Public Retirement & Social Security Programs-Joint

Sure sees a quorum representive Warren you're recognized to present Senate bill one sixty three. The Amendment and there is an amendment. If you would recognize yourself and president amendment first representative Les Warren District eighty four thank you Mr chairman. So basically when I present the amendment this is also the bill this was a shell bill that I use so basically let me explain the amendment. This amendment is amending a shell bill filed at the beginning of the session through the years there have been entities who do not fit exactly into the categories listed in the apers Code yet they're very they're very much related in this case we're looking at the employees of a public library system formed under the interloper ation Act this would allow the combining of two libraries who want to merge into a single entity to do so in order to accomplish economies of scale. Both libraries in the first case we're looking at here Garland and slain libraries would both keep operating in their same locations as they do now their purchasing power would improve and they could eliminate some difficult expenses they would each still be getting funding from the respective County but they would no longer be a soul county entity in order to protect the apers retirement system we've added a requirement that each county must agree to pay the proportionate share of the employer and employee contributions do you for the employees working for their counties library if the public library system formed did not do so. I think this is a smart move to make the money go further and still serve each county will I'd be glad to answer any questions thank you representative Warner you have any questions committee on the amendment represent of rye you are recognized yes Sir thank you Mr chairman in a way it is what is will and why is the question to representative whereas you know of representative whereas we've had all kinds of calls and I know you do of but the school portion of the there was a mentioning of fifty fifty million dollars that was gonna go from the retirement system to of. Retirement system to the to the the school or alarms Act is there anything of this stuff there to my knowledge there's nothing going from the retirement system to the learns that. As a representative west thank you for that because I've had a lot of calls. Absolutely thank I just like to say for anybody out there listening computer land that would have nothing to do with this bill either way and tract Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question thank you Mr this is strictly over the retirement system as far as each one of the libraries having their own independent boards and to make decisions as it relates to their individual library books that are in their library all that kind of stuff that doesn't touch it is right no there's no cost to the retirement system we're just assuring that when they combined that the county will back it up and make sure that the retirement the payments are made on behalf of the employer and employee right but when they combine as far as. Decision making at the local level and the operations of the day to day operations of the library it doesn't this board doesn't you Sir that that accountability or that management to that local level that right let me let me have a one of our librarians come up here I I am fortunate to have the Garland County library and your term we could hesitate here just a moment before you bring them to the table can we adopt the amendment and get to the discussion by let me move to the I have a motion and second to adopt the amendment all in favor hi any opposed amendments adopted now let's bring any stakeholders we need to add to the table of Alaska Adam Webb if you would please come and then if you have any questions of labor's all ask Amy Thatcher to come as well. Mr Webb please take a seat at the table in Addis yourself and who you're with and you'll be recognized. Thank you Mr. Thank you. Yeah thank you Mr chair Adam Webb I'm the director of the garland county library in hot springs. You're recognized thank you I'm sorry would you repeat your question I think I I think I got it but I just want to. I had to turn it off and back on. Okay sorry about that go ahead thank you I just wanna make sure as far as the decisions are being made at the local level regarding the operations of the library itself that this in no way surrenders your authority or the management authority for the day to day operations of the library as far as the apers section goes no there will be at a joint board for both counties that will be the administrative board but as far as local control over collections the way the libraries run those will still be dealt with on a county bycounty basis okay and that administrative function of that board is strictly going to be to the subject of retirement is that is that the limited powers they have it would be the powers that under administrative bodies and and the other sections of Arkansas Code so it would be an administrative entity to run the library system for both counties but there still would be a level of local control over services offered collections that are there for the public to check out and hours of operation and things like that Petty Hector the Director of selling counties here as well and we do have some differences between our two library systems as far as what hours we work at the populations that we serve are slightly different so we're hoping to build this in a way that will still allow for the needs of selling county to be met Garland County be met but for us to find some extra cost savings which is getting harder and harder for public libraries Jett and and then just one other question Mister I think it's relevant to this based on the answers he just gave a question I got a lot of emails tecnolog I got several emails text messages about some books are being displayed in the library where they're being displayed subject matter that they're being displayed to the age