State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Of when we left earlier today integration is representative bit lose it down the table and I believe we were taking questions from committee members so will resume at that point Any questions from committee members. Yeah this will be Yes sixteen ten house bill sixteen ten. In additional questions from committee members say none representative Bentley if you just move side we've got the. Thank several people signed up to speak on this bill. Give me just a moment. Signed up to speak own House bill sixteen ten against the bill is. Andrew Bagley that I say that correctly okay thanks are you would just have stated in the table. And then if I yourself to the committee. Manger Bagley I'm the publisher of the how in the world in the Monroe County Argus but and I want to thank you all for taking time to listen to us after such a long day for everybody before I was a newspaper publisher I was once a school board president probably one of the most thankful thankless jobs in politics. And. We we I never once felt like my hands were tied before you yes it required us to slow down sometimes. when there is that natural large to pick up the phone yes it required me to I'll always manage that when we were in executive session or when we were together that we follow the law. But we will I never once felt like my hands were tied and we got a lot done including thirty seven million in facilities. But if everybody were like the fine public officials representative Bentley mention this morning or even a good hearted Baxley Baptist like me. you would need walls everybody would just do the right thing you know we don't write the laws for necessarily good people when we do that we have help with unintended quant consequences so we have to think about the the bad actors. if we you know at human nature. requires us to have some guard rails. Going back to even when Cain killed Abel with the rock and and I come from home and it's my home and I love it and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but it provides us with some examples of the dangers of doing this. And and making legal what we currently my call or. and just because people are going to do nefarious things like I might even cite this afternoon doesn't mean we should just or hands up in the air and say it's okay people do nefarious things in a lot of areas but that doesn't mean we should make it easy and that's what this bill will do for instance. What within the last two years we have had situations. What's controversy old actions. Where the majority clearly came in. Didn't have much to say and ram through what they wanted to do clearly common sense tells us that when they had a meeting before the meeting which is currently illegal. Now we don't need to make that the norm because there are some people who are nefarious that because it's illegal won't do it and I don't think that's how we are to have our sausage may. we don't need to to say it's okay to make policy at the boar's nest. with mouse out and and that's what this bill could ultimately lead to an end here's the exam. It starts at the city council. Where you have a city councilman. Who offers up a fifty percent raise for one employee. That just goes right on. With just a minority asking a question or two. That one employee just happened to be the daughter in law of the vice president school board. Who then. That vice president school board then pushes for cleaning contract for said city councilman that contract ultimately goes through with the majority have been clearly gotten their ducks in a row and only a couple school board members who were clearly on the outs with the majority asking questions. And that provides us with an example for the danger of what the S. makes easy. What this makes legal. And I don't think we want that I don't think we want our sausage made that way. Because. This puts in a a change that you can drive a mac truck front. You got a seven member body you get three together. Those three send one of their three to meet with two of the others while another one of their three gets a one on one with the seventh. And and that's going to be perfectly legal if this bill passes and all of a sudden all the decisions have been made. And that's what we end up with and that's what I'm asking you to vote against today. I could give more examples of what we've had to write about. But but that's probably the best one in recent days and I would ask you to vote against the bill for what it opens up what it makes possible what makes easy to do. This isn't to cast aspersions on any group thank. But we give people tools and you provide temptations in front of them. This is the kind of stuff but you'll see more and more of if it passes and if anybody has any questions I'd be willing to answer any I doubt there will be many if it's like today any questions from committee members. Say none Mr bag thank you for your testimony we appreciate you being here thank you. Signed up to speak because against the bill is Robert Steinberg. Serve you would just have Satana table stage name to the committee and then you're recognized to give you testimony thank you Sir my name is Robert Steinberg I'm a member of the for a coalition coalition I'm a member of the for a task force on the author of the treatise on the Arkansas freedom of information act. I'm a law professor I'm a lawyer I'm a conservative columnist in democrat-gazette and I appear here in my individual capacity not withstanding all of that. I'm a good friend of Mary's I'm a good friend of senator John Payton the co sponsor of the bill in the Senate and I will say forthrightly that they are good conservatives who believe in transparency. so this is not about some folks who are anti transparency I assure you there are plenty of folks who are anti transparency I gave certain grief to the Municipal League the other day and I'll be happy to repeat some of that today When we deal with the open meetings. The question is a balance a balance between efficiency and transparency. and those are competing ideals you can't have both. And so representative Bentley correctly points out that we are an environment that has inefficiencies and I appreciate her comments on that just the day there was a bill in the Senate going the other direction sought to very much maximize transparency when it came to meetings saying that only if even two people met and just had to say two words about something that was potentially on an agenda that's a violation and this bill and so that was a very much. Hard transparency bill and then this bill I I if I feel goes a little too far in the other extreme it goes too far towards transparency excuse me towards efficiency so let's talk about what is currently allowed and what's not currently allowed in and the fact that there is some ambiguity in the law the Supreme Court in of the Wade case in the coaching case suggested that the legislature needs to do a further definition of what is a meeting and shall that's why we're here in part because the legislature is doing its job The municipal league said for for example was asked the question I think by a representative Gazaway if the two folks meet who are the governing body is that a for a violation of the open meetings portion of the Fauria and the rather deaf dancer from the Municipal League what we tell them not to do that I don't care what you're telling the question is is it a violation of the law now in some respects their advice is good because it's too strong it's not the law if two failed to meet and do not come to a conclusion simply discuss the matter right now mind you this is not always clear light but if they discuss an issue but don't come to a decision they haven't violated the law so it's good advice from the Municipal League but it's a bad interpretation of what the law is in fact that was the proposal that just came before the Senate and that proposal would not have needed to be offered if it already was the law the municipal league said well if one shy of a quorum meets and then one of those folks goes over it meets with the a few other folks from the governing body that would constitute a serial meeting or what is known in the law as poorly I don't have a municipally knows that because I don't know that I'm the author of the treatise on the book so that conclusion is that is my two grand one again it's probably good advice to give to your clientele but it's not an apt description of what the law is This Finally the Municipal League But knowing that histrionics that the Standard for this law is negligence the standard for this law has been negligent since governor Rockefeller passed the law the fifty five years ago no one in the history of the freedom of information act has been prosecuted for violating the open meetings portion of the act under any standard so sure and by the way to boot the negligence standard in criminal law is not a negligence standard in civil law so when we think of negligence we kind of say well just negligence yeah just criminal negligence. So let me move on from the tri sector of incorrect statements from the municipal league and talk about sort of the process that's taking place so far and what I would suggest we do this bill hasn't come before the for the task force that's a a publicly created a by the legislature body that was designed to gather folks of all stripes together and and have them communicate with those that offer bills legislate tors we have no control over legislate tors you are in control but the process would was put into place that we review bills so that we can communicate I think frankly we've done a good job of helping to improve various for your bills so I would recommend first that the bill go before the for your task force in addition there's the four year coalition that's a private body and some folks come do it some folks don't but of course I would invite the sponsors to to come talk with us in the four year coalition as well in terms of the substance I think that the what what the bill could best use in seeking to try to strike a compromise because I think that and I don't mean a political compromise I mean a compromise between these competing ideals that inevitably present in the freedom of information act the portion of the freedom of information act that deals with open meetings that is the conflict between efficiency versus Transparency folks by the way from this body have said to me in the past eight we don't follow those rules and it's true because you meet three months every two years and we need more efficiency not less efficiency AT at the legislature given that time frame we don't get to pass enough bills out of this legislature the legislature shuts down too quickly So efficiency is is primary but when we talk about the the meetings of JP's of school boards of city councils those generally meet monthly and they can meet every day if they want and what those local organizations that meet at the grassroots level what people want them and I think what's important for them to have is access to the sausage making to the decision making and if we have the situation where folks get together and decided in advance the outcome then we show up to a meeting and they say. You know we're gonna build a pool any discussion none all in favor hi and that's the end of it well then you don't need public meetings so we could eliminate the public meetings notion of governing bodies entirely but I don't think we want to so we need to ensure that there's some substance to the governing meetings no **** the open meetings notion of governing bodies excuse me I collapse two phrases and so I think at minimum the bill could use language that reflects that some smaller group could meet but that it can't be decisional and I would myself bees somewhat more happy if the the the size of the the special groups at a meeting was the center The and just shy of a quorum and then I would finally prefer if it had some language suggesting that if someone from one of that group met with someone of another group that it wouldn't create well you you could have more than in total this smaller group of conferring on these issues about drafting that language is not necessarily an easy thing to do and that's the challenge drafting the language from the Senate bill and drafting the language from this bill both are easier but I think both of them sort of issue towards the outside of those of that scale of balancing of the interests of transparency versus efficiency so I appreciate what the representative Bentley is done she's a good friend and she is a four advocate and the same for senator John Payton but that's how I would sort of adjust our approach the on this bill and with that I I conclude my up. Statement and of course I'm available should have any questions we have a question from a committee member representative Cooper you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair. Okay I don't know how many other people who are in the middle of the sausage right now but I feel like I'm being squeezed so I would like your expert opinion. Okay we have a bill running in the Senate to wear it two members of the board city county local I guess are. To gather then that should be four eight and then we have where if you don't have a quorum. Just so you don't have a quorum that cannot be. So I feel as I should many others here may feel the same that we are stuck in the middle of our city officials of our attorneys and people who want to protect the constitution first amendment and all of that. In your opinion. What can we do to get to a compromise I think we can take representative Bentley's bill and we can add some language regarding that the meetings cannot come to any of of some smaller group I would prefer the group to be smaller than what she suggests but whatever the size of the group that they could not come to a decision and then some language about if any of those members to wind up communicating with other members to go outside that minute that's size limit that that then would be too much too much pre commit now that's not easy language I can't even get the sentence out terribly well and that's the challenge so part of it is it is sitting down and drafting and that's why I I recommend sincerely and kindly that the the bill sponsors of come to the fore a task force and the four year coalition because there are a lot of good folks on there from all different stripes that come up with a lot of good ideas even folks that I think are ten to she were in the wrong direction on transparency so I I think maybe I think maybe we need to you know or loosen up the casing and and and retired that sausage a little bit. Follow follow up you're recognized so in the process of our conversation today you don't feel comfortable giving the number to what that look like you want it the number of people before it's void yeah right so what we. The reason that I was the question is is because