? But all kidding aside, do you have insurance? You know, you can purchase insurance for cyber attacks.
Speaker 35
18:19
I have learned through this process that cyber insurance is very detailed in the fine print And that if it is a, generally, if it's an out of domestic U.S. origin, like this one we tracked back to Moldova, if it's an out of country origin, cyber insurance will not pay. So we did not have it in effect. No, sir, we did not. But I found out if we did, there are many caveats that if it originates with a State Department, basically a State Department warning country, then they're not going to pay in most cyber insurance cases.
Very interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. Representative Moore, recognized for
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
19:00
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Judge, thank you for coming here and speaking on this important issue. Practically, if this law were to be enacted, what does it look like to back up
Speaker 35
19:15
your data for Pope County? Now, now that we have spent an additional quarter of a million dollars on servers, cloud-based technology, artificial intelligence based antivirus moving forward we would be very secure going forward
but from last week of january going backwards we were like everybody else we we had what what a county and what a city can afford version
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
19:39
of antivirus follow up thank you is there not a less expensive and more direct way to upload this data to a off-server data storage device we are we
Speaker 35
19:51
are in that now that's where we have gone to a cloud cloud-based
data retrieval source so going forward from this point yes for us but we had to spend over 250 000 of money that we frankly didn't have to spend to get us to that point So I think the moral to the story is, given time and given resources, resources being money, counties and cities could get to that point. We're far from there at this point. Representative
Carr, you're recognized for a question.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
20:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the effort and everything you put into making the county secure, the investments that you made in technology servers and all. Before the attack, was it a server that was attacked, or was it laptop or just desktop?
Speaker 35
20:42
This was such a high-tech invasion, if you take it, that they actually went into our backup servers first. We had off-site backup servers, but they were hardwired to one another through fiber optics. And they went into the backup, took those over, were in there for about a year, crypto mining, unbeknownst to us, out of our own servers.
Then they came into our main server. Then, I'll just give you a direct, for instance, they went from the main server to desktops, and they even went through our HVAC system, thermostat on the wall that's controlled by a computer. They went from that thermostat on the wall into the sheriff's laptop by way of his printer. So we went from backup server to server to desktop to a thermostat to a printer and back in. Okay. Thank you. I do
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
21:32
appreciate all the work you've done to protect yourselves.
Thank you. Seeing no further questions from committee members, Judge, good to see you again. Thank you for being here. Thank you, sir. I have one individual signed up to speak for the bill. Is that correct? Nate Bell? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Speaker 53
22:00
really appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am speaking in my personal capacity and not on behalf of any client as a citizen of Arkansas.
There are two points that I wanted to make to the committee relative to this bill that I think are important. The United States government has for decades taken the position of not negotiating with terrorists. Why have we done that? Because it protects our citizens. Because when we negotiate with terrorists and have a policy of negotiating with terrorists, it empowers terrorists. it increases the likelihood that we're going to be targeted. Passing a bill like this sends a message to people who would conduct these attacks on our servers within the state that in fact we're
we can't negotiate with you so therefore there's much less interest in doing so. That that is one important point that I think you need to keep in mind as you consider this bill. The other thing that I think is a very important part of this discussion is the fact that you just simply can't put the state in a position of going out and telegraphing to the world that we're
vulnerable. It's just not a good idea. many of you like like myself have sat in this room for city county local audits and you've heard the most common ding that happens is what backups the backups weren't in place they were they weren't done correctly there's a reason why that's on their audit it's because those need to be done they need to be secure and they need to be taken care of and passing a bill like this sends a much
stronger signal just as judge cross indicated that these counties these cities these subdivisions of state government need to be more judicious in ensuring that their backups are secure and that they're taken care of and devote and spend the money proactively to avoid being taken over and with that mr chair i'm
done any questions from committee seeing none thank you thank you mr bill. Representative Richardson, you recognize too. You ready to close with your bill? Thank you,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
24:23
Mr. Chair. I actually would like,
I appreciate Judge Cross coming up and making testimony. I think he almost makes my case for me. The reality is that we have a very vulnerable environment, very vulnerable, and it's going to take this legislative body to do something to put us in a position that we can be proactive to protect ourselves on the front end instead of having happen what happens with Judge Cross and Pope County. The reality is if we don't act, it's
going to continue to happen, and unfortunately, more often than not, these things end up with data being lost permanently. So I would appreciate a good vote from the committee and thanks for hearing this. Representative
Richardson has closed with his bill. Do I have a motion from committee? Representative Moore? Have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Representative Berry recognized for discussion on the
Speaker 36
25:25
motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman. What concerns me I guess and I get
I understand where you're going, but, you know, for my rural communities, they can't afford to do what Ben Cross did over there in Pope County. They don't have the resources. They can't fork out $250,000 to buy new servers and all the fancy gadgets and gizmos. And I think my county judges in rural counties, with the very small amount of resources, they barely survive as it is.
And I just don't know what the fix is, but it's almost like there should be a fiscal impact or something. If this bill were to pass, what is it going to cost all these counties and cities in order to come up with the infrastructure, in order to do exactly what Judge Cross did? But we don't have that. And I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's government overreach at this point, until we have the resources for them to meet those requirements, for us to tell cities or counties that they can't go out and pay ransom
in order to get their servers back, that I think that's a reckless disregard for the legislature to be doing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. Representative Meigs, you recognize, speak on
the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:49
And I definitely appreciate the effort here, but I, too, am opposed to this. Some of the concerns that you've brought up, and unfortunately I didn't have a chance to delve into this in detail in the well yesterday,
but the bill that we passed yesterday is strictly designed to handle this situation, to try to bring resources to the counties and the cities, to help them in recovery efforts, and also to set standards in the state. So that's the effort to try to get us to where we need to be on this. And obviously it will take time to get there. In the meantime, I think there's a misconception about who's doing these hacks. A lot of people think it's a couple guys in a basement with a couple computers.