this newly formed administrative is it going to be the one that I would address or would I go to your library or the sling County library depending on where it occurred the yes Sir and it would be in the county where. Occurred okay all right thank you Senator Hickey do you have a question can you punch a button. Senator Hickey you are recognized yes Sir of or whoever I don't care and lot of this may be because I just don't understand it so okay on page one of beer we say that we're going to allow for the we'll a Public reverie System. To do this. And then back over on section three we have the same thing with under the new language says chooses to participate. Okay. Then under section four and I guess this is where I get a little bit confused confused. So in the event here that. This public library system that chooses to participate which I guess they're going to do that on their own. outside of the counties approved is that correct. I added this last section because I wanted the county back up we fully anticipate that they make the payments as agreed no questions but to protect apers I added that last section so that if for some reason they did not make the payments as agreed the counties have to agree on the front end to make the payments if they do not. So that the employees are protected. In the event. I want here's but here's my deal if you're going to if we're going to require this on the counties if these people just choose not to pay. If we're going to require this on the county's. The counties need to be involved in the In setting this up on the front running and also or they need to they need to have a vote of their quorum court or whoever. Going in that they're going to allow it because if I'm reading this right what we're doing and if I'm not the way that I'm reading this is that. Public library system under this in our local cooperation act whatever that is with that statute number. They're they're the ones that are going to do it. But then we're going to put a liability only County. Because it looks like to me even if if they could set it up then what they're going to do is I could come back in just it says failed to pay the required contributions thank you just set it up so what we're not will pay it but then we're trying to put an obligation on the county through statute. Okay is I totally get you okay so here's my deal it is my understanding that both counties or in support of this but the reason that I put that is that in order for this to work they have to have the support of both counties before it can move forward where does it say that well I am but what and respectively yeah I'm not just looking at these two counties I'm looking at this legislation being in place for the and that's what I want to turn it with a personal legal counsel because we we wanted to make sure that They had the let's see. I can add to that a little bit senator yeah. For this type of library to be created in the first place you have to get the sign off from both quorum court's for it to happen where's that at that is that's in the inter local cooperation ACT twenty five twenty two oh one I think is the relevant statute. Would you like Clark to come to the table to address that yes as long as somebody can tell me that that's within that act of course I wasn't read that act and so I said going into maybe more that I don't understand I think that's I think that's it and then the other provision there was our funding is still going to come through our county treasurer right so to create some sort of mechanism to to get the funding at that level if if I'm not writing the checks to a pers. And. I'll add something if I may at yours executive director of a purse Senator Hickey the counties if if there if it's not paid now it's taken out of their turn back funds so the counties are already liable for that if they're not county employees anymore we just had to put something in there to safeguard that we can get that if they were delinquent okay so but under this as he said under this your local Corporation Act let's just say that somebody wants to set up one of these six months from now that council will have to sign off on getting it set up. Okay that I'm good with that part they don't want to go one step further. Now we go as far as to to down here to save and. In section four number one that if they were to fail to do it that they would be that they would be required to pay the employer. And the employee contributions. When we have employee contributions right there Senate so typically larking around the judicial self go ahead Laura gill said I'm general counsel apers thank you so typically that's the pass through if it's essentially of. The employer the county in this in this place they are pulling the employee and the employer contributions out of that paycheck and they're responsible for that so that's why that language is in there apers is not an agency that is is creating local units of government that's another section of the code but but but the way you have it written unless I'm wrong here he says that they shall pay so in other words. If they if this library does not pay. Then this county that that point is going to be required to pay their employer for which I agree with. But the way you have it written is that they're going to also have would have to pay the employee contribution they wouldn't pay that the employee contribution but may still collected and then pay it to eighty first. But the way it's written is is you have it you have them them actually paying that that that's coming out of their pocket as a as an expense is that what you intended. It it actually does I mean the mechanism of pain comes from the county I'm not talking about making available for those contributions and their other sections of the code is is the library system. Or are they are they required to play the employee contributions I understand they may be referred required to have a mechanism to take it out of their check. But the way you have this written it says I shall pay this like you know it is not so if I