we have different sides bodies but I would a small number would be three right now you could say what about four okay forms okay you have a body of twelve or fifteen four is not so great if you the body of nine right because then that's pretty close to a quorum so that's the difficulty but I think we want to do it and people can disagree on this by the way the end and you're not wrong or bad if you do but that's what we want to do is question the direction of these types of conversations about whether the bill that pool in that municipality taking place in public amongst the GP's or the city council rather than taking place behind the scenes and you know folks into these meetings and for JP's for school boards for city council and they're very interested in what's going on and so we want to sort of push in the direction that causes the folks on those bodies to be having these conversations in a public and so that's what I'm cautious about the flip side of that is it's less efficient than a couple of folks you for a few folks getting together and making a decision ahead of time I agree and that's the tension and it's a legitimate tension. Any further questions from committee members. Say none thank you for your test the judge. Thank signed up to speak against the bill is Wesley brown. Strategy would just have stated in the table dented by yourself to the committee and then you're recognized give you testimony. Thanks German my name is Wesley brown of long term capital reporting here and represent the Arkansas press association also member of the for your task force. I like Roberts said I wish we could have had an opportunity to review of this bill I think there's some good discussion and good ideas that could be presented to to prevent this impasse that I'm not going to repeat anything that's already been said but to. I will point out Senate Bentley mentioned that this is tied the hands of some of the local but he's a just point out my my mother is probably the. this is J. P. in the State of Arkansas she's eighty eight years old in his account so as to the J. P. I have a sister who's a city councillor in the and I talked to both of them said they has the four year type their hands talk to other so to attend scanner a representative of a city council came up with that state capitol decks in the same thing And covered committee meetings covered many bodies and never seen what for you has to add anyone says big deals of economic development deals and content because the state of things always get those bodies bodies and I think just restate the PO Arkansas press association against this bill thinks it's still pretty slow and we would acts that you not a pool for this bill axed answer any questions or. Any questions from committee members. Say none Mr Pratt thank you for your testimony. Signed up to speak against a bill is going to cut you. Sir if you would just have safety of the table dinner by yourself to the committee and you're recognized the testimony thank you Mr chairman my name's Jori McCutchen here with the Arkansas transparency in government group I'm also a lawyer Mr Steinberg referred to two cases he referred to McCutchen versus the city of Fort Smith any referred to Wade versus city of Fort Smith I tried both of those open meeting cases. I took him all the way this is spring court. I've been involved in litigation. Open meetings has been my passion for the last ten years I want our business done in public. I want to talk a minute about the way the case the the Municipal League this morning made a statement I believe that that the probably we advise that two or more meeting of of our governing officials our our our bodies are is a meeting well that's not what the law is in Arkansas right now. Regarding open meetings and I cringe it what the law is in Arkansas in terms of transparency in government. Because we would need miss Bentley's bill if folks on either side of this I'll knew what the law was here's the law and it's not set. Bye you. The law currently is set by the Supreme Court I try the case in two thousand and twelve McCutchen versus the city of Fort Smith. In the Supreme Court said at that point it's the legislature's job to define a meeting. I've been working since for over ten years to get a definition for meeting. In that case McCutchen case. The city administrator had given an informational packet to hire governing body he also gave a recommendation as to how they should vote after that the the each of the council members called the the city administrator and told them what their vote was the Supreme Court ruled that was not a meeting I mean this is informational that's why I can't understand why it would take two years to get an ambulance service in Perry County because you can have those types of discussions the way the case defines what a meeting is and here's what a meeting is in the State of Arkansas it'll shock most of you because when I read the decision it shocked me in either side the governing bodies of the citizens have no idea and that's why we're in such a state of ambiguity they said that to constitute a meeting. And they they had to define what a meeting was. City of Fort Smith argued that you could not have an emails that constituted an email there was an email chain a group email chain where three of the board members voted on that chain to now and discussed to abolish the civil service commission in Fort Smith four other ones were also there but you know who wasn't there the people we never saw that discussion so this a pram court ruled that the constitute a meeting. There has to be a direct directly solicit a response that is somebody has to ask somebody to make a decision secondly there has to be a decision. And thirdly it has to involve three sevens of the city board of directors our city board of directors had seven members. Talking about driving a Mack truck. In open meetings you can drive in a mac truck through that so if if our if our governing bodies wanted to make two of them were three of them they could do it they just have to follow this outline and I think that's dangerous that's why I think there has to be a a legislative definition of meeting and one thing that concerns me has been brought up I filed three for your bills I help Senator Clark with three for you bills one on training on for you one on a written responses in the third one on the definition of a meeting that definition said that two or more for the governing bodies cannot meet and discuss our public business in in that meeting in that definition we also defined it the chance meetings are not meetings. And and and the reason for that was is because we hear all the time that that well I'm I'm I'm I met with with one of my fellow council members and we discuss the hogs and I feel like there's going to be a violation they need the public needs guidance in that area they also need guidance in terms of legislatively whether an email chain it does that qualify is a meeting there there there are all kinds of we can do good here we can create we can lose the ambiguity we can work out a compromise that does not sacrifice that does not sacrifice it in terms of of secrecy because what the what the what Justice Hart said in her dissenting opinion in my way case and by the way I've tried all these case not for one dollar because I believe that if we have a good open meetings law we can be efficient and we can have our public business being conducted in the public. She said in a in that case that today's majority of opinion denies the electorate in Fort Smith insight into the performance of elected officials and allows those public officials to make their seek their decisions in secret secrecy is the poison of democracy. And she descended in that case I want to read a quote then I want to talk about Tennessee. Patrick Henry said the liberties of the people never were nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. If we allow. What I understand the green light that this bill will give it will allow in Fort Smith Arkansas it will allow six out of the thirteen justice of the peace is in the justice of the peace in Fort Smith to meet on secret email chains private text messages or behind closed doors out of the view of the tax paying public six home can meet per this bill that's less than a quorum and then they can turn around in three more of them can meet secretly. And then as the Supreme Court has said over and over in its opinions interpreting this law and asking the legislature to to make their does they said the public is entitled to not only see the decision we're entitled to see the winds the winds were entitled to see the sausage making because if we don't and here's the point if we don't see the sausage making them and then guess who is going to take the criticism if they come in and they've already made their decision there's no discussion the hard discussions have been done at McDonald's are on secret email chains the public body is going to take the backlash and that's what the Supreme Court said. I want to talk about the intent of the nineteen sixty seven for your law. And what I want you to understand this this decision that you'll make today is literally not figuratively the biggest decision that will ever be made on it as an attack on the freedom of information act in my opinion we lose our freedom. Depending on how this vote goes because we have two parts of the freedom of information act open records which is not a subject to this conversation and open meetings and if we give the ability for our local officials six out of thirteen the mate and then three more to meet. I'm sorry but that secrecy and the public is not a part of that we're not asking anything other than public decisions being made in public. And I understand this legislative body is not subject to for you in nineteen sixty seven a Republican governor by the name of ram for Rick Winthrop Rockefeller got the four year passed in a in a legislature which was all Democrats and he was a Republican and I think he would turn over in his grave today if he thought that we were going to undo the open meeting section of of this bill and I want to read for you because I think it's so important. The legislative intent in nineteen sixty seven and I think every decision that is made with regard to fully a particularly defining a meeting and decision this is the gold standard is the absolute gold standard is the nineteen sixty seven. Legislative intent. Of the freedom of information act it says. This is important. It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner. That the electors that's us the people shall be advised of the performance of public officials and the decisions are reached in public activity and in public policy making. So what they're saying is is we need to be able to people this is the people's law that's what they call it after today are we gonna call it the special interests law. But but I want to continue with the legislative is intent they say toward this end this act is adopted making it possible for them the people or their representatives to learn and report fully the activities of their public officials how are we gonna have always the media going to report fully the activities of our of our public officials are J. peas are city councilors if if they're having secret meetings if six out of thirteen can meet behind closed doors. That's so important and that's the legislative intent we have to do our our business in public. If we if we don't have transparency. It leads to this distrust it leads to distrust of government and and I think that that is so important we need efficiency as miss Bentley said but we we have to have I mean think of what Patrick Henry said think of what the legislative intent says it's vital to a democratic society that we do our business in an open and public manner. And it that's why I think it's so important that this bill come before this four year task force I took three Bills three for your bills I took took took on two times to the four year coalition I got feedback from the brightest of the bride Robert Steinberg law years people from the press and they told me how to make them better bills they're not last Friday we took him to the four year the four year coalition I'm sorry the for your task force I got more feedback and we haven't even seen this bill the the bill that could dismantle the open meetings portion of four yeah that's is that just can't be right we've seen all kinds of bills it just touch on for yet I've been in committee meetings for the last four years. The last four years on every variety that touched on the freedom of information act this is the most important one it needs to be vetted. I'm almost finished. I want to talk about about Tennessee we keep hearing we keep hearing. And this is what the for your task force do they they compare we've got there there're documents out there. That I've looked at over the years that that that summarize every for your bill. In the country and we talk about bordering states let's talk about Tennessee. Tennessee says this meeting means the convening of a governing body. For which a quorum is required in order to make a decision and deliberate toward a decision on any matter meeting does not include an on site inspection of any project or or or program then it goes on to state this. It says nothing in this section bill shall be construed to require a chance meeting of two or more members of the public body to be considered a public meeting that is if to two members of the school board me and and they want to talk about the hogs they can do that or anything that's not public business then it goes on to state those the Tennessee law in effect now says no such chance meetings informal assemblages or electronic communication shall be used to decide or deliberate public business in circumvention of the spirit and requirements of this part. So it says you can't talk about about the public business. Outside of a public meeting that's what it says in Tennessee we could also look at the Texas law which yeah it talks about a quorum it sure does is is miss Bentley said but it's there's also Supreme Court cases that say that if that if less than a quorum meet and hope and in a closed meeting that's a violation of four year. This is a big task. And to to change three words in a careless fashion in my opinion only speak for myself to take section twenty five nineteen one oh six and they had three words that will decimate the open meeting law. I would I would suggest that it's going to have tons of unintended consequences and it's going to do two things it's going to give a license to secrecy and secondly it's going to give a license to more lawsuits whereas if we took the time and and we sat down we could do something that would make our for you have the strongest in the country respect also the opinions of miss Bentley. And and we could do something that there would be no ambiguity there would be no guessing