These are generally very well-funded, state-sanctioned groups that are doing this. These are organizations where the employees have retirement plans and medical benefits and all that. And their sole job is to hack these cities. And even if we put the very best in place, that still doesn't mean that the bad guys still aren't going to be able to figure out a way to get in there. I was at one of our NCSL meetings several years ago, and a Russian intelligence agent was giving a presentation to us.
He picked somebody randomly out of the crowd, and some of the data he was able to pull up in a matter of seconds from their secured profiles was amazing. So even with the very best, it doesn't mean that we can stop. And I think artificially tying the hands until we've got a better handle on this is only going to exasperate the situation. And so for the moment, I need to be a no on this, maybe we can get to a place in the future where we can do that and send that signal where we're not going to negotiate here.
But until we get to that point, you know, like the Pope County Sheriff said or county judge said, is $65,000 worth it to convict a criminal who's guilty of a heinous crime that otherwise would have walked? You know, yeah, definitely. So I am a no on this, would ask you to vote no on this, and then hopefully maybe some point in the future we can get to where our cities and counties are where we could vote something like this out.
Representative Meeks has spoken on the motion. Representative Beck, you're recognized to speak on
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
29:24
the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I like what we're trying to do here, and I think it's probably more raw that if we're going to do it, we should do it for the state. I think too much pushing down to the local is taking away their local control. Obviously, we have skin in the game on this, but we should be communicating, in my opinion, we should be communicating with the locals as to how they can protect themselves
and what the risks are if they do not protect themselves. But then they have to make the ultimate decision how they can protect their own records and what they're really putting their agencies up for if they do not protect these. So I have to be against this because of the fact that I think we're pushing stuff down to the local level that they should have control over. Representative Beck,
spoken on the motion. Representative Richmond, you're recognized. Speak on the motion.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
30:22
Again, I try not to be redundant here, but I think that what you've heard reflects the committee's concern about this. I would love to vote for this. I want to vote for this. But what I'm afraid of is that we're putting the cart before the horse. I think that we really need to try to help these counties get prepared first before we say, okay, it's time to stop on this, that they need to have the resources. And that's going to be a hard push from the state
because of all the competition. And again, we're always coming up with excuses why this doesn't need to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed. And I think that what you're trying to do here is really on the right track. But again, I believe we're going to leave counties and cities in a poor position to deal with things if we pass this bill, that we need to first help the counties and cities. And that would be the bill that I would want to see, a little bit like what Meeks has got going. But at some point, we work on that, and then we can come back and say, okay, you need to knock this off.
And I'll just say this. I don't think your bill is going
to pass, so you might want to consider that. Representative Rich, you spoke on
Chair
Unverified
31:42
the motion. Representative Moore, recognize, speak on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's been a
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
31:47
lot of talk about what we can and can't afford to do. Coming from a county of 6,400 people, Monroe County couldn't afford to pay a ransom, and I'm not sure we can afford not to enact this measure. We're talking about backing up data to an offline piece of hardware.
I think this is a pretty reasonable request because these bad actors that we're calling them are terrorists. The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists or pay ransom to terrorists, and I don't think Arkansas should either. So for that, I'm voting for this bill. Representative
Moore has spoken on the motion. Representative Crawford, you recognize I speak on the
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
32:29
motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering if you would, of course, we're late in this session, so that's probably a mute point.
But this would be a good
resolution to be able to begin to talk to the counties about what they could do in the cyber attacks. But at this point, I will be a
no. Seeing no further discussion on the motion. Representative Rich, I thought you had something to say
We have a motion of due pass We've already discussed the motion All in favor say aye All opposed say no The no's have it, the bill has failed Representative Rich, what I would recommend I really think you're on to something I agree with what a lot of the committee members said You might want to consider putting this into an ISP an interim study proposal, because I really think your intent is admirable, so I would look at it from that standpoint.
Speaker 64
33:41
I appreciate that. I appreciate it, committee. That makes me 0 for 2 in this committee, but I appreciate the vote, and I appreciate you
guys hearing this important matter. Okay. All right. Next on the agenda is Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker has an amendment committee members this will be Senate Bill 235 and we're handing out the amendment Senator B.
Wood give us just a second to get the amendment out. Yes sir
Senator Clark, I think everyone's got the amendment now, so you're recognized to
present your amendment. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:07
Chair and members. This was the bill that we passed out of here on Monday evening. During the course of the last couple days, Representative Ray notified me that David Scott, who's the chair of the Pulaski County Election Commission, had a couple of concerns about the bill, and so I wanted to amend the bill to accommodate his concerns, And that's what this amendment is, just to tell you what they are.
We had overseas voters, and he wanted to make sure that we were covering all UOCAVA voters. That's an acronym for the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. So we changed overseas voters to that. He also wanted to make sure that we could start counting Election Day votes before provisional absentee ballots were counted, which I thought was a good catch. And then really the last thing was he wanted the more serious cure process, meaning the only way to cure it is to show up in person and confirm that it's your ballot
if your ballot showed up through a designated bearer, but that's not the way you indicated it would be delivered. So that's the amendment. And again, it's just to accommodate the concerns from Pulaski County Election Commissioner Chairman David Scott. The
amendment has been presented. any questions? Representative Richmond, you're recognized for a question on the amendment. Mr.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
36:25
Chair, really, I would like to know if the Secretary of State's office would come to the table about this issue, if we have a representative here.
Yep, I'm standing up now, if you would. Senator Clark, just make room at the end of the table, and Secretary of State's office, if you would, just have a seat.
Speaker 73
36:56
Identify yourself to the committee. Good morning, Josh Bridges, Election Systems Analyst for the
Secretary of State. Mr. Bridges, Representative Richmond, has a question for you, and you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
37:05
Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming to the table. I was informed yesterday that there was a concern
at the Secretary of State's office about this. Are you guys all right now? or comment on that, please? I'm
Speaker 76
37:17
not sure what the specific concern was, Representative, but the Secretary is officially neutral on this bill. Well, that
was a lot of help. Thank you very much. Any further questions on the amendment? Representative Gene, you're recognized for a question on the amendment.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
37:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had some communications through emails and texts, which I'm not the most, and you all know this, the most social media savvy person in the room by far. But does this do anything that the Secretary of State had an election integrity ballot over the last two sessions that we've been working on in passing? Do you see anything in this bill that hurts our election integrity?