could cut it should just say remit well said okay because I'm basically as an employer that's what we do we withhold it from the check and then that will we have to send it in well that I thought that that's the way I see it but less somebody tells me different here let let me jump in. So the counties are still funding. The the libraries so if for some reason the. In our local library that swarmed does not make the payment then the employer part. Employer or employee we'll so you're telling me that if you're if you're. Because the the inter local library has been withholding that so I understand that withholding it but they had been paying it so. The funding that they give of. Each each county Gibbs they would withhold that from future funding to the library in our local library to make up for that. That's my problem it doesn't say withhold it says that they will pay it. Well they just would reduce okay so that's my thing if you look at section one. Since fail if they fail to pay it if they fail to pay those those contributions you know fourth senate eases the way that says I got to all right the yeah I see what you're saying the intent was that. The counties would the. Giving them funding anyway if they didn't make the payments they would use what would normally be funding to them. To make that payment. Correct but the ways wouldn't get their normal funding it would be pay that and then there. Their normal funding that they would be like to say that an employer if I if I do not withhold the correct amount. I have to pay the correct amount with the weather or without the correct amount or not when we do when we remit you know income taxes withheld from employees checks I'm not sure what the language should be I think I understand the spirit of what the bill is doing it is not suggesting that the employee would not be financially responsible and it it's assuming that it was already held out of the paycheck but. Does anybody have a suggestion on how to fix this language due to be that way can we get in a skews me I'm sorry. But let me just say that. I'm the one who asked for that language because I wanted apers protected. I since they are not a straight county employee any longer I wanted to know that apers would not be left with a non payment I truly believe that there will not be a case of a non payment hi I think they will withhold and make the payments as agreed but I just want the assurance that if something happened and they didn't the counties would step up and make the payments as required and we have a few more committee members in the queue here so you can wrap it up real quick and I'm going to get wet just one more question maybe maybe one of you can do this so. If let's just say that that the library fails to pay. At that point. At that point is there anything in there that says the and that they they actually become an employee of the county. Or they still an employee of the library they're still employee of the in our local library nice must roll are okay. Okay Senator Mark Johnson you're recognized thank you Mr chairman and this is a follow up a bit of of Senator Hickey line of questioning did I hear I believe it might have been Director fit you but that if. The library County whoever's the disbursing agent doesn't hi this in that it can be withheld from their turn back that I hear that in there somewhere your counsel is is not in any field just clarify because it I think Senator Hickey doesn't want the wrong people on the hook and I get that but if if we basically can be with held then then that's maybe mitigates that concern yes as a county employee if that payment is not paid it will be taken out of the turnback funds from DFA so we'll get it from DFA out of their time but fund so that's sort of the safety valve that of of the the problem that Senator Hickey saying we concern about I agree with everything he said I just wanna make sure that you know there is a mechanism because and and when it says and and in the amendment on the next to last paragraph required employee or an employee contribution on behalf that simply means what they took out of the employee's check and what the employer amount lost in toto must be remitted and if not it would trigger that to turn back by calling garnishment is that in I understand that correctly. Okay can can I speak to that just for a second as I do write for my library so that language it isn't that we have two different pots of money that we submit to a pers I were required by law to take five percent of the checks and put that in along with our contributions as an employer and if I understand how we fund apers correctly and I do have to budget that every year as well and my library board signs off on it I go to the quorum court as well and have them sign off on my budget as all my papers contributions there. I budgeted this much of my funds they're definitely gonna get paid I understand apers Caution here I'm just making sure that there's a mechanism that we're going to pay but the reason that I drove an hour up here to talk to you all today is I want to pay my employer contributions and my employee contributions to a pers I really want this to go through so we can create a better library system for our two counties and also still protect my employees some of whom have been in a first long enough to where they're not contributory members I mean I've got folks who've been there twenty five twenty six years I wouldn't do anything to jeopardize their retirement and so on. I'm I'm here today we've got this bill I think it addresses apers concerns on this but we have every intention of paying or apers contributions and our employee contributions thank you Sir thank you Mr chairman. Let me go the representive route first. Thank you Mr chairman he's been it looks like it were safe because. The check before it ever gets to the employing. The the the of the boss and the one in charge they actually got full authority to take care of that percentage so you know it looks like we're would be in good shape. Thank you. Senator Hickey. Just just one