as to okay can six out of the thirteen meet plus another three because if they do that I'm a file suit on it I will take it up the Supreme Court and they may not be down but we don't need that and that's that's that's the third thing that justice Hart said in her opinion in the way case that's the fourth thing she said and the other thing it will do other than setting out the requirements the other thing it'll do it'll create unnecessary lawsuits we don't need that but we can create a definition that says if email chains are are a public meeting you know is a chance meeting people need to know that Fort Smith we had a miss Crawford will No representative profit rule no we had to we had a now we have a father and a daughter in her opponent was saying that they can't serve on the board because they can't talk to each other because that's a for you violation we can define that. We could do so much good. I hope and pray. That you will say no to this bill. That you will let us work on this bill and create something that Arkansas can be proud of and not say oh well forty seven other states do this well forty seven other states can't say like we say right now that we have the strong is for you law in the country and we if if we're not going to say that then we need to just mark through the legislative intent that I've spent time on your with we just need to mark through that and and we need to say that we really don't believe that it's vital to a democratic society that we perform business in public just mark mark through that section actions speak louder than words and I hope that you will. Vote no on this and we will get good things done. I should point committee members. Say none scope thank you for your testimony thank you appreciate you being here. Signed up to speak against the bill is Jimmy Gavin. If you would just have a seat in the table stage name for the committee and then you're recognized to be testimony and Jamie Caven I'm a citizen. Miss Bingley said she's very passionate about this bill and I get that. I'm very passionate about. Freedom and rights for citizens. This bill takes them away. You guys just finished putting in the learns Act right. You did that to be the gold standard for the nation. Okay I consider the Arkansas Freeman Commission act in its current form. To be the gold standard. I don't want to weaken it to be like other forty seven states. I want to take the approach we do with the learns Act I want to be the gold standard I want forty seven other states looking at us. Not us looking to be status quo. The. The legislature operates as a totally different animal. Thank quorum court city councils and school boards okay. And I do understand your situation because you only meet at certain times. These other organizations and councils boards in court they meet regularly to do the day to day business day to day decisions of the missed municipalities of the school board and of the corn courts that's a whole different animal. So in no offense to. But I don't think it's smart to let quorum court to city councils and school boards operate that way okay I'm going to read it again because I read it often I keep a copy of it. I read it to quorum court members school board members and city council members all the time because most of them have never read it. And I think at times legislators forget this part summary the intent again because it's so important. It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed and open public manner so that the electors that's me. That's the citizens. Shall be advise the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are raised in public activity and in making public policy toward this end this chapter is adopted make it possible for them or their representatives to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials that word them that's me. This bill drives a stake through the heart of that intent and we need to call it what it is the kill transparency bill. When I talked to miss Bentley I explained to her and current law governing body members can meet every day if they want they just have to do it in the open public setting and record it. Misspellings response to me was but then they can speak freely. Why can't. All this tells me is this bill wants them to be able to say things behind closed doors but they don't want the citizens to know about which on is it which frankly is dishonest. This bill says it's okay to make backroom deals the citizens will never know about. It will not only breed corruption it will license corruption. The only people who support the bill Arkansas Municipal League the Arkansas association counties and the Arkansas school board association which are all made up of the very people that the open meeting law applies to. You don't represent them you represent the citizens and they don't want this I've yet to talk to everyone just average citizens like myself it is for this I've talked to plenty of politicians or Ford but not citizens. So you have a choice. You can protect our freedom and rights. Are you can take them at the behest of the county and city and school board politicians. And I pray you don't do that and I would very happily answer any questions as a citizen on this matter thank you Mr Kevin a questions from committee members say nah we appreciate China's on thank you. Sign up next is the bill is to him how he would. Zeytun table dinner by yourself to the committee and you're recognized to give testimony my name's Tim Hewett I'm just going to read this it's pretty late I know you all are pretty busy so my name is jim here and I'm here as a citizen I come from a very small town planes Arkansas very small farm there is what I that's what I do as of this morning at four AM put in a day's worth of chores second beer ten AM to speak to you all. Because I believe in an open and transparent government. With respect to representative Bentley I don't care what forty seven other states do I care about what Arkansas does not care about what my community does forty others forty seven other states should be looking at us as an example of open and transparent government. Last night I attended my quorum court meeting during that meeting or county judge had the very unfortunate task to inform our county quorum court R. County was broke R. nine one one fund was two hundred thousand dollars in the negative our county general fund is over half a million dollars in the negative. As a citizen that's not only concerning but I want answers as to why. For the next hour I got to watch my quorum court go over the books have open discussions about what was going on and formulate plans not only were my questions answered but I got to watch my local government in action with full transparency even with an extremely embarrassing situation. I would not get to do this if this bill were to become law discussions can be had stories concocted in back rooms and phone calls and when a quorum court in her when a quorum is met the meeting is held high as a citizen will be left with more questions than answers. I understand this legislative body can meet in small groups to discuss things and it makes sense you're only here for a small amount of time you have a lot of business conduct and this is a huge legislative body as evidenced by the parking lot outside. However quorum court school boards and other local bodies extremely small members of such bodies they live within the community thank you meet at any time as often as they want any size group they want to discuss whatever business they want all they have to do according to the laws is written right now is give it to our notice to the media and they can meet new whatever so if they want to go in and meet somewhere to look at an ambulance to our meeting a two hour notice they can get together and do that it's really simple this bill will kill transparency in local government. And it will allow the cancer of corruption into a cold I urge members of this committee to reject this bill thank you. Thank you Sir any questions from committee members. Say number appreciate your testimony signed up next speak against the bill is sunny Alberta Barbaro. If you would just enterprise for the committee and then you're recognized you be testimony thank you Mr chairman members of the committee representative Bentley I'm gonna be very brief fight most of what I was going to talk about today is already been talking about but I'm speaking on behalf of the Arkansas freedom of information coalition as described previously it's a private group that includes up. Broadcast and print journalists lawyers private citizens and even some public officials in fact the at one point the Municipal League was a member of that coalition. All of them support open government and seek to preserve and protect the Arkansas Freedom for information act I speak from fifty years of experience as a reporter and editor. Who dealt intimately with public records and open meetings laws in three states Louisiana Tennessee and Arkansas for the last fifteen years. At this point the only thing I have to ask you is I would respectfully ask you to ask representative Bentley to pull down her bill today and ask her to go before the task force which as you know is a publicly appointed body. To work with them to arrive at some compromise that would make this bill less damaging to the public meetings portion of R. F. O. I. A. that's it. Question to. You Sir any questions from committee members. Say none reprieve judge testimony being here today. One more signed up to speak against for the bill is a gesture Sambil. Strain. Yes. The stage name to the committee in you're recognized you testimony. Hello my name is Sam strain gestures the pace in district four Faulkner County so if you're going north on forty I'll be the first district to pull into I was What is committee of fact follow here as I will you know one thing that stuck out to me is I think we're constitutional Republic and I'm I am very much support the constitution and the bill of rights and transparency however. Hey I was talking to a senator awhile back and he was talking to me about how he is working with another senator. On on some legislation and I ask him if that would be a problem if you want. Couldn't do that when trying to represent his constituents. Hi I have some things written down but I and I'm going to refer to them but I'm thinking about all the things that we're having problems with dealing with a cause of some of the problems with the for laws as they are written one of the big things to me is that I believe that the four year laws as they are now create a balance of power issue in the counties every county in Arkansas. And gives a lot of power to the judge matter of fact I I have mentioned to some people I think it actually kind of creates a benevolent dictatorship in the counties because the judge can talk to any of the quorum court members and and there is legislation our ordinances and things like that that are drawn up that are. Later some by surprise to the right some of the rest of us when we have our monthly quorum court meeting these things come up with that a lot of notice. We don't have the opportunity to I can't call one of the other J. peas and asking more do you have any background on this or what your opinion about this ordinance we have other ordinances and our issues in the county like the county jail I mean a lot of you guys are probably aware that I was things it's a problem for the for us to get it due at the jail because you know that's got to any people from the quorum court in the same place so that's a problem Hey you know we have problems with animal control in the county we don't have any animal control and I've been kicking that ball down the road for maybe a decade or more and We've had a child that was killed we've had animals and livestock that are killed by these animals and I can you know that's an issue to me because I can't speak to another justice of the peace about. Some possible solutions that we could take to correct those issues and Some. I guess that's I'm not going to be late play on or everybody wants to go home but I'm I'm not a hundred percent sure what the answer might be to all this I believe in transparency I mean that to me the government belongs to the people that I may have lost to me only that I'm a people you know higher citizen but the government belongs to the citizens of Arkansas and I don't feel like that that my inability to speak to the other justices allows me to be at to adequately represent the people that voted me office Senate constitutional Republic. A key vote made office because I guess they think I'm doing a good job I'm trying to that but I am I think that's an issue that the judge has a lot of power in the quorum court basically has little because of our inability to communicate with one another and so I appreciate you giving me the time to speak. Thank you any questions thank you Sir we appreciate as many questions from committee members say none thank you for taking time. Committee the with the order signed up to speak for against the bill representative Bentley. Collins thank you so much for taking the time to be here today and to listen this is this is a very very important and I want to dress a couple things that were brought up so first of all as a member of the ninety first General Assembly I'm not bound to anything that was passed in previous assemblies is not required for me to go before the for a task force or that those from a previous assembly I'm not required in any way to go to the for you board before task force whatever before bring this bill to you I've been talking to each member of his colleagues here about this bill is very important to us and we are in a constitutional Republic our current for a lot does create an imbalance of power it is a great deal of power to the county judge to school boards superintendents to those they can freely talk to others and get a consensus before they ever the meanings gone we have a quorum court members are so afraid to talk to each other they won't even open the envelope that has information about the meeting to a sit down. We have bound the hands of ours of RJ peas and in essence we have silenced the voice the closest voice to we the people to our constituents are conditions the closest person to have to speak to them to vote for them is there is there local JP and J. P. seven sued we're going to talk to constituents about certain situations in their districts. School board members have been sued when they want to listen to concerns to parents and their districts. We have bound the hands of those people closest and then they're in a constitutional Republic their their voice we have weakened their voice by weakening the very people that are closest to that and that's why I'm passion about making sure the people that are represented by those JP's are able to get a good effective and efficient local government and we've just we've destroyed