Chair
Unverified
38:18
Not that I'm specifically aware of, no, Representative. I'm not aware of anything that this bill would harm as far as
Speaker 85
38:29
election integrity. So, I mean, and I don't know who all
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
38:35
is sending this stuff out, But I think we've done a lot to try to secure ballots and secure elections. But I'm going to the horse's mouth now, and you're it.
But you see nothing in here that hurts the integrities of the last, I don't know, 20, 25 bills that we've had to secure it. You think this is
Chair
Unverified
39:01
okay? I'm not going to say that I'm the most educated person to speak necessarily on this my personal opinion is I believe that this is okay but again Secretary of State's office is officially neutral on this okay thank you
any further questions representative makes you recognize for a question
on the amendment any other questions on the amendment representative cloudy this is on the amendment. Any other questions on the amendment? Seeing none, Senator Clark, you're recognized to close with the amendment. I'm closed on the amendment. Appreciate a good vote. Representative Clark is closed with the amendment. Do I have a motion? I have a motion to adopt. Any discussion
on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion, the amendment has been adopted. Senator Clark, you can now, Mr. Bridges, I no longer need it at the end of the table, but stay in the room in case something comes up. Senator Clark, you're now recognized to present your Senate Bill 235 as amended. I don't have much to add based
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:20
on the discussion that we had the other night, just to address
Representative Jean, I would tell you first of all, my opinion is that this really provides for more security for the counting of absentee ballots for a variety of ways. One is that it has a chain of custody for absentee ballots. Once they come in, they have to be handled in a certain way so that they can't be misplaced. If an election commissioner suspects fraud, they're now required to report that to the State Board of Elections and the local prosecuting attorney. When absentee ballots are counted, there have to be two people involved at all times,
so you have someone looking over your shoulder and make sure there's nothing nefarious going on. If there's any serious flaw with the absentee ballot, for example, your voter ID is not included, you don't send your voter statement back, the only way that you can cure that is to personally show up and confirm that you are the person who voted that ballot. And again, it's not just me saying that. I've worked with a number of people over the last two sessions, again, all of whom are Republicans, some of whom are very conservative.
And the person I worked with this session was Clint Lancaster, who I think would describe himself as the most serious election security advocate for Arkansas. And I'm not sure if you were in here the other night, but he testified in support of the bill, and he's supportive of it. So if there's any specific concern in the language, I'm happy to address it. But what this does is it just modernizes the counting of absentee ballots so that if it's a legitimate ballot, it will be counted. If it's not, it won't.
Representative Beck, you're recognized for
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
42:06
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess I'm speaking a little bit from the viewpoint of my county and what I've seen. And, you know, those election commissioners are really busy on election day. And has anyone, when you guys have been discussing this, has anyone really talked about this, if they're beginning this early voting, counting these things early on election day,
isn't that going to just add, you know, more to their plate that day? I'm concerned about it. Have we heard anything back from them saying, you know, this is another thing we're just not going to be able to do or something? We don't have the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:51
manpower to do it or whatever? Under current law, all absentee ballots have to be counted by 7.30 p.m. on Election Day. So it's an obligation they have on Election Day right now. It's not adding that to their
load. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
43:07
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I finally am more awake now than when we explored it the other night and trying to get a handle on this. So there's some things in here I do like, but there's a couple of concerns that I have, and I'm wondering if maybe you can help me. One of the most important aspects of the ballot is maintaining the secrecy of the ballot. And there's two places in here where I think that that is potentially violated. During the CURE section on page 9, on line 24 to 27, it says reviewing the ballot located inside the inner envelope marked as provisional in a private and independent manner to verify the ballot was marked as a provisional ballot.
So somebody else, in reviewing that provisional ballot with the person coming to do the cure, whoever is reviewing that ballot is seeing potentially how that person voted. And then again on page... Let's take them up one at a time. Okay. Don't forget.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
44:15
Yeah. This was actually one of the suggestions by Mr. Lancaster. The only person who can review that ballot is the voter. If you look up on line 5, it says, may be cured by the voter, and then there's a colon.
And then the next relevant part is line 10, where it says, by, and another colon. And that's when you get down to your section. So the voter is the only one who can review the ballot, and they have to do it in a private and independent manner on line 25 and 26. They're the only person who can, the voter is reviewing their own ballot to say, hey, this is actually the ballot I voted. They have to do it in a private manner so no one else can see. And that was, so there's no, at least in the way this is written and intended, no one other than the voter can review the ballot.
And it's one of the ballot
security measures that was suggested by Mr. Lancaster, and I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:15
put it in the bill at his suggestion. Okay. All right. Follow up. Follow up your recognition.
Which is good. That takes care of that one. So the other one is on page 4, line 20. It says the election official shall place the absentee ballots while preserving the secrecy of the ballot in the inner absentee envelope. Of course, the inner envelope is where the vote is actually at.
So any concerns? I know the language says, while preserving the secrecy of the voter's ballot, but, yeah, that's exactly it. It preserves this. All
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
45:51
the other absentee ballot materials are in an outer envelope, and they have to do it. I'm quoting the bill, while preserving the secrecy of the voter's ballot within the inner absentee envelope. So the language there is written specifically to protect the secrecy of the person's ballot. Any other follow-up, Representative?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
46:16
so this is an election official who's doing this, and if you have an election official who is a person of integrity, you would hope they would do that just by default. But if you had somebody who was not above board, could they theoretically violate the privacy of that vote in this situation? So I've got two responses to that.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
46:43
Number one is, if that's true, this bill is not increasing the chances of that. That can happen right now the way that canvassing, and again, canvass is the word that's used for counting absentee ballots. That can happen right now. So this is certainly not increasing that. In fact, it's putting language in to ensure. The second response is, if this bill passes, you're going to have two people doing it. And that's one of the protections that I'm putting in the bill. You're always going to have two people canvassing every absentee ballot. So at that point, you not only have to have one bad actor, you've got to have two working in concert with each other.