more thing and maybe this this corrected. But within it within that thing within the their local actor whatever that is. You said that the counties had had to sign off on it. Do they have to do do they have to continue to sign off on it or is there a clause in there that says that thank you that the county himself can pull that back at any time at their discretion do you know that the inner local act well that's that they had to sign off on yes the counties can withdraw from their local cooperation center K. they can yes then I'm good thank you okay Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question. Thank you I'm I'm not sure this place in the mix but just clarification who handles the payroll for your library sling county library currently selling County library handles their payroll and it Garland County its the garland county finance department we contract with them we pay them twenty thousand dollars a year to process our payroll does that does that have any bearing in this discussion at any level I mean you're doing on waste Lincoln's doing another way or the fact that the libraries of the ones that are actually handling the payrolls and not the county itself for can can and will speak to the as to what how it might affect the fate thing at all about this bill we we haven't gone that far down the road in our discussions on how we're going to create the new library system whether we're going to. Do our own payroll I believe that was where we were leaning towards just because that's another cost savings for us and selling County has someone doing their payroll and I'm paying someone twenty thousand dollars a year to do my payroll but that's something if that helps the bill move along we can certainly. Discuss it or but as far as I understand it we're going to do our own payroll okay but the newly created board would be one that be making that decision yes Sir yes okay and what's representation on the board for each one of the library systems in the county it's spelled out in the inter local cooperation act. You can have a few different ways I think we were leaning towards five from each county and then hopefully one person who would have maybe a foot in both County somebody from hot springs village or someone who maybe works in hot springs and lives in Benton or vice versa just someone who's kind of straddles the county line okay now let's build on the bill or is that can be worked out through that that's going to be worked out through the interloper Greenland at once the two counties start getting down to brass tacks in writing or thank you. I'm saying no further questions is there anybody left in the audience ID like to speak for against this bill. Saying nine members what you're with what you're. We are the. I have a motion do pass as amended and a second. Any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed regulations your bill was passed with a with as amended. Members we're going to discuss. Senate bill one seventy nine. No was referred to was for we're doing that. Okay Senator Hammer would you a. Please president Senate bill one seventy nine. When Mr Kim Hammer say senate district sixteen. What a Mister chair crisp lines executive director association of Arkansas counties thank you your both recognized thank you Mr chairman or give a brief explanation and I'll get to the punch line that is that gonna **** bill be pulled down sent into interim study but on just briefly tell you have got there because it's on the agenda when this first started out I was approached by association counties about doing something for the retirement of the sheriff's deputies in the sheriff's and so we had a meeting was given an idea of what the of contributions going to be thanks Rock along because we had a deadline we had to make sure we get that bill filed was filed in its entirety was a shell bill and we did that on the basis of the number that we were given Rock along a little bit and we had the certified law enforcement I was approached by Roger Smith about adding them add them and then after that we continue to get some numbers that would get us closer to what would be realistic as far as the cost do this as it became more apparent that the cost was going to created the unfunded liability to the retirement system or it was going to leave the burden totally on the sheriff's deputies in order to be able to afford to do this and then with the governor's office we and asking that we would just maybe hit the pause button on this is that we would look at it interim study to be able to come back and see what we could do that would not create extended liability to the unfunded liability to the system then apers met last Friday Friday apers met last Friday they had a split vote on the decision whether or not to remain on there because I was going to pull them off and then so station counties of shares I'm sorry shares substation had a meeting Friday afternoon and they opted also to go ahead and back office for now and so what we wanna do is just send it to enter study and the commitment I would make is soon sessions over give me we catch my breath good. Our bring all key parties to the table governor's office included and who knows if we get a special session they would come back and do something very special session or the next general session once we get it worked out so that's where we are not be glad to answer any questions but was on when I asked to move this to interim study thank you Mr lines did you want to say anything yes thank you so the intention behind this was for the sheriff's who feel like an enhanced milk multiplier would help them with repayment of existing deputies and also with recruitment of of new ones the shares had believe that an increase in member contribution employee contribution coupled with an enhanced multiplier on the backend might be something that would be helpful for them as a group and as we began this and thought we had a revenue neutral numbers it turned out to not be so as we got to Friday's meeting we found out that the one point two five percent