that here in our in our state and I when I ever a look at bills always lately was going on in other states is what makes the nights is America great we can look at other states and see what's working we don't have to reinvent the wheel and I'm not by any means if anybody knows me for five minutes then though that I'm so supportive of transparent government and freedom information the newspaper can go to every public meeting where a decision is made a report on that. I wish we had quorum court buildings full of people I get disappointed very few people there we have budget meetings have lots of places for people to be engaged involved but people are busy working and this is a way for our J. peace to get out and visit with constituents go to another county sued other counties are doing and again these people are all pretty much volunteers in my book the Gilman is short for me but for the rest the time they're they're volunteers we want good people to run we're prohibiting good people that would like to run the for heaven's sakes I don't wanna get sued for doing a similar job try to take care of the members of their their friends and neighbors in a good way. So we had a very the most minimal amount of changes I don't want to change it because I am in favor of the freedom of information act I don't want it lessen the transparency so made the the simplest change that we can make a look at other definition around this and is at three simple words in a quorum of so I think it's very simple very transparent again we want to balance the power so we have good quorum court members that can do a good job and school board members again do a good job for constituents because their their their their voice. And we have we can their voice we have tied their hands and I have ample opportunities to show that so with that colleagues I'll close my bill. We have some questions from committee members represented Gonzalez you're recognized for a question. Thank Mister of heard it says several times now the that a county judge superintendent can call their their members and have those conversations and it's not considered a meeting can you tell me what how that happens what what allows that to happen because. And maybe I'm I thought I was better reading bills on this but they're they're not part of the governing bodies that will make a meeting now see somebody back there shaking her head I just would like a little more clarification on if possible so while this I would like to think about meeting Mr hardcore court means you've been to but anyway the county judge sets the agenda you know he has all the everything's lined out has all its ducks in a row and get everything set up before the meeting starts and so that's why I'm saying aye imbalance of power because the other just like JP strain was and he can't call of the quorum court members and they can put an emergency clause in there and have no idea what's going on is it really limits his ability to have top is other quorum court members of thought it was going on. The date of follow up represented well I'm and I think I understand what happens I just don't know what allows that to happen I think is what what I'd like to I don't know I guess it's too late call anybody else is able to answer I guess at this point I'm just trying to balance the parent with this bill will balance the parent make equal for everybody to be able top and discussing sink a good more effective and efficient government to yeah completely understand that and and support that idea again just trying to figure out what allows that to happen now. Representative state your question we've we've not taken a motion yes so first tell someone you in a room that you want to call the table to ask questions you have. Right to do so While Mr question sorry about the shaking your head like you can answer it so if you would like to answer that thank you representative. Again Joey McCutchen you know the McCutchen case that I took all the way to the Supreme Court I stated that I had sued our city administrator who had who had sent an informational packet with a recommendation and then he had conversations with each of our board of directors and I filed suit we went all the way to the Supreme Court and they said that that that was not a four year violation and the governing bodies are it It the city administrator is not included in the governing body that would be school boards that would be the school board members that would be the the city council that would be the J. P.'s but they can have conversations per the might catch in versus city of Fort Smith case with their administrator and he can send them informational packets they can have dialogue back and forth but what they can't do is bring into of him and then they start at least back in two thousand and twelve that's what they said if they would have started having back and forth in making decisions and deliberating might have been a different story but but a convert a a county judge is not part of the governing body as defined by the our freedom of information act and and that is part of the freedom of information act. The power of yes recognized so or so then you agree that there is an imbalance of power there that the that allows some advantage to. No Sir I don't agree that there's an imbalance of power because because we're getting Informatik get the information as much information as they want and then the balance of power is squared away in the public meeting they can have as many meetings as they would like to discuss that in front of us so they have the ultimate power to to make the decision again for you allows for special meetings with to our meeting two hour notice to the so there's really no in balance of power at all the JP's are ultimately making the decision city councils ultimately making the decision school boards make the decisions now if it if a if a school superintendent take some down a different path I mean just because they can't discuss have this discussion outside of public view they've got all the power in the world because they make the final decision in an open and public meeting I'm and and that's that's all I'm not gonna make another argument but but that's where the ballot that so there is no ballot balance of power into in terms of they have the ultimate decision they they take they make the votes in in a in that. Thank you for your sure you have a follow up representative good okay thanks for the thank you okay. You need to make sure you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman so just kind of following up with what J. P. same strain it said so for example if I live in the county and I have an issue with the road going in front of my my home and I want to have the the water to JP's come take a look at that they they can't do that correct unless they do proposed notice and have the media come out to my home so it two or three in concert there and discuss issues that are going on with the road from my home is that correct there are mounting you're exactly right there represent and there's practicality right so we know that we're all busy these guys they're J. P.'s work I have other jobs and have all all the time in the world right so we're just trying to make it easier for them to get get things done for constituents follow recognized so or so at the same time and so I support a you know allowing you know reasonable accommodations here is understaffed in this be an issue with the is there some way to maybe work with some of these groups because I don't I I think the concern is valid that would allowing six JP's to get together and discuss okay that that could create problems going down the road and so I'm I'm wondering is there a middle ground here that maybe we can reach with them that would still allow for JP's to discuss these issues that are your reasonable for them to do one on one you know for example you know how this goes I am not an expert next why and health care and so a lot of times I will go to you discuss healthcare issues or you know representative Gazaway has helped me with other other deals to allow for those discussions to take place without. Creating the concern that these gentlemen have or do you think this is maybe an all or none kind of with this the way this section of code isn't please forgive me if I put on your when you on the spot that's not on my intent is not my intent is is how do we make the best possible product for our citizens to give our JP's the the freedom but without creating the potential problems that could come by too much thank you thank you representative makes NINETYFIRST I think would look it covers a broad number of groups of all different kinds numbers rise that's the issue with it so I try to go simple as possible just look at other states and so what other states are doing so forty seven other states are doing things this way and I'm not saying brought amounts of massive corruption crosses other states I think that we can take this exact with they've done if there's not a quorum present they can't take a vote they can't do any business they can't make a vote so the whole thing is to let people get get input and make good effective efficient decisions that's really what it's all about I want them to be informed and make good decisions when they get together doesn't affect public meetings of this committee vote taken so as to be a quorum present so and that says I want a good strong day peace to be able to get some good information make a choice initiatives by broad different number of members of each one of these boards and commissions. Representative Cooper you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. Representative Bentley would you be willing to work with the four year group on this I don't see it necessary I'm not gonna pull the bill is late in the session I think it's a good bill things of the same definition it's another state's this worked well for them and I think it's a good move for. Any further questions from committee members. Saying none representative Bentley that you're recognized close with your bill I think we discussed this thoroughly appreciate this commit committee immensely and with that I'll make a motion to pass. Really been represented Bentley has made a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion representative will make you're recognized to discuss the motion thank you Mr chair of a few things one I got zero contacts leave notes session from JP school board members I just don't think this is a pressing issue I think it's it's of four two important for us to make a mistake of I personally think this should go before the task force that that has the knowledge and expertise and the experience dealing with this of. I think miss Bentley had had mentioned once a lawsuit is on point passing this bill in its current form doesn't stop lawsuits I mean you everybody sitting here knows you can get so at any time for anything I thank you as it's been demonstrated today the opponents of this bill have come to the table and are very reasonable and open to trying to work something out I would like to see that have an opportunity and it sounds like at this point the only way that can happen is if we vote this bill down so I'll be don't know when I ask you guys to do the same. Representa Womack is broken on the motion it further discussion on the motion. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized speak on the motion. Thank you Mr I came in here to get those in full support of this and I'm still fully support the idea of it and I have talked with with just with some JP members of this has been a problem I think it needs to be addressed the right now To a point I'm just not fully comfortable with it and for that reason I don't think I can vote for sorry. Representative Gonzalez has spoken on a motion representative more you're recognized speak on the motion thank you Mr chair I understand the current status quo is certainly an issue and causes problems and of itself and needs to be changed and I think there's a alternative pathway to the status quo and I just want to be a record saying that I think it should probably it would make me more comfortable to said two or more instead of a quorum and that would solve a lot of my fears thank you. Representative more has spoke on the motion any further discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye aye All opposed say no. Those that have it Bills failed thank you chant thank you thank you. Colleagues next on today's agenda we will go to Senate bill three fifty six. Senate bill three fifty six. Representative Cavenaugh will be presenting that build Senator English I believe we have. Representative Cavenaugh. No amendment on this bill yeah you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chair Committee thank you for hearing me this afternoon this bill is come about because as we start working at looking at boards and the information over the past six months we ask them to do our report for any boards that were in active and this we didn't need them anymore because they just weren't being utilized and that's what this board this bill does is just abolish all bills bills and take away I need it legislation because they're simply not active anymore and that simply all this bill does. With that take any questions. Any questions from committee members. J. none no one signed up to speak for against the bill I believe I have a motion of. Has any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have graduation bills passed thank you Committee thank you. Committee will go back to the top of the agenda we'll work our way through it as bill thirteen oh seven is a Concur on those in the Senate amendment representative Wardlaw you're recognized to President. The representative Wardlaw you're recognized. Thank you Mr I believe this microphone that it's better day okay he Members a lot of emails going around about this bill coming back to us I will tell you that the last Senate amendment it was put on the bill alleviated the the need for the retirement systems to be worried anymore it says and not amendment that they do not have to divest as long as it is long as they can prove that divesting would cost them money and then they will divest at a time when it does not cost them money so they still moved that money but they will only move it when they can move it for no financial impact to the system there is a drafting error in the bill the way it is and the only way to fix that dropped in there is code revision and it will be fixed the week we come back for spring break so um bureau brought that to my attention yesterday and they apologize but there is a drafting error so we will get that fixed so with that Mister I'll be happy to take any questions. Any questions from committee members. J. none no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative you're recognized to close I'm close and I make a motion to concur and Senate Amendment. You made a