So actually, I believe this bill dramatically reduces the chances of that because, you know, I don't think it's likely you're going to have two bad actors, but we're explicitly putting in the language you have to preserve the secrecy of the voters' ballot within the inner absentee envelope. Okay. Any further
questions from committee members? Seeing none, Senator Clark, if you'd just move over, we've got someone signed up to speak against this bill. May Faulkner.
I'm sorry, Mack Faulkner. I apologize. I've been called a lot. I apologize for that, Mr. Faulkner. If you would, just identify yourself to the committee and you recognize, speak against
Mack Faulkner
Unverified
48:05
this bill. Yes, my name is Mack Faulkner. I'm a resident of Pulaski County. and a
Speaker 100
48:11
citizen, I reckon, is representing any group. I think most of the public, including me, has been very concerned with voter integrity, especially over the last few number of years.
And when I read this bill, I'm not an expert in these matters, but on page 13b, it says a ballot is not automatically considered fraudulently submitted merely because it was not counted because a designated bearer, authorized agent, or administrator delivered the ballot in the name of the designated bearer, authorized agent, or administrator
did not compare with the information on the voter's statement. Voter chain of custody, this to me just flies in the face of one legal voter, one legal vote. It opens up all sorts of mystery to me where you have somebody that is not authorized to bear a vote for somebody. It says it should be fraudulent if they were not the designated person to bring the vote in, in my opinion.
I would vote against the bill. Any questions from committee members for Mr. Faulkner? Ms. Client? Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But the section that
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
49:40
you just read does say that that ballot that you just mentioned would not be counted. Yes. Okay, so it would not be... Okay, thank you. It should not
be counted. Seeing no further questions from committee members, Mr. Fowler, I want to thank you for appearing before this committee and thank you for your testimony.
Senator Clark. I see no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Clark, you're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
50:13
recognized to close with your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Clowney really hit on
this already. That ballot would not have been counted. If you look up on the same page, line one, it says merely because it was not counted because. Now we're talking about whether we're going to turn it over to the prosecutor or not. So it's a different procedure.
If the names don't compare and it's not cured, that ballot won't be counted. So we're now down in the part where we're referring matters to the prosecutor for criminal prosecution. So just to clarify that. But with that, again, you know, I don't want to be duplicative, but I've worked on this for two and a half years, and I've probably made 50 changes to the bill. And the suggestions have come from Bob Ballinger, Breanne Davis, Bart Hester, Kim Hammer, Clint Lancaster, Republican election commissioners, Republican elected county clerks.
And this has been vetted very thoroughly over a multi-year period, again, almost entirely by folks who are concerned about election integrity. And it's just going to improve the process for county absentee ballots in Arkansas, and I'd appreciate
a good vote. Senator Clark has
closed with his bill. It's the pleasure of the committee. I have a motion. Representative Scott, do pass. I have a motion. Do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. I think the no's had it, so the bill has failed. Want to
Speaker 29
52:06
roll call? Got one, two. All the roll, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 104
52:20
Representative Meeks? No. Representative Meeks, no. Representative Gene?
Speaker 105
52:26
Representative Gene? Representative Wardlaw? Representative Wardlaw? Representative Miller? Representative Miller? Representative Womack? Representative Womack? Yes. Representative Bentley? Representative Bentley? Representative Gonzales? Yes. Representative Gonzales? Yes. Representative Beck? Representative Beck?
Representative Richmond Representative Gassaway Representative Crawford Representative Scott Representative Scott, yes Representative Clowney, yes Representative Milligan, no Representative Carr, no Representative Carr, no.
Representative Underwood, no. Representative Underwood, no. Representative Berry, Representative Berry, Representative Moore, Representative Moore, Representative McElroy, Representative McElroy. Senator, the bill has failed. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
53:45
Chair. Thank you, members. Thank you for being
here. Committee members of House Bill 1596, Ray.
I see him in the room. Also 1598, Representative Ray. He's not in the room. Representative Plotty, are you going to run your bill today? Okay. Representative Perry, you recognize? Rep. J. Perry, you're recognized to present House Bill 1817. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
54:27
House Bill 1817 is a bill to amend the law regarding who can run for office and whether or not they've been found guilty of a public trust crime. It also deals with definitions of what a public trust crime is, whether or not it's a misdemeanor. Currently, if a person has been found guilty of a public trust crime, they are ineligible to hold office.
under Section B.1 of the bill. It would amend the law and state that if the offense is a misdemeanor, they would be allowed to hold office if the offense is sealed or expunged and the office is for a particular, whether it's a school board, city council, quorum court, or a county township.
That's the gist of the bill. It gets a little bit more.
I'd be glad to try to entertain any
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
55:40
questions. Any questions from committee members? Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to make sure I'm fully understanding, so let's say 10 years ago someone was convicted of a misdemeanor for a traffic violation. This would allow them to run, but if they were convicted of theft or something, which would be something dealing with money that would not.
Am I correct on that? Or can you give me maybe an
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
56:06
example? You know, I'll try. If the theft was a misdemeanor and it was expunged or sealed and they're running for one of the particular offices, they would be able to run for office. Any further questions
from committee members? Seeing none. No one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Perry, you're recognized. Closed with your bill.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
56:32
I'm closed for the bill, and we've had some instances in Pulaski County where it's arisen on this, and we're trying to address that issue and see if we can come to light on some of that. So with that, I'm closed. Representative
Perry is closed with the bill. What's the pleasure of the
committee? We have a motion due pass. We have a motion due pass.
any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed say no
no those have it the bill has failed thank you mr chairman thank you committee House Bill 1823, Representative Flowers, which has an amendment. Yes, sir.
Thank you. I recognize, well, give us just a second while we hand out the amendment. Sure. Thank you.