additional contribution that the shares were proposing would not hit that target number of a point two five increase multiplier on the back end instead it turned out to be a point one nine Baltz fire so they regrouped and talk among their folks and said this is probably not enough for us to recommend going with a one point two five enhance contribution for employees so that's where we stand there is an issue that law enforcement has with these I'll be the retirement systems and that is not all designed equally we're competing with a lot of departments that are a lot fee funded departments or the state troopers in their own system and so for that long that group of law enforcement that stays behind on apers we just want to evaluate and find some way to increase the return for that group to help them become more come. It of with the other groups that are out there and so we welcome the interim study to look at all systems compare side by side best we can it's going to be a very complex interim study but compare side by side to help us with recruitment and retain okay thank you any questions members. During a motion to adopt her studies. Okay thank you both and I appreciate your willingness to work with all the stakeholders and is an interim study so we'll report that this being withdrawn for interim study thank you thank you thank you. Senator Mark Johnson you're recognized to present. Senate bill one fifty. Thank you Mr chairman Committee mark Johnson Senate district seventeen Senate bill one fifty at the request of center Chesterfield I waited pulled it down and had this amendment engrossed of I want to thank Mr Carrero and attorney general's office for helping me craft this amendment I've first introduced a version of this bill and in twenty nineteen it was actually the first bill filed a brit right back in twenty twenty one and hopefully the third time's the charm and we will get this past of the genesis of this bill is real simple and I don't have to repeat the people in this room what we've been through with the members of the legislature specially Senator said let's say that to say that been convicted of public trust crimes corruption bribery hit center and the idea this is simple this goes back to a fellow named Nick Wilson who literally was correct convicted in federal court of multiple corruption violations and he didn't just resigned from the Senate he retired he went to the federal penitentiary started drawing his pension a that is an outrage I think to most citizens and the reason why this bill came about in the first place we've amended it to make sure there are no unintended consequences there those including our actuary he thinks that maybe it's not necessary it could be dealt with other ways but but I truly believe that we need to make a statement that to a we do not tolerate people in elected office Later lives conduct with the money that belongs to the people and to the other members of the retirement systems of first let me just basically touch on on the amendment we took at anything related to anyone that is not elected officials public official and all and just to be clear that's engrossed I'm sorry it is say the amendments already amendment has been engrossed I just want to clarify that the some of the changes we made Justin wanted by shuffling through the papers now I don't want this is the is the bill with engrossed amendments chairman on the. If you look on page two line or section to starting with the. Line twenty one are really line twenty two years says pleads guilty or nolo contendere or is found guilty of a public trust crime while holding public office in this state. And that that means other words it's it's elected official and then the it says unless he's participar she's participating in a retirement system under twenty four one three oh one two F. don't worry about looking that up I can help that's higher ed because they use a defined contribution plan and so those funds are totally owned and funded by the individual and and then it brings me back to something I should mention a moment ago I'll clarify that now. If a. Public official a someone holding public office is convicted they cannot be denied their own contributions to any plan that's federal law and a lot of case law on that of those they have a property right value in that what they would lose would be a future payments that would come out of the funds paid by good hard working people who members of the systems so we cut it back it does not apply to hire it because all there's are not defined benefit plans their defined contribution plans we also limited to elected officials so what this is is it's a disincentive you know life is a series of incentives and disincentives and I'm not saying that this will stop all corruption public officials and taking bribes or whatever but when you pick up the paper every month we see or one of our former colleagues is being sentenced or is about to be sentenced or supposed to show up for his punishment at a federal penitentiary and it's time for us to put in the law the statement that that we do not tolerate this and we're certainly not going to pay you a pension based on that again these people are in are individuals that have rights courts have ruled the money that was put in by their contributions are theirs they're entitled to receive those refunded with interest but not anything beyond that and I'll be happy to take any questions. Represent a fight you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair just looking at the green sheet from the Osborn Carreiro and it mentions a concern do you have that in front of you can get it would you address that please our. The concern he a. mentions the. Constitutional contract clause. it's. There's a question that this forfeiture would be described but you know we go back to article five subsection nine of the constitution. And it. It seems to a would would supersede anything related to the to any contract clause because we're we're this the constitution is making a statement about to holding office in in in