motion occur in. Senate Amendment number one yes Sir reference to House Bill thirteen oh seven. Okay. I have a motion to concur on Amendment number one all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it represented Wardlaw you're recognized for the concur in the other amendment I've explained all the amendments in the first explanation I'd be happy to take any questions. Any questions committee members own amendment number three in the concur to the Senate. They none representative Wardlaw you're recognized to close with the member number three I'll close Mister chair and I make a motion to concur he concur own amendment number three to House Bill thirteen oh seven all in favor say aye. All opposed say no both the members have been concurred in Senate Committee. Committee members next on today's agenda. will go to Representative makes your ready present your bill. The house bill fifteen sixty eight we do have some have someone signed up to testify in this bill. Represent to make sure recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr chairman I do have that hand out so we'll let them get that to you pass around and while that's happening I thought I might share my verse of the day with the the Committee it's almost thirty seven five says commit thy way unto the lord trust also in him and he shall bring it to pass up. Trying to lighten the mood here in this laid out right now and it is that a good day I got a good job for you. All right so House Bill fifteen sixty eight this is deals with daylight savings time and hopefully all understand why I want to run this bill today so over the years when bills have been presented to the legislature to allow us to go on two permanent daylight savings time I have in the past supported those efforts because you know Hey who doesn't like that extra hour of sunlight in the evening. But as I researched this issue more more thoroughly I've come to understand just how harmful that is daylight savings time is actually a failed federal government program that is harmful to the citizens of this state what I'd like to do is take a little bit of time to explain why that is unfortunately it's going to require one or two quick science lessons but to explain this to my fifth graders when I'm doing planetarium program so hopefully this won't be too bad. So in this guy there's an imaginary line that runs from due south directly overhead to due north of this line is called the meridian and the meridian basically justifies the sky in half between the eastern half of the sky and the western half of the Scott when things on the eastern half of the sky as we all know they're rising so the sun rises in the east it'll hit its highest point on the meridian and then it begins to set in the west and what we would do as far as time keeping as we might say that after the sun's past the bottom of this guy and it's been on the eastern half of the this guy we might say that the sign is been ten hours into meridian anti meridian just the the Latin I was word that means before the meridian around noon the sun will cross the meridian and then two hours later we might say that the sun is two hours post meridian. Now we humans don't like to go around saying two hours post meridian ten hours into meridian so we abbreviate those to A. M. and PM so when you say two PM what you're actually doing is you're describing the sun's position in the sky when you say ten AM you're describing the sun's position in the sky this goes all the way back to the time when no we use on dollars for or for time keeping. Now the way that that comes into play in the human body as. When I'm actually trying to start my presentation here because I know it's at the hours getting late. The human body is designed by god for a twenty four hour clock our metabolism are Circadian rhythm sorry it's getting late our circadian rhythm is designed for an operates on about a twenty four hour and a half day so twenty four and a half hours is what our biological clocks or sink to or every morning when the sun comes up the morning sun gently pulls us from that twenty four and a half hours back to twenty four hours. And that only happens because of the important warning signs. When we go to daylight savings time what ends up happening we lose that our. Wow what we're doing with our biological clocks as we're trying to pull it back to twenty three hours in day after day instead of allowing that twenty four and a half hours to take place in the sun not just back on the twenty four hours were forcing it back an hour and a half a day by day by day and study so that we never fully adapt to daylight savings time and that's why all of us over the last couple of days have felt. Jet lag if you will we felt tired it's because of that fact. And if you look in the materials that I gave you. Flip over a couple pages. When that occurs we're gonna go over past the. Those who haven't who have endorsed to standard time. Because of that stress on our body it leads to increased cardiovascular incidences it leads to other medical emergencies and so because of that if you look at this less the American academy of cardiovascular sleep the neurology academy the American academy of sleep medicine the American metal sought medical association all of these have endorsed going back to and staying on standard time. A little bit of history daylight savings time was started actually up you got to go all the way back to World War one. In nineteen eighteen Germany was the very first country to go to daylight saving time and they did it under the pretense of saving energy the other thought was is more daylight in the evening hours people would use less energy and obviously they were still recovering from World War one well during that time because the league of nations in all this global met globalist movement was going on other countries including the United States adopted daylight saving time for the first time again under the auspice of we're going to save energy. It was only in effect for a couple years it was done away with and then in nineteen in the late nineteen sixties we went back to doing daylight savings time and in the early nineteen seventies the whole idea of going to daylight savings time year round became very popular it's kind of like we we've see this stuff kind of move today. They did it and some of you may be old enough to remember I have vague recollections of this in the early nineteen seventies the nation actually did adopt daylight savings time year round. But if you look on well it's like the third page over. There's some newspaper articles. Beds to kill daylight savings time heard in less than three months because of the negative effects of daylight savings time they were moves in Congress they will that this the daylight savings time went from an eighty percent approval rate. Down to into the thirties almost overnight and they repealed and the reason why is because there were serious moves in Congress yesterday to repeal year round daylight savings time which has only been in effect for three weeks and the reason why is because school children have been endangered eight school children have been killed a pre dawn accidents so because of that we went back to where we are today and ever since then we've been going back and forth between standard time to daylight savings time standard time to daylight savings time. Now if I were to. Conduct a poll and ask everybody. Do you like going back and forth I think the consensus would be we all hate going back and forth the only real question is do we stand on daylight savings time or do we stay on standard time. Standard time is in actual time by the sun. If you again for the American medical association says for far too long we've changed our clock in pursuit of daylight while occurring public health and safety risk in the process committing to standard time as health benefits allow us to end the biannual tug of war between our biological clocks in our alarm clocks data shows of the sudden change from standard time to daylight savings time in March is associated with significant public health and safety risks including increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events mood disorder and and vehicle classes some studies suggest that the body clock does not ever fully adjust to daylight savings time even after a few months. The American academy of sleep medicine which is the next page over says that daylight savings time has been shown to lead to chronic sleep deprivation amongst adults and adolescents researchers found that adolescents get less sleep and have longer reaction times increase lapses in vigilance and increase daylight sleepiness following the switch to daylight savings time. We need the morning light to get our clocks back to our biological prognosticating read the reset. But what happens is when we put that extra daylight in the evening we need that. Fading evening light to get our bodies ready for sleep at night and we push that light back in our that pushes our bodies reading this to sleep and studies have shown that people on average get twenty minutes less sleep during daylight savings time. When I asked our colleague representative Lee Johnson who as you all know is a an emergency room doctor about this issue I was expecting him to tell me about these cardiovascular events and so forth. But the issue that he brought to me of concern was that study shall that teenagers. Actually have trouble learning when we require them to get up early for school and it goes back to what the American academy of sleep medicine said here. And the teenagers would learn better if schools from nine to say four instead of eight to three. What we do on daylight savings time as we for some to get up an hour earlier which increases the problem and we do it right before we ask them to take standardized tests in the spring and so we put our teenagers in our students an even greater disadvantage. Bloomberg editorial here talks about the Economic impact. According to one estimate the time shift costs the economy some four hundred million dollars annually so where does that come from. The extra hour at night is often the toted as being beneficial to the leisure industry which is probably true but that cost but that comes with a cost businesses that generally benefit from morning traffic those businesses end up suffering during daylight savings time and productivity issues due to the lack of sleep the insomnia caused by the this is where you get more economic impact and of course the health issues you get a referred further economic impact. And last but not least the last thing I want to talk about is. The whole reason why this was started was energy savings right it was a government experiment to try to save on energy but like many other government experiments this one has gone wrong it actually daylight savings time. Actually uses more energy than it saves people use more energy than and there's two reasons why. The dark at in the evening that were trying to fix all it's only shifted to the morning hour so people you have to use like to in the morning and then the other area were you lose energy is people are staying up longer because the extra light at night so people are using more energy during that extra twenty minutes it doesn't sound like a lot but you get millions of people using electricity for only twenty extra minutes and it adds up to to a lot of cost so colleagues I know it's getting late and I've gone on a lot I will let you know that Just yesterday the state of Tennessee there Senate state agencies Committee passed a similar bill to put that St on standard time year round in the state of Texas there is a bill before their General Assembly that would allow the state of the citizens of the state to vote to keep them on standard time year round so just let you know this is not something only being considered in a in Arkansas so with that I will entertain any questions you have and then I'll have if you closing remarks at the end. Any questions from committee members. Say no we've got one person signed up to speak up against the bill. The Luke's story. The story still in the room. Okay hello say Mr tore so Representative makes no questions from committee members no ones else's here to speak for against your bill so you're recognized close we bill thank you colleagues and and just a complete fairness because our so late what Mr story he and I had had talked before them the same objections that they raised when representative Richard Richardson ran the permanent daylight savings time bill that was the same objections he was going to make to this bill the prominent of standard time bill so that that's what that was all about colleagues I'm just I'm just gonna close with this. Standard time is natural time all of the rest of nature operates on standard time and regardless of what our clocks say our bodies and all of nature still can operate on standard time our front of the capitol there's a sundial. I also think. Okay just checking I know it's like this so out of state capital there's a sundial. And right now either that Sunday I was wrong. Wrong. Clearly it's not the sundial one wrong and I'm just gonna ask you to have the boldness have the courage taught me correct that wrong in vote with me to put us back on standard time on natural time year round and with that I'll make a motion to do pass. Representative image made a motion of do pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. That is that with the bill is passed. Next on today's agenda representative ray. Representative right of. I would ask you to run the house bill sixteen oh one first if that's okay with you I believe you have an amendment to to that because I do have someone signed up to speak against this bill and I'm sure not sure if you're still in the room or not but if they are they've been here for a while so we're handing out the amendment at this time at the house bill sixteen oh one representative. Own your Amendment journey to present your amendment first. Representative right you're recognized president the amendment the house bill sixteen oh one okay thank you Mr chairman so the amendment just adds a state wide in a couple places there to clarify that this is applicable to just statewide initiatives. And would hope the committee would adopt the amendment. Okay I have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion to adopt. Saying none. Representative ray recognized close with your member I'm close for the member a close with these amendment all in favor say aye All opposed say no the ayes have it you can now present your bill as amended. Okay thank you Mr chairman house bill sixty no one college we have a problem in our state that almost nobody talks about it's not a problem that the news media covers is not a problem that family sit around the dinner table discussing but it's a serious problem that threatens the confidence in our democratic institutions signatures that are