Representative Flowers, you're recognized to
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
58:27
present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, what this amendment does is add a Senate sponsor, Senator Clark Tucker, for this bill. What these amendments reflect are changes based on
a conversation that I had with a representative of the Municipal League who had concerns about the way that the bill was framed
or is currently framed. And that is to apply the law across the board for all entities under the authority of FOIA. And what was shared with me was a
concern about small municipalities that may not have existing capacity to publish
meeting agendas and meeting notices. And after a pretty short conversation about that, as well as
concerns regarding the use
of social media and what happens, how that impacts municipalities sometimes in terms of being able to control comments and the like. I agreed to make some suggested changes that would instead limit this law to the entities that currently have the
internet capability to publish meeting agendas
and meeting notices within the time frame allotted. And then the amendment also applies that time frame, which is generally the standard for governmental bodies and other bodies for non-emergency notice that's given with the current standard. And that current standard is for public entities to notify people who request to be notified.
And typically, that's done through email. Many of you might already know that I worked for the Bureau of Legislative Research, And I might be dating myself, but back in the 90s, that's exactly what we did. We had an interested parties list, and we would fax notification of meetings and agendas to those interested parties really two weeks before a meeting and even, of course, for call meetings within 48 hours.
And so what this bill really does is to use what we already have and codify what we already do to bolster and
ensure adequate or really optimal transparency. And the, so the bottom line is
the amendment, it reflects
a change that I indicated that
I would make for the, to address the concerns of
the Municipal League. Representative Flowers has closed with our amendment. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, we have a motion to adopt. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Your motion has been adopted.
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:02:17
Now you can present your bill as amended. Thank you. And I think I pretty well described what the bill does since the amendment made some changes to make it less,
or really to make it
pretty easy for those under the authority of FOIA to be able to comply. And
essentially, any entity that currently has a social media site or currently has a website, they would just be required to use that tool in
order to notify the public that a meeting would be occurring within a reasonable amount of time. And that's stipulated in the bill.
I'd be open for any questions. Representative Flowers has closed with any questions from committee members.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:03:17
Representative Crawford, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. I think I'm too tired to
read, so I've read it. That's all right. So what you're actually doing, you're adding and you're not taking away. You're just adding that website.
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:03:36
Absolutely. different things. Absolutely. This does nothing to change the existing standard for those who ask
to be notified to be notified. What this does is says hey if you have a website or if you're on social media use your tools that you're already paying for that you already have to notify the public that you'll be meeting. Okay one follow-up please.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:03:58
You're recognized. So this is a may and not a shall. Oh it is
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:04:03
a shall but it's only a shall to the people who can do it
right now. So for anyone who doesn't have any city any committee task force for any county that does not currently have a website or social media page they are they do not have to comply with that method of publishing. Okay thank you. Any Any further questions from
committee members? Okay. See no further
questions. Representative Milligan, you're recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
1:04:36
mayor there for 10 years in Olan Lake City, and we, of course, went by all the rules for our meetings.
But we had an ordinance that said anybody could get on the agenda, I believe it was a Thursday by noon before the meeting or Friday before the meeting. So that's going to, what they're going to publish, you're saying 48 hours, so are the cities going
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:05:03
to change their ordinances, I guess? No, no, no. So what this says is you have to just do this. You have to publish in this way within at least 48 hours of notification. But that doesn't include emergency meetings.
Okay. Yeah. any further questions from committee members seeing none representing flowers if you would just move over we've got someone here to speak uh in regards to this bill sure signed up to speak uh for the bill is dr Dr. Joyce, I'll let you introduce yourself to the committee.
Speaker 141
1:05:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My
Joyce Ajayi
Unverified
1:05:57
name is Dr. Joyce Ajayi. I'm with the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics. We are a university-based research center housed in the College of Business at UCA. We conduct original academic research and policy analysis on issues like government transparency and I am co-author on ACA's biennial Arkansas transparency report. I'm here to express my opinion in support of this
bill and the opinion that I'm going to express today is solely mine and does not necessarily reflect the position of UCA. This bill creates room for residents access to meetings so that they can participate in and oversee the making of policies that affect their lives. Residents need this access so that they can hold public officials accountable for their actions. The current law, the way it is, has no provision giving residents easy
access to notification of meetings. The law does not sufficiently guarantee that residents will know about this meeting so have the opportunity to attend because residents must request the information before it can be provided. This sometimes can have grave consequences and we've we've been doing the transparency report since 2018 and we do that every other year. We observed in 2019, for example in Pope County, quorum court members held three
meetings without notifying the public. The meetings on May 7, August 1, and August 6 in 2019 were about awarding a casino license to one of five contenders and the public had no notice of that meeting. Many cities and counties still do not publish time and place of their meetings or meeting agendas online. Like I said, we've been tracking this since 2018. And one of the components that the transparency report tracks is the web transparency of public meetings. Currently
only 33 out of Arkansas 75 counties publish meeting time and place online. For cities, We only have 60 out of 112, and this is not because they don't have standalone websites. 90 out of 112 first-class cities have a combination of third-party websites or standalone websites, but they do not publish this information. In this day, local entities should be able to publish this information on their own website
or through public facing platforms such as Facebook or other social media platforms or through the association of counties or the Arkansas Municipal League. Finally, we explain in our report, and I can give copies to anyone who wants a copy, that the legislative intent of the current public open meeting law is to make government decision making process accessible to the public and to encourage residents to participate in this process.
Taxpayers need to know and should know when matters that touch on their community are being discussed and this bill seeks to protect that. My recommendation is that it should pass. Thank you for your time. Thank
you, Doctor. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, we appreciate you being here for this committee and giving your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Also signed up to speak on the bill is Lanny Richmond. Mr. Richmond, if you would just identify yourself
to the committee and who you represent, you're recognized to speak on the bill.