Kentucky and continuing to is another part of that that you would to are asking about represented five. The legitimate to me. Well if you if you'll go to the next page look look on the back and and Mr Curro concludes and I up I don't disagree with him he says there are tools in place to address the issues outlined in the bill more efficiently now I don't completely agree with him that there's ways to do it more efficiently I think the most efficient way and there are other ways and I'm glad that he he believes there's existing authority to to maybe addresses for basically we're saying if you're elected official you're in public office you can't. Commit these crimes without forfeiting your your retirement benefit this is again a disincentive to people who are Our creeks could try to find a calendar word but that's that's what it is this is a and again. If if it were totally up to me I'd say you lose your your everything you paid it but it's not up to me it because you violated a sacred trust with the people of Arkansas and so we're this is part of your punishment you don't get to to ride off into the sunset with the pension paid for by all the people that work hard all those years and paid into the system and and taking money from them so that is That's the concerns I certainly think that you know I respect Mr careers opinion on that may we do this differently I'm sure there's a lot of ways to do these things differently but but I believe this is a good bill and it it does send a signal to all the people we see across the state sadly too many representative fight and your you've seen it neighboring legislator senator that you're you know what he did and I I don't wanna have to recite the whole litany of it but these are a of people that should not be a pensioners of the state in any form. Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question you'll get Jody to the table please Mr Kerr would you come to the table identify yourself you'll be recognized. Good morning Jody Carreiro actuary for the committee thank you you're recognized thank you Mr chairman morning of morning in your analysis of this bill in the cost did you factor in. What would be recovered that had been paid in by the system not the person. For determining what the actual cost would be. Well there were and the and I tried to say that in so many words there's just there there would be if if you withhold payments there's a savings to the system the way this is been narrowed down it would not be significant to the system as a whole because it's just just not enough people so The so yes I have taken into account that there would be a savings for withholding that and part of that a piece of that would be offset by the additional administrative costs of trying to keep up with these things okay and refresh my memory shin Johnson the does your bill create the ability go back and get what was paid in. By by the system not the individual her rich about the individual but the system itself it creates ability for a look back is that correct I'm not so no Sir it is not look this is nothing going backwards okay this will only be from the effective date of the of the the act okay I'm a and if I could if I could Senator Hammer a follow up on your question to Mr Carrero It is very small savings because we're hopefully pray to the good lord not to talking about very many people that this would affect it will affect people that have a committee basically committed felonies in the line of duty okay not not a felony off here to the side of a felony related to the trust that the public put on that individual so Thank the lord that's a small universe we want that universe to shrink we wanted to apply to very very few people because we want to go away we want them to at least have one more disincentive to follow the law and to to be honest public servants okay so the judge let me make a statement to me figure your disagree because my interpretation of your analysis is this. It's it's not gonna cost us anything but is not going to save us a whole lot so I'm going to use the term it be pretty much revenue neutral as far as the the cost measured against the savings is that a fair statement and to the systems that is correct yes Sir. Okay say to systems or another well I mean the to the to the individual that whatever only be a loss but yet is okay we can systems and be in consequence that's fine if they commit a crime I'm not worried about them I'm just worried about the system understand okay thank you Mr. Senator Hickey you're recognized for a question so I wanna make sure I and I fully understand this as it relates to like a spouse and the question that was asked by a House member so. If you have somebody that's Been with their spouse or whatever for. Forty years and they were teacher or whatever then that person comes down here. Commit some crime. At that point is the spouse lose it too there's not there's not any Avenue they don't officers matter of fact Senator it specifically says on page three that's what I was looking to talk about thank you thank you bye you look at it to line eleven twelve if to cease the state of the member or retirement. All written for retirement if the member or retirant does not have a contingent beneficiary who may Missy who may receive benefit payments so the of the contributions made by the I will use the term deceased violator the crook is that we would continue to it would continue to go to to their Beneficiary that's their deceased. Yes Sir what what know what I'm saying that one of goes to jail. not deceased how does that work. Senate works like we do when we convict someone in the in any circuit court and I go to the department correction money they were getting no longer goes to their family and that's that's safe for their family but we're extending that principal and and certainly I believe that's yet one more disincentive to do wrong is the fact that you're your family will suffer if you go to jail and if you lose your pension and if you lose your here's a productive day in the work force and that