submitted for initiatives in the state of Arkansas have an extraordinarily high invalidity rate according to data from the secretary of state's office signatures that have been submitted on various measures from two thousand sixteen to twenty twenty two we're typically invalid at rates ranging from twenty five percent all the way up to thirty six percent simply put this is not just a problem it represents an emergency that this legislature can't afford to ignore in no area of life would we tolerate this level of failure rate if we had if a surgeon lost thirty percent of their patients we would be clamoring for more regulation in this area if the school bus driver wrecked on thirty percent of his routes that person would be fired and it would lead the news every night if we conducted an audit of an election and found that thirty percent of the votes were cast fraudulently we would say that election is a joke. Similarly we shouldn't tolerate a failure rate of twenty five thirty thirty five percent or higher of petitions that could change our state constitution or the laws that our citizens have to live under the state has a long established responsibility to ensure there's no fraud in our elections and that responsibility also extends to the initiative process this legislation I believe will aid in the proper use of the initiative process. Absent efforts to address these issues untrained political canvassers will continue to obtain and submit forged or otherwise facially invalid signatures this bill would make the sponsors of various measures as well as the canvassers more accountable to the people it would help facilitate the initiative process can serve state resources and help restore confidence and trust in the initiative system so very quickly what the bill would do it would work would require paid signature gatherers to undergo a very modest amount of training just eight hours that would be administered by the secretary of state's office that training could take place in person or online making it easy for anyone in the state to satisfy that requirement it would also require a paid canvassers to pass a test administered by the secretary of state's office that would ensure that the paid signature gather is at least civic proficient and the rules laws and procedures regarding signature gathering and by doing that we can protect the paramount interest that the state has in protecting the integrity of the initiative process be happy to take any questions and questions from committee members who represent Clowney recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representative ray I just got a couple questions about some of the details here so it can you walk me through a little bit what you anticipate this license application process to look like submits an application in writing I assume that a lot of this is going to be worked out in the rulemaking process but what will that application look like in your mind I mean can we get some assurances of what kinds of things will be on here and I'll tell you that the reason I'm asking is because I want to make sure that whether a person is granted a license or not is not dependent on whether the secretary of state has a the you know the office has an interest in particular issue that is being collected that that click that signatures are being collected for that makes sense sure I think you're not sure. Rations corrected that with a lot of that would be fleshed out and rules an application would be developed by the secretary of state as far as whether someone would not be approved for an application I mean the only thing that I can think of that would disqualify somebody would be if they. Don't meet the requirements of they have a disqualifying offense right the criminal background check element. Of. Thank you Mr chair so why then is an application required in addition to passing that criminal history criminal records check I am looking sorry just so that you know I'm looking at page seven okay where it has all of the thing the Secretary of State shall have the authority to issue a license if the applicant and then at that ABCD last. Right will typically if you're granted a license you have yet to apply for a first they have to know who is absent who they're granting it to so they would have to keep records on these things if they're if they're granting a license you have to have some record of who you're giving that license to follow up recognize your intended that application that would would be something like the name and contact information and that that that would be the extent of the application not this is the issue that I am applying to canvass signatures for that's correct thank you. It further questions from committee members. I do Mr chairs on a follow up but I've got more questions if nobody else has and I was gonna get the back of the queue but no you're recognized thank you and I'm also curious representative ray how you see this interacting with the constitution so you know we have we have a lot of constitutional language it's very clear about petition at circulation petitions. Unwarranted restrictions are prohibited according to our state constitution this is language directly from the constitution no law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons from giving or receiving compensation for circulating petitions nor to prohibit the circulation of petitions this is really the part I'm interested in nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions this section shall be self executing in all its provisions shall be treated as mandatory no legislation shall be enacted to restrict him per or impair the exercise of the rights here in reserved to the people do you see this is in conflict with this I mean I would say that this is an impairment on the right of the people can you explain why you think this is in line with our constitution and its requirements sure and I appreciate that question if if you continue reading in that section of the constitution it goes on to say but law shall be enacted prohibiting a penalizing perjury forgery and all other felonies and other fraudulent practices in securing the signatures or filing of petitions the state constitution expressly allows for laws to prohibit and punish fraud in obtaining signatures and filing petitions you know it's my belief that this law imposes a minimal burden and aids in the proper use of the rights granted by the constitution if you read the twenty fifteen case that the state Supreme Court considered make Daniel the Spencer the court in that instance up held a series of statutory requirements on paid signature gatherers and what they found was that those requirements aided in the proper use of the rights granted by the constitution in in in that case I believe the court said that those measures assistant prohibiting fraudulent practices in the attaining of signatures. Which is an authority granted to the General Assembly there's also the Washburn versus hall case from nineteen fifty six where the core up held ballot title review. And basically what the court has said consistently is that as long as the statute in doesn't curtail the operation of amendment seven but that it aids in the Amendment and insurers well and that in that in that instance they said It aided in the amendment and ensures that giving the signer of the petition as much information as possible so the court has said that if your if the General so if what the General Assembly is an acting aides in the furtherance of the amendment that is allow allowable and I believe that this bill makes those that standard. One quick follow the recognized sorry I represent every can you just tell me what I didn't catch the name of the two thousand fifteen case can you just tell me yeah that was McDaniel versus Spencer thank you. Any further questions from committee members. Say none we have one person signed up to testify against the bill night bail. Representative right if you just move over make room for Mr Vale. Thirty would you men here before just stage name to the committee and you're recognized give you testimony thank you Mr chair yes Sir it's been about seven years and I was at the opposite end of the table the last time I was in this room of my remarks I a indicated good morning but we're well into the evening now I'll do my best to be very brief but this is an important matter and I do want to say to the chair in the committee that I appreciate the fact that you all have taken the time to listen to people thoroughly today even though it's been lengthy and have not moved to limit testimony that speaks well for all of you and I want to thank you for that just as a citizen of the state. Well my name is Nate bill I am here today speaking on behalf of common ground Arkansas and so my remarks will be representing them. It's privilege to be back in one fifty one my time serving here as a member and is chairman of this committee is something I treasure. I want to thank each of you for your sacrificial service to our state. I'd like to begin my testimony but going back to something that representive Clowney or mentioned earlier all man that is article five section one Arkansas constitution which is what we're expressly dealing with here today. This is a section for which this legislative body derives its power to pass laws. Article five in very first paragraph cites the importance of an plainly reserves the people's right to preserve legislative measures and to reject laws passed by law that passed by the legislature via referendum. Moving further in this section one pass that first paragraph we find this clause. Unwarranted restrictions prohibited. No law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons for give from giving or receiving compensation for circulating petitions nor to prohibit the circulation of petitions nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petition's by law shall be enacted prohibiting and penalizing perjury forgery and all other felonies and other fraudulent practices in the securing of signatures or filing of petitions. This language is quite plain frankly it's as clear as a mountain valley spring water. No law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons from giving or receiving compensation for circulating petitions. That doesn't say to prohibit any unlicensed person or persons it clearly says any person. That's the plain language of our constitution. People would some day file bills like H. B. sixteen oh one. So they made it even more clear by saying nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions. Now this by a bill sponsor today you've heard any anxious hat on telling you that. Bills to prevent perjury forgery felonies and fraudulent practices are allowed but he's counting on you not paying close attention to that. There's nothing in there that allows laws preventing those things it allows laws prevent prohibiting and punishing those criminal actions that's a very important point. In fact use legislature are very strictly prohibited. You're very strictly limited to prohibiting a penalizing those criminal acts should they occur. But let's go further let's move on to the final words of section five which representive county referenced earlier. This section shall be self executing and all this provision shall be treated as mandatory but laws may be enacted to facilitate its operation we'll come back to that word facilitate. No legislation shall be enacted to restrict hamper or impair the exercise of the rights here in reserve to the people. Webster's dictionary defines facilitate as to make it easier. I'll just pause here for just a second I want each of you to think in your mind about whether or not you believe honestly and sincerely that this bill makes the process easier. For the people if you do frankly you should vote for the bill if you don't you should oppose this bill. Let's assume that you choose to ignore constitutions playing language and follow what other states without such strong constitutional reservations of power to the people have done. Best I can tell there to other states have some form of licensure for petition canvassers. They're both blue states. The kind of like to license pretty much everything from interior design to hear raiders. Oregon requires registration canvassers. But the requirements are much less draconian what's proposed in this bill. Colorado passed a law that included licensure even went so far as to include a badge. Yes court of appeal struck that portion those forces that all down but did allow a portion to remain that allows a company that securing those petitions petition signatures to be licensed at a hundred dollar fee. What this bill to pass it would make Arkansas stand out as having the heaviest handed regulatory process on ballot measures in the United States. The legislature passed several measures reducing the burden of state licensure on businesses some this even this session. Why we've chosen to do that. Most commonly cited reasons because compliance costs drive up the overall cost of doing business. And lock out little gas. The same is true in this instance what we repeatedly hear. From sponsors in on this and similar measures they're saying out of state business are out of state billionaires are buying our constitution the true that they don't want you to recognize is that they're intentionally making the process X. more expensive and more difficult to comply with and that financially locks the little guys as my favorite of lieutenant governor of Arkansas when Rockefeller used to say the ordinary everyday our Kansans. We're essentially being financially locked out of the process the little guy. This process is getting so expensive the compliance costs are getting so expensive that it makes it were literally the only people who can do this or billionaires. The plain language of our constitution clearly runs contradictory that it's intense clear you all read law every day you know that that that that intent is is expressly clear in it what you're being asked to do is to directly. Take that on and make the process more difficult. This bill would increase the cost of regulatory compliance for typical ballot measure. By some estimates by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of dollars just to comply with all of the hoops that you have to jump through with licensure with the time to pay people to go and get their license all all the regulatory compliance pieces. That's not limited government it's bigger government and there's nothing conservative about it anyway. But going further than that one of the things that you've not heard today is any discussion of the fiscal impact of this legislation. This bill calls for the secretary of state to put a licensing process in place. How much sell ice is going to cost it's not in this bill. What's it going to cost to put the training program in place it's not in this bill. What are the rules going to be promulgated I think