Lanny Richmond
Unverified
1:09:52
Thank you, Chair. My name is Lanny Richmond. I'm legal counsel at the Arkansas Municipal League. I put that we're here to speak
Speaker 146
1:09:59
on the bill. We wanted to thank Representative Flowers for making the amendments at this point we haven't taken the bill as amended back to our executive committee so we have no position on the bill but I just wanted to state that for
the committee any questions from committee members seeing none thank you
representative flyers you're recognized to close with your bill as amended oh I'm sorry Have someone else? I got here late and did not get to sign up. I'd like to speak on the bill. Sorry, I can't hear you. Just go ahead and have a seat at the end of the table. I'm
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:10:41
sorry, sir. I didn't find you on the sign. I'm sorry. What I was trying to say is I apologize. I got here late and did not get to sign up.
That's perfectly all right. You're more than welcome to testify.
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:10:54
just identify yourself to the.
Sonny Alborado
Unverified
1:10:59
Sure. My name is Sonny Alborado. I'm speaking on behalf of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Coalition, which is a group, a private group composed of journalists, print and broadcast lawyers, transparency activists, and some public officials.
I'm speaking for the bill. I think this is an excellent enhancement of the FOIA to give the public more access to knowledge about the meetings of their cities, counties, and other entities. And I think, as the previous speaker said, most entities should have the capability of doing this with ease.
And in my perspective, it basically brings the FOIA into the 21st century by not limiting notice of meetings and agendas to people who actually request it. That's all I have. Thank you. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you, sir, for
being here today and testifying. No one else signed up to speak for or against the bill? Anyone else in attendance?
Seeing none, Representative Flowers, you're recognized to
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
1:12:28
close with your bill. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I'll just briefly say that this is a good government bill. In the past, I've done a far more expansive measure that was by far bipartisan, and this bill does not have any opposition at this time, and
I think it would be a good government
bill, and I appreciate a good vote. Representative Flowers has closed with her bill as amended. Pleasure to come in, Representative Richmond. Motion. I have a motion from Representative Richman do pass as amended. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. Your bill is passed as amended. Thank you so much, committee. Thank you.
Representative Womack, was you going to run Senate Bill 380? Alan Clark's bill Senate Bill 380 committee members Senator Clark Thank you Mr. Chair
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:13:42
and committee members this is a very simple good government common sense bill I'm going to go through it real quick because it's very short and simple to understand basically when a citizen this bill provides that when a citizen
makes a freedom of information request that the custodian will respond. It's pretty much just being courteous. And it lays out the guidelines. If no records exist, then the custodian has to respond that those records don't exist. If they are subject to exemptions, then the custodian just has to respond with what those exemptions are. And if the custodian lacks control over that, so that's not the appropriate person to be making that request for,
than a custodian has to respond with who it is if they know. It also provides that the custodian's response can be provided via email. And that's pretty much it. There's no known opposition. This has been vetted by the Arkansas Press Association, Freedom of Information Coalition, the Arkansas Freedom of Information Task Force are all in support of the bill. And I would be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from committee members?
Seeing none, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative, you recognize
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
1:15:04
and close with the bill. Thank you very much, committee, and I'll
just make a motion, do pass. Representative Womack's closed with the bill. He's made a motion, do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have. Congratulations, your bill has passed. Thank you. Senate Bill 426. Is there anyone in here to run that bill for Senator Irvin?
Seeing none. House Bill 1847, Representative Gassaway. Many members, this will probably be the last committee meeting we have, so these bills will just probably die in committee, but the sponsors are not here. So House Bill 1849, Representative McKenzie.
Representative McKenzie, you recognize, identify yourself in the committee, and you recognize and present your bill. Representative
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:16:12
Britt McKenzie, District 7. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I don't mean for this to be too fast. I think this is an important issue, but I do understand and respect the time that we've all had to commit to our committees recently. My bill is very simple. It replaces the state bird from a mockingbird to a mallard duck. This was filed late last night. It was something I was talking about earlier in session. There's been some additional attention on the issue of the state bird in the last few days, and I felt like it was important to put this bill into the record.
At the end of the day, the mallard duck generates during our 60 days of hunting season a million dollars a day in total revenue for the state of Arkansas. Beyond that, the implications of revenue that our state collects in terms of fees, licenses, permits in order to obtain a waterfowl stamp as well as the hunting license that follow it are significant to our revenue from the state. I can think of no greater distinction than allowing this bird that has created such a wealth of our economy
the distinction of being our state bird. At the end of the day, Arkansas is the duck hunting capital of the world. The Quapaw have been hunting migratory waterfowl for thousands of years in what is now the state of Arkansas. I believe that it's an important distinction. It's one that requires our attention. I want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to ask questions. I am excited to announce that the Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation endorses this bill. I'm, again, filing last night trying to garner support for this bill as quickly as I can.
I'm optimistic that other organizations that represent not only conservation, but wildlife management will come to support this bill as well. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Representative Richmond, do you have a
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:18:03
question? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that. Representative McKenzie, doesn't it just seem odd to you that we're going to
Speaker 154
1:18:10
be out there blasting away at our state bird? I don't. And I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:18:15
understand that this is the online, it's called the To Kill a Mockingbird Bill.
I get that. I understand and respect that. At the end of the day, anyone that purchases a waterfowl tag or a sportsman's license, most of those are adorned with pictures of the animals that we end up taking for the purposes of harvesting that animal to eat and whatever. That is a natural process of conservation. I honor and respect the mallard duck. It is a beautiful and majestic creature that travels tens of thousands of miles every year to call Arkansas home. And I think even by IRS standard, it spends
enough time here that it could be declared a citizen. So I do respect the fact that it is something that we would inevitably take in hunting, I don't have any issue with it.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:19:02
Follow up. So declare it a citizen and we're still going to blast away. No, that was just in terms of how long it spends time in our
state, but I appreciate the question. Representative Crawford, you're recognized for a
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:19:18
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we have a financial impact on this with changing all of that on
And I don't know, do we have paper that has the bird on it? I mean, I like the mallard duck. I think it's good. I just wondered about the financial impact. I do not have a
fiscal impact. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:50
I was going to ask you if you had consulted with Representative Ordlaw on this because he tried something similar a couple years ago.