I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it yet I don't know I'm a vote yet I just wanted to know I just wanted to hear exactly. Exactly what was going to transpire so. The same situation that if the once again the member of the system the retirement I guess is what we're calling in this case they get all their own money back and interest they don't get the the amount over and above that they don't get the amount of the pension that would in effect come out from their fellow members of the system. But the and the same would apply to their their beneficiary they they get that money back that would go into their state. This. Thank you Sir thank you senator senator Warner recognized for a question thanks for the promotion but I better stay in the house. You did. A while we're on that subject to Jodie I'm looking at your concerns and it says I would cite the example of the teacher who is retired from A. T. R. S. and is elected to the legislature so I'm taking that they've retired from teacher retirement. and commits a crime described under this bill that person would forfeit their teacher retirement as well as apers benefit. So after they've served as a teacher and they're getting teacher retirement they come to the legislature there serving in the legislature they commit a crime. They would lose both the teacher retirement that they got follows a teacher and did not commit a crime as during that time but they commit a crime as a. Legislator. And they're gonna lose both retirements is that correct. That and that is my understanding of the current engrossed bill yes Sir okay and and that's a follow up of please chairman of the. Once again that the protection of the law called the corpus of that individual members contributions would still be protected whether it came from a purse or from a teacher retired so it's again in other words your money you put in in the interest on is protected it's the matter over above that that would be funded from other members of the system that that they would forfeit but again I can look up some and receive that all both both of them in the lurch but at that point the teacher retirement is set as a set amount and they're getting a set amount so they've already gotten contributions so there be have to be I have a motion the above what they've already contributed yeah yes I would is there to tell you how that's contributed to it because it's probably not a flat percentage of one of the other but but I know that the people that do this for a living have a manner of doing that is matter of fact there already in some cases calculating a percentage to send to the court for restitution in situations where there's one other question for you Jody. So are there cases where the court has. Adjudicated that. a person's retirement is taken and applied elsewhere. That there are and that's kinda what I alluded to here at the I think well almost every system I'm not sure not sure about everyone but almost all of our systems has at least one case where the court has came in and said this person is going to be you know restitution and we're going to set up a special counsel their benefit goes to maybe some of it goes to them and some of it to the special account and that special accounts controlled by the court is then used to pay the restitution that happens in several cases beyond just elected officials. When I Mr chairman when I was researching this actually four years ago I talked to folks that a person they told me that in the case of former senator Wilson they were were still withholding from his in affect the garnishment from his pension and it was sent to the court so it was a and that it been over I guess almost twenty years at that time so yes there that is paid as restitution or or fines or whatever is owed to the court and so that no no new bureaucracy has to be set up it's already in blood it's so therefore that would at least be a savings to the system. Saying no further questions is there anybody from the audience would like to speak for against this bill. Senator Mark Johnson would you like to close for yes Sir thank you Mr chairman of. Members thank you for the input on this I don't take these things lightly up I realize they're real people involved and their families and but again I think it's incumbent upon us to to send a message that we the General Assembly with the Joint Committee on retirement and especially with the Senate Senator Payton Senator Hickey senator Hammer are intolerant of having colleagues who have stolen. And basically traded away something that the public gave them in a trust that's a sacred trust and while I know that this bill is not going to provide the total disincentive to stop people from doing wrong there's temptations and sent throughout this world but it is just as a small part of being able to. send a message that we're not we the ninety first General Assembly are not tolerated this And so with that I'll be closed so far we have somebody just get into the queue are you willing to answer another question be glad to answer senator senator Hammer you're recognized for a question thank you share I just saw so as you said that this only applies to those that have been through the judicial system and have been convicted of a crime and just be very specific the Senate has at the corals House does not. Does this in any way shape or form could something determined by the Senate under a violation of the Senate ethics rule have any bearing as far as what this bill is set up to do. No Sir and the reason is this only required for a. Applies to felonies in the line of duty and I think our Senate rules cover that in a parallel track but very similarly okay we we would be able to sanction. Misdemeanors or any other such violations but when someone and I can't quote the exact for a member reading it in the in the rules in the end of the Senate rules but if we have a member who is convicted of a if he is and he or she is indicted for a felony related to the line of duty they would be suspended. And then if other convicted they would be