I'll be promulgated next may when the signatures are due in July. It's bills got an Emergency Clause attached to it. Our buyer is this bill primarily designed to make sure that nobody can have signatures ready in time for the next legislative the next election cycle this delaying rules promulgation promulgation process there's no timeline for promulgation of rules. Remember those strong constitutional process protections that I mentioned earlier I just want to ask each of you if you can go home and look your constituents in the eye and tell them you voted for a bill like this believing that complies with article five of the Arkansas constitution. The people this state have voted down to Legislative referred amendment proposals in the last two cycles by approximately sixty percent margins that. Address the same type of thing making it more difficult for the people to express their their opinions via referendum initiated act and referred amendments initiated amendments. We made to press the practical problems with this bill and all of them you all are tired I'm tired we're already to get out here for spring break I'm not going to go there. There are several that are noteworthy and should be discussed but frankly they're not the core problem with this bill this bill is lead yet another attempt to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens of Arkansas to petition for changes in our laws and it's blatantly an offensively unconstitutional on its face I urge you to vote against this bill today Mister chair I thank you for the opposite you in the committee for the opportunity to speak to you today and I'm happy to take any questions. I have a question representative medication recognized. Thank you Mr bell almost called representative bill out of habit so the question I have is is is I by I think I concur with your concern about the constitutionality of the of the bill my one question is is that as you study this the although the one piece that I have a question about is the training piece requiring any training because you know the. The way they interact with the public making sure they're correct getting the correct information whose eligible voter because there are so many mistakes that end up costing taxpayers time for the secretary and all those people to go through all that you understand all that and so I'm wondering is there a way to do the training requirement piece on here do you think without running afoul of the constitution or do you think even that could be be problematic. Representative makes a as you as you know I'm far from a lawyer but the lawyers that I've spoken with have indicated that you know they intended challenges should it pass a and they're going to challenge it directly on the facilitate language and so my my only comment there would be that you really have to come back to the spirit of the constitution and that word facilitate and it says the all or allowed to pass laws that facilitate this and that means make it easier and when you look at the other plain language and I I I know there's been one Supreme Court opinion that nearly allowed some prohibitions that border on preventions but it was a very narrow line it was walked in those cases I. He it in any case like this ultimately you answer to your constituents and regardless of what the courts might may or may not do you know alternately they they get to decide that Alcide of what any of us might think some sense but Ultimately have to answer your constituents and they can read that language in the constitution just like you and I can and it's pretty plain I it it says the people reserve this right for themselves it says yeah can pass laws to help facilitate it but that you're not to make it any more difficult and it makes that expressly clear over and over. That's really all I can say about it I I I can't judge what a court might do. Represent the Wardlaw you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair. That I that I hear you admit that you would an attorney. I am anything but an attorney representing Wardlaw well I do have serious questions You mentioned earlier testimony about the blue states that had initiated this so you're saying this is not a red idea is that what you were incinerating I don't know where this idea came from I can only speak to what I can find searching and see if it's the US sales database and looking at going state by state and looking at who has laws in place there may be more up to date information what I can find via the agency as well but what I can say is that the two states that have similar measures to this that I can find are those two states. So this would be similar I guess in layman terms bigger government right it most definitely is on increasing the read the scope and reach of government yes. Thank you. You're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair and Mr about apologies in advance you don't know the answer to this question but it sounds like you've done your research on the other states I was curious if you know of those other states that have a licensing requirement is either one required test before canvassers allowed to be granted that license I don't recall that directly I believe Colorado may require a test I suspect the bill sponsor may know that better than I do there but I the the biggest thing is the Colorado requirement the Colorado license or licensing requirement was thrown out as unconstitutional federally that's a separate bucket from our state issue but the the U. S. court of appeals threw it out as an unconstitutional infringement. Sorry no further questions from committee members the fair board thank you for being here today but she H. testimony thank you Mr members committee appreciate the opportunity to. The representative right. You're recognized. Okay thank you committee I appreciate the attention I know the hours getting late I'll try to address a few of the things that were brought up you know the the idea that the sole Tate just simply means to make something easier I don't I don't I don't buy that ballot title review has been held up as facilitating the process and having to go have a ballot title approved if you've ever gone through that process is not necessarily easy facilitate in my mind means to make the system work better there are the court has upheld several things including requiring people to have background checks that I don't know necessarily make things easier The that twenty thirteen bill required a number of things that were up held by the court It's the state has an interest in this area in the in Miller versus Thurston which was a twenty twenty two case the court held the quote a state's interest in protecting the integrity of its initiative process is paramount. That was in a circuit case and they said quote states have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process. The a circuit has also said this interest includes not only combating fraud and corruption but also preventing mistakes like duplicate signatures and signatures from Elwood in eligible voters. Why is training necessary. Just look at the invalid rate on our signatures as I mentioned before twenty five thirty thirty five percent or even higher the current requirements are that the secretary of state give a copy of the handbook that has the rules and it. Two paid canvassers clearly just giving them a copy and hoping they read it is not working it's not resulting in a system that produces valid signatures at at a respectable rate and so I think this legislation is a common sense effort aimed at doing that I have run this legislation by the attorney general's office they have said they will defend this legislation if it is indeed challenge and with that I think I'm close for the bill and would appreciate favorable vote. Representative is close to the bill. Puts pleasure of the Committee to I have a motion. I have a motion of a do pass. That is amended motion do pass as amended any discussion on the motion representive cloudy recognized for discussion on the motion thank you colleagues and I'll try to keep it short I know that were very very tired but I think that's no reason to not take the bills that are before us seriously this is a really big bill and I think we need to be really intentional about our vote today I'm going to vote no and I just want to quickly explain why there are a lot of unknowns in this bill the biggest issue for me is that we do not know what that application will look like I absolutely trashed representative ray when he tells us what his intentions are there is nothing in the bill though to preclude the Secretary of state for denying somebody this license for any reason that they want the language says the instances in which the secretary of state house to deny a license that's when they when they find some instance of fraud or failure of the criminal background check but the language of the bill itself does not limit rejection of a license to only those situations that makes me very very nervous given that we don't know who will be secretary of state at any given time and certainly while I believe that representative raise intentions are to limit it to those instances again once this is not that to whoever is enforcing a lot that time whoever is putting this into practice that makes me very nervous I'm also the testing portion makes me nervous making folks take a test before they're granted this license I'm not sure that we required out of people who for instance work at our elections we may I'm just not sure but that feels like a very high burden two at. To overcome before you're able to get one of these licenses again I think that these are things that that could be fixed if we tighten up the language of the bill little bit more it it's a very big bill it's been a very long day I would love to see as clean that language up so that it does adequately reflect the intent of the sponsor but I just wanted to mention those things addition to the constitutional concerns for a while be voting now thanks. Any further discussion on the motion. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you Mr I have. I tend to agree with former representative bill I I just can't vote for this in good conscience with the expanding government reach so I think I'll be a no as well. Representative Wardlaw has spoken on the motion any further discussion on the motion. Seeing none. We have a motion the to do pass as amended all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Those having to bills failed. Representative right of. Repligen Richmond I have a question on. I've got a motion let me hear your motion. After discussion with representative Gonzalez in order for him to do some work on his bill SB seventy one I moved on table the bill and place it back on the agenda. Representative Richmond Richmond is made a motion to take as B. seventy one off the table that is a nine that's not debatable all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the bill will be moved back to the agenda now the chair's gonna move it to deferred. So the bill will played placed on fire per the request of the sponsor. So representative ready you have any other bills that you'd like to move out of the way while we're here that's not the I don't blame anybody else signed up to speak for or against any of your bills so I'll try to move quickly minute background later with house bill fifteen ninety five and the little would try to do another one before we adjourn okay fifteen ninety five I think it's pretty simple currently packs political action committee state packs are required to renew their registration every year by January fifteenth unless the pack decides to terminate its registration this bill would just flip the default so that the pact stays registered until you decide to terminate your registration the reason for that you know most packs continue year to year the op they stand operation for multiple years they don't just pop up one year and then go away although if they did they could simply terminate the registration but obviously if you don't register in the first or re register in the first fifteen days of a year you can get dealing with ethics complaint affix violation I just simply don't think there's anything unethical about continuing to keep your packing operation from year to year and so I think the benefit of this bill would be that it might it might reduce the number of frivolous frivolous complaints that are filed with the and Commission and that's what the bill does. Representative to make sure recognized for a question thank Mister I have a question and a follow up if that's okay so my question is is there any registration fee that needs to be collected from packs for the registration and would this be doing away with any such fee there there is no fee required currently in this bill does not impose a fee and then my follow up Mister recognized so do with the secretary of state's of actually a package going to become default does this allow the secretary of state to remove that registration at some point if a pack does the does become the default and doesn't let anybody know because that will happen at some point. this bill doesn't doesn't address that dealing with defunct political action committees I assume if someone. Keep the packing operation and they don't technically terminate their the registration they would just not file reports because they would cease to have activity I'm not I don't know how the ethics commission or the Secretary of State currently deals with that but this bills this bill does not address that particular issue. It further questions from committee members. Say no no one signed up to speak for against bill representative right you're recognized close we bill I'll close for the bill the percentage rise close with the bill representative more you make a motion to pass. I have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no grads congratulations your bill your bill is passed. Yep to trying to do one more you already to. You may go. You resolution yellow but I really appreciate it shall be I mean you mentioned real troopers I've you've hung in here telephone give about an opportunity of speech by you and for you but you know I don't want to keep Pushin is dying it's up to you all if you want to keep going live representative rugby of House Bill fifteen ninety seven okay thank you committee for your patience again I'll try to be brief fifteen ninety seven is dealing with disbursement of campaign funds at the conclusion of the campaign if you are finished with your campaign and you have no intention of running again and you have money left over the law currently requires you to get rid of that money and you have to do it the way the way the law currently allows for you to do it is you have to either refund it to could contributors you have to give it to the government either state general revenue or a city or town you can donate it to a political party or party caucus or