But my real question is, what is the range of the mallard duck? Because the mallard duck is primarily going to be in eastern Arkansas, and you're not going to find, there'll be some, but you're not going to find mallard ducks in the Ozarks or the southwest part of the state where mockingbirds are universally seen across Arkansas. So we want our state bird to be prevalent across the entire state, I would think, instead of just concentrating in one area of the state, and I didn't know if you might have a response to that.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:20:28
Yeah, so I have some information. I don't know the general sampling in terms of duck count, which I know the Arkansas Game of Fish conducts, I think, four or five times annually. They survey primarily in the eastern part of the state. The way that our federal government looks about migratory birds is in terms of flyways. The flyway for our central flyway does encompass all of the state of Arkansas. I represent a portion of the northwest part of the state. there are there is natural migratory birds that do come through albeit they like to follow natural boundaries and paths this eastern part the eastern part
of the state does not include the ozirk plateau it is a lower elevation and at the end of the day that is where the food source is so over thousands of years of operating conditioning the birds have trained themselves to fly from you know Manitoba and Saskatoon across Minnesota Iowa Illinois and into Arkansas Missouri as well. So they are all over the state. Migratory birds still do have the capacity to not return. Some birds on that migratory path between north to south end up staying if they
found comfortable food stores sources and less pressure. So they are all over the state. They do oversample in the eastern part of
the state for sure. Representative Moore, you're recognized
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:21:41
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McKenzie, thanks for bringing this illustrious issue to our table this morning. Are you aware of any law that prohibits the state bird regardless of what it is from being harvested? No, there is no state law. That
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:21:58
was a question I did ask the Bureau of Legislative Research to ensure that I wasn't running a dead bill. No, there is nothing
that protects by the primary distinction of being our state bird. There are federal regulations in terms of migratory waterfowl. And that's what the state recognizes, and we set dates relevant to the federal distinction of migratory waterfowl. Representative Meeks, you recognize. You need follow-up,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:22:22
you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How many mallard ducks have you shot and killed? I don't
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:22:29
have a specific number. In terms of how many I've harvested and given grace, the fact that it provides sustenance to my family, countless.
Chair
Unverified
1:22:42
Representative, make sure you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:22:48
talking about migratory birds. So if we theoretically did this, since the mallards are migratory, there would be times of years when our state bird would leave us and we would be without state birds within the state, whereas the resilient
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:23:04
mockingbird stays with us year-round. That would be an accurate statement. But migratory birds or non-migratory or semi-migratory birds, they don't understand state borders.
They go to natural boundaries and food sources and woodland cover, and then they traffic back and forth. I am honored that the mallard duck chooses Arkansas to live here almost six months out of the year and then back onto its natural path up to Canada to nest and to create
the next year. Representative Beck, you're recognized
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:23:39
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I think the mockingbird's fine.
But I think you're underestimating the amount of cost this is because there's a lot of things that say that the mockingbird is our state bird. And it's going to take a lot of changing to get that done. So I think this is more of fiscal impact than you may think it has. So I think we should look at that before we decide to make that change. And for that reason, I'll be voting
no. Sorry. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative, you recognize, close with your bill.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:24:17
Again, thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I said at the top, during our 60 days of waterfowl season, this bird generates a million dollars a day in total revenue. I understand the fiscal impact that it could create, But the amount of dollars and people that come to our great state to hunt our conserved wetlands and to be a part of the year-on-year tradition of hunting migratory waterfowl, specifically the mallard duck, is very important to the state of Arkansas. I appreciate your consideration and hope for a good vote.
Representative McKenzie has closed with his bill. What's the pleasure of
the committee? Have a motion do pass from Representative Moore. Any discussion on the motion? Representative Richmond, you recognize the discussion on the motion. I think Representative Beck brought up a really
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:25:01
important issue as far as the cost. We don't have any idea what the cost is. And the other issue is that this
Speaker 154
1:25:07
bill was filed last night because of that. I'm a no. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. Nose have it, the bill has failed. I believe I saw Senator Irvin walk in the room before, well, yeah, go ahead and have a seat at the end of the table. Committee, this will be Senate Bill 426. Senator, if you would, just identify yourself to the committee, and you're recognized to present your bill.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:25:50
Thank you so much. I appreciate the ladies on the committee texting me to come run
my bill. Thank you. Senate Bill 426 is an important bill, and I wish I had Brooke Holloway. She's a state employee who came and testified on the Senate side. She was in the governor's conference room four years ago when we signed the original maternity leave bill for state employees, which we did to give them four weeks. What this bill does is it extends it to 12 weeks, which matches up with what we did for public school employees,
but it also adds foster children you would if you have a foster child that you have taken in you would be able to be qualified for taking the 12 weeks of maternity leave however you could only do that uh one every you know once a calendar I think you could do it if you're doing it with foster if you adopt that child then you would not be able to take it at that time so uh just clarifies that. The emergency clause was added specifically for Ms. Holloway because she is 34
weeks pregnant. And so as soon as this bill hopefully will be passed and signed by the governor, then she would be able to qualify for 12 weeks of maternity leave. Her testimony was pretty impactful in that she said for her, she had worked in the private sector where it was actually doubled and that this is such a great way to recruit young women into state government and to be state employees and she just actually broke down and became very emotional at what
our legislature has extended to her and for her ability to be with her child and so that she didn't have to choose between paying bills or taking care of her baby and bonding with her baby during that very critical time and with that i would answer any questions any questions from committee members saying none
no one has signed up speak for against the bill since you're recognized close with your bill members
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:27:52
this is you know our state employees they work so hard for us our staff members and originally it was a young lady on my public health staff
who I wrote the bill for, to be frank. She was a young woman who was a single mom and decided to have her own baby, and she just inspired me, and she was my staff member of the public health committee. So I'm proud to get pictures of all these babies from our state employees, and it's super cool. So with that, I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Senator Irwin has closed
Representative Scott have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed say no congratulations your bill has passed thank you for being before this committee thank you so much thank you for having me committee have one more bill on today's agenda HR 1082 by Representative Meeks Representative Meeks, if you would, just have a seat
We all know you, but we can identify yourself for the record and then you're recognized to present your bill
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:29:10
Alright, Representative Meeks Colleagues, what this does is as
you all know, the Constitution allows us to send out three constitutional amendments every year from the legislature The way it works is the House picks one, the Senate picks one And then for the third one, there has to be resolutions introduced on both the House and the Senate side that allows for the introduction of a third one.