removed from the Senate by partially because of a constitutional provision as well as. What we have rules that's only after Spencer the judicial system that this would yes Sir okay all right I just wanna make thank you thank you for the question all right I'm closer Hickey you're recognized you with one more call what's your we are you know another question you won't you would rather may not. I'm OK if you ask questions before okay so what. We have a judgment in here to. And I understand that would have to go for the course to do judgment but if there's ever just a judgment on someone I mean they're not they're not actually going to the penitentiary or something like that this is also going to apply to those but no Sir this is not about a civil judgment nor about a misdemeanor this is about a felony and not just any felony but in effect one committed in the line of duty violating the public trust of an elected official not a Franken file a state employee or anyone like that so and again this this one's a little bit harder read but why why did we add or judgment with that's all new language that we able judgment is the I hate to say the the dates when yeah this is the judgment of the court you of John Doe or are not convicted of a felony okay so you're all right to talk about the judge you're not talking like like the like a civil judgment no Sir okay and I actually know me let me clarify that that I won't even tell the circumstance I remember asking my dad one time about the conviction of a felony when someone became a convicted felon in a very high profile case and I said when did that happen he said when the foreman of the jury lifted his pen off the paper when signing the verdict so that's the that's that's the judgment moment. All right. Senator are you. Sure. Mister chairman I'm west Mr pressure from the attorney general's office to address that he is corrected me on a narrow point on this and I'd like him to come if that's okay with the committee and senator Hicks certainly please introduce yourself and then you can address the question. Good morning may I just a pressure system turning general with the Arkansas office the Attorney General Two points of clarity first the contract clause bid that was brought up there's specifically a clause put in here that says that this only applies to individuals who have we're going to begin entering into this retirement system following the date this is signed into law specifically to avoid that contract clause issue also like to be clear the Attorney General doesn't have a position on this bill one way or the other but we were involved in some of the writing to make this easier to defend and then the second part speak to senator Hickey's question. The the there is the found liable by a court of competent jurisdiction for the wrongful death of a member that is that's a civil judgment yes. And the and part of that center if you recall as we did the existing law which basically means a member of the. The system if their spouse murders amid thank you don't get collect pension out it goes back to that famous story of the bill that killed both his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan so this is you don't get a benefit from the crime and that's an extension of the whole idea of the bill you should benefit from your crime. So are you willing to take Russian I sure absolutely okay represented by you're recognized thank you Mr chair my question is specifically I'm just going to read from the green sheet I would cite the example of a teacher who is retired from a T. R. S. and is elected to the legislature and commits a crime described under this bill that person would forfeit their a TRS retirement as well as the apers benefit of course this would greatly influence the family of that person who perhaps have been a teacher for thirty years and then came to the legislature so could you address that please sure so I can only speak obviously to the legal but not necessarily the policy elements of it but the this would be anyone first of all this would only play again to someone who is not yet entered into this retirement system in any way right to someone who's currently say in the legislature was a teacher this bill would not apply to them but if say they were a teacher and then enter into this retirement system later hi my understanding is that. If we go if a retirement system it then the that definition of retirement system if that implies that Mr Guerrero's understanding to both a prisoner's well as the teachers retirement plan that it would take both if this referring to two separate retirement systems Mr Carrero then it would be that it would be separate. That's perfectly fine well if of I hope we can again represented five on page three last fourteen fifteen sixteen it would it would basically trigger the lump sum distribution of of the and with the of the retirees contributions plus their interest and I would have to assume be recalculated. So it's not like you there to care cut off if you if they've already had received some of benefits they would that would be re calculated they would be able to receive all of their own country an amount equal to all their contributions plus the cumulated interest probably somewhat reduced by the future thank you and again that's a calculation that the system would do. Thank you lord we have calculators to do that not have to do in that thanks bye. It's close. Okay so senator the are you closed I guess I am a lesser also answer questions laws a committee as a mistrial but I've a question so your clothes so hi motion do pass all right we have a motion to have a second. All right we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye aye All opposed no no. your motion has failed thank you Mr yes Sir. Let me Save before we adjourn that sorry we have a small group but uh It has been a great pleasure and we're very thankful for the work of blade Gillam and destiny Davis for your help to the retirement committee. Hopefully we'll get to work with you again at no other business this committee is adjourned.