Last go around, the third one was the Senate's. This go around, the third one would be ours if we choose to do so. And so what this does is this is the resolution that would allow me to introduce my constitutional amendment as the third constitutional amendment. It's the one on personal property taxing, allowing the General Assembly to work to phase that out over 25 years. So that's what it does. It just gives me the opportunity to try to present that as a third amendment.
Any questions from committee members? Representative Crawford. Thank
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:30:10
you, Mr. Chair. I was reading this and got confused. So are you exchanging, it
kind of looked like it in part of the bill, but in the other part it did not. But you're not exchanging one tax for another. Can you explain this?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:30:31
So let me check with the chair because this bill just gives me the
authority to introduce the constitutional amendment.
It's not the constitutional amendment itself. If the chairman wants me, I'm happy to address it. If not, I will get
Speaker 168
1:30:45
you offline. Will we have another time to
address that? Let me answer his question. Yes, this bill has already, the constitutional amendment that Representative Meeks is referring to was presented to this committee when we were hearing constitutional amendments. And so we've already had that bill presented to us. What this bill here does or what he's running today simply authorizes him to start the process
to move this bill through the House, through the Senate with a resolution. It just authorizes him to be able to do that. Then if it gets that approval, and then that constitutional amendment or resolution then would come back to this committee for approval. Does that help answer? I think I've answered that correctly. You have. So this would be the approval, and then we would
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:31:32
come back and actually discuss the merits of the amendment again at that time. All right, thank you.
Yeah, I really don't think today we'd be discussing. We need to discuss the merits. We've already pretty much done that in this committee on this. Just to just see if we want to allow him to be able to start the process to run his resolution. So that's what we'll be voting on. So any further questions from committee members? Seeing none,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:32:01
Representative Meeks. I'm closed. Make a motion. Do
pass. Representative Meeks, he's made a motion. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have. Congratulations. Your request is passed. Committee members, our talking staff here,
But it looks like there's some things coming through,
so we may have to meet. I told you earlier this may be our last meeting. Remember one time we was in here and I told you that, and we met four more times? Well, I'm not going to say that again. I apologize. That was my mistake thing I learned from experience. But anyways, it looks like we will meet again tomorrow. There's a few bills that we're probably going to have to take up. so we'll take care of that business at that time and any other business we may have
so anyways just watch the agenda and that's all we have on today's agenda thank you very much this meeting is adjourned
Agenda
SB235 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2023; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1596 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS AS PERSONAL INCOME; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1598 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 28; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990 AND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1614 Vaught TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM; TO TRANSFER FUNDING FROM THE SECURITIES RESERVE FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1704 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ENTITIES FROM PAYING A RANSOM FOR A CYBERATTACK; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ENTITIES TO CREATE A POLICY TO PROHIBIT PAYMENT OF A RANSOM FOR A CYBERATTACK.
HB1248 Gonzales TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND TO REQUIRE MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO BE RESIDENTS OF ARKANSAS.
HB1753 Gonzales TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROFESSIONAL BAIL BOND COMPANY AND PROFESSIONAL BAIL BONDSMAN LICENSING BOARD; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BAIL BONDSMEN.
HB1812 Clowney TO REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ADOPT POLICES CONCERNING NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS OF CRIME VICTIMS.
HB1817 Perry TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A PERSON TO FILE, RUN, OR HOLD OFFICE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF PUBLIC TRUST CRIMES TO HOLD OFFICE.
HB1823 V. Flowers TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO REQUIRE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE PUBLISHED ONLINE.
SB380 A. Clark TO REQUIRE RECORDS CUSTODIANS TO RESPOND IN WRITING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1842 G. Hodges TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND TO CHANGE THE STATE BIRD.
SB426 Irvin TO EXTEND MATERNITY LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CATASTROPHIC LEAVE PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1593 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA.
HB1847 Gazaway TO CREATE THE SECOND CHANCE HIRING ACT; TO PROHIBIT INQUIRIES BY A STATE AGENCY INTO CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
HB1849 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BIRD; AND TO CHANGE THE STATE BIRD TO THE MALLARD DUCK.
HR1082 S. Meeks REQUESTING THAT REPRESENTATIVE MEEKS BE AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE THE CONSIDERATION OF HJR 1002 AS A THIRD PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LAID ON THE TABLE
HB1537 A. Collins TO CREATE THE VOTER INTEGRITY AND VOTER REGISTRATION MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2023; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1025 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CIRCULATION OF PETITIONS; AND TO LIMIT PETITION CIRCULATION AT POLLING PLACES.
HB1359 Cavenaugh TO ABOLISH CERTAIN BOARDS; TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1444 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVIEW OF CONSENT DECREES ENTERED INTO BY COVERED ENTITIES.
HB1601 Ray TO CREATE A LICENSE FOR A PAID CANVASSER; TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROMULGATE RULES FOR A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CANVASSERS AND FOR THE LICENSING OF PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1726 Ray TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ADD DEFINITIONS; TO ADD PUBLIC RECORDS EXEMPTIONS; TO AMEND PUBLIC MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS; AND TO AMEND REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CUSTODIANS PROCESSING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 5, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Dwight Tosh Chair
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 12
Representative Jamie Scott
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 23
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 53
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 64
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 76
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 96
Mack Faulkner
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 29
Speaker 104
Speaker 105
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Representative Vivian Flowers
Unverified
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
Speaker 141
Joyce Ajayi
Unverified
Lanny Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 146
Sonny Alborado
Unverified
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 154
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 168