you can donate to a five oh one C. three nonprofit this bill would simply expand the number of options that someone would have for for disbursement of those leftover campaign funds they could also give the money to a five oh one four five oh one C. for nonprofit group those are social welfare type organizations they could give it to a five oh one C. six nonprofit those are business leagues chambers of commerce trade associations that sort of thing they could contributed to a ballot question committee they could contributed to an independent expenditure committee or they can contribute up to the limit to a political action committee and so this just broadens the way in which kept leftover campaign funds can be disposed of in provides more latitude for doing so representative plan you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representatives informational question I think I know the answer but I just wanna make sure if this campaign funds are given to say a five oh one C. four who typically do not have to disclose their donors right with that be evident on the kind of campaign side that that's where the money had gone or will they be shielded from disclosure of having given those funds to a five oh one C. for well what I would say is that any funds that is these are campaign funds that we're talking about and so campaign funds do have to be disclosed so the source of that money is already known now granted it's all sort of in a. Hold in a campaign at that point but it is disclosed on the campaign and and so if you gave it to a five oh one see three for example that money is not disclosed either if you if you if you gave the money to the church or the park the American heart association or or the Boy Scouts of America those are five oh one C. threes they don't they they're not required to disclose where that money comes from follow other recognized sorry I didn't raise my question all representative may I guess I mean but but I disclose the candidate that I have given that money to the five oh one so yeah you're fine yes on your final report you to after report where you how you disbursed of that leftover funds yes thank you. Pepperidge Womack you're recognized. I don't see anything in the bill it maybe I miss is there anything in this bill that will prevent that Canada donated the money to then going to work for. The entity that they just don't have the money to. No. Okay thank you. The House you're recognized for a question. This is just money after closing out a campaign fund or can could could someone just donate money out of the campaign fund at any time no this would only affect disbursement of campaign funds at the conclusion of the campaign. Okay thank you. Any further questions from committee members. Say no no one signed up to speak for against bill representative right you're recognized close we bill I'm close for the bill close to the bill representative makes I have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized for discussion on the motion I think read representative Womack brought up of. Pretty good valid concern there But I guess my my final thought on that is you can currently do that now with five oh one see three corporation. The way the way it's. Rittenhouse a I think that's a valid concern that we may need to address going forward but I don't know that this is enough to keep me from voting against this. seventy four. It further discussion on motion represented will make recognized for discussion on yeah I don't have a real strong feelings one way or another I think this is just another. I think this is just another bill that I don't see a great need for you know and any any contact I don't I don't know of a single person that has run for office and had trouble dispersion those funds in the past it just seems like maybe we have a fix to a problem we don't have so that's pretty simple profile vote no. Representative Becker recognized certification on the motion. I'm not likely to be trying to the bill one concern that I have been may maybe maybe it's in there and I didn't read it. If you donated to two five oh one see three could they hire you as a consultant then. My answer that. Yes okay. I don't know of anything that would prohibit that but under the rules that we currently have you know you can you can donate that money to a city or town and. The that your concern would still be applicable at city or town could hire you you can donate that money to a political party or a political party caucus they could they could hire you as well you could donate that money to five oh one C. three nonprofit and they could hire is well there's there's there's nothing in the law that would prohibit that I I can tell you that's not my intent you know my intent is that people be given the campaigns raise money for political purposes and I feel it's appropriate to use leftover campaign money for political purpose Yeah and. You know. I'll give you a very concrete example so. Family council is a five oh one C. for You could if you is there's a group that you liked that you support the shares your values at the conclusion of your campaign you want to donate some of that money to that campaign. This bill would allow you to do that I don't think there's anything necessarily wicked or nefarious about that I mean anybody anybody that wants to do bad is going to find a way to do bad regardless of what the rules say I just think this is this just provides a measure of additional attitude and how to get rid of excess campaign funds. Thank you in further discussion on the motion president will make a recognized for a question I might be off on this and I know I'm coming off like an enemy here but I'm not I just. I don't I don't know I think there's a scenario where I could create a pack ahead of time know what I'm not going to be in office you know in two years or four years and then pay myself a salary. It was an employee of the pack. And I completely get which is a people bad people are going to bad things and go to one but you know facilitating that this seems like it may facilitate a little bad so let's just a just a thought. Any further discussion on the motion represent cloudy recognized certification I'm sorry that I didn't bring this up during question the question period because it's possible our president ever has an answer to it but I'm just sitting here thinking and I'm I'm bothered by the fact that candidates are not allowed to coordinate with five oh one C. fours but under this law they would be allowed to contribute money to them that makes me nervous and so so for that reason I'm hesitant I'm gonna be in no right now but if there's an answer to that apologize well that if if quick answer I you at we're kind of getting into this per your answer discussion on the motion tortious publicly discussion with the committee members but. Do you really need an answer to that if not I probably don't need to open and the. Okay any further discussion on the motion. Saying none what's pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion of baseball at Charlie made that motion I'm sorry I have a motion to do pass all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it to bills passed. Local of a state to Hans madam Clerk call the roll. Representative Meeks. Representative Meeks yes representative gene representative gene no. Attentive Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Miller. Representative Miller. Representive Womack. Representative Womack No representative Bentley. Representative Bentley yes representative Gonzalez. Gonzales yes. Senate back representative back no. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway yes representive Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Scott. Representative Scott now represented County. Representative council. Representative Milligan. Representative Milligan yes representive car yes representive card yes representive Underwood. Representive Underwood yes representative very. Representative very yes representative more. Yes represented more yes representative McElroy is presented McElroy yes. Graduation your bill is passed okay thank you Committee. Committee. Bill do one more you want to keep going. You know what. unless the representative right. Ninety nine your house bill sixteen hundred twelve I'm showing fifteen ninety nine was about about your passion over them I could I told you incorrectly on that I can I can I can do that one or I can pass over to the itch it's your call okay I'll go ahead and do that one. Committee members will be doing a House bill fifteen ninety nine all right I House Bill fifteen ninety nine this one deals with the maximum allowable contributions to a political action committee so this would adjust the maximum contribution from five thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars there's two reasons for this number one unlike campaign contributions which are increased every election cycle because there tied to the Federal Election Commission rate those are adjusted each year for CPI for inflation R. pac contributions are the limits are not tied to anything so they're only change when they're Justin statute the last time that pac contributions were adjusted in statute was nineteen ninety nine and conveniently if you if you were to go to the U. S. bureau of labor statistics CPI inflation calculator and you were to type in five thousand dollars in nineteen ninety nine money what that would be worth now would be between nine and ten thousand dollars so that is how I have it that there's also a you know you hear people complain about the issue of multiple packs you know people have us make up a name Arkansas pack one Arkansas pack two Arkansas pack three the reason that people have multiple taxes because of the contribution limit so it's really just an arbitrary barrier I think it will actually make it easier to this will actually decrease the number of people who create multiple packs and it'll make it easier there for for people to follow those contributions and where that money is coming from and where it's going so that's the reason for the bill. Any questions from committee members represent representative make sure recognized. Thank you of the representative ray you said all you know like ours are adjusted to CPI all that I'm just curious since you're here making this week or not. What that mechanism in here as well to keep from having someone else having to do this again again again in the future. I don't know that's an interesting suggestion it's it's not one that I incorporated into this bill. I will say I'm disappointed out there because that may be if you don't get late but if you want to pull this doubt that something you want to bother with to fix that that that adjustment so that way it's taken care of now in perpetuity. I talked to her just on it out there I appreciate that suggestion I will I like the number that I came up with here act sort of explain my reasoning for that if the committee decides not to go with this bill and has a different number in mind or a different mechanism to do it would be happy to revisit that at a future date. Any further questions from committee members. Saying none no one signed up to speak for against bill representative right you're recognized close we bill I'm close for the bill represent to raise close with the bill I have a motion. I have a motion representative Gonzalez do pass any discussion on the motion. Shea none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Is have it regulates your bill is passed. Representative director you're ready present house bill sixteen hundred I am this is the last one committee and I appreciate everybody's patience my brain feels like cream of wheat as well sixteen hundred is repealing a two thousand thirteen law that concerns display of campaign literature our campaign signs on vehicles while the state capitol some people may be aware that some people may not but it is currently illegal to have a campaign sign or sticker or magnet on your vehicle while you're at the capital that is larger than twelve inches by twelve inches I think this is sort of an arbitrary and silly requirement in my opinion I think it's likely violative of the first amendment to the constitution I've spoken with are Attorney General about this matter and he's in agreement with that opinion and so I'm just seeking to repeal the requirement I have asked around about several people including some of the sponsors of that twenty thirteen law as to how this came into being in the first place I've heard a couple of different variations of the story but every variation that I've heard begins with and ends with we'll this one member was mad at this other member and they passed this law to kind of get back at him I'm not sure that's the best rationale for making public policy I don't think there's anything unethical about having a car V. a car magnet on your vehicle it doesn't cause anybody any harm for it to be there I've seen many members of this body display car magnets on their vehicles while they're at the capitol and I believe the ethics commission is actually recently find some lawmakers for being in violation of this so I think if we get rid of this sort of silly requirement it would reduce the number of frivolous ethics complaints that the ethics commission has to deal with and within the benefit to that would be it would reduce the. By the time it takes them to get through serious complaints. Any questions from committee members represented back you're recognized. It is there any limit to the spelling could you how big could you get all right bigger bigger truck. All right. That is a concern that's the way it is it is sort of an arbitrary limit to say twelve you know why is a thirteen inch sign illegal but attendance sign legal I understand that could lead to a rather large displays well if somebody brings a large sign on their car or truck I don't think that's going to cause anybody any harm. Representative macro you're recognized for a question thank you representative ray a few years ago today the we had some problems with the car with the entire car was wrapped so and the thing we we we might be it's a slippery slope here. I just don't know what harm is created by having a vehicle wrap on your on your vehicle it doesn't it doesn't harm anyone for it to be there it's not unethical is not corrupt So Mr it doesn't it doesn't give me any pause you're recognized okay can I put Mark McElroy said on your car. Thank you very much I'd be happy to representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question they Mr is there any limit to the number of those twelve by twelve signs you can currently have could you cover your whole vehicle in twelve or twelve I thank you I found an interesting loophole in the current law representative Gonzales. Any further questions from committee members represent Gazaway you're recognized thank you Mr chairman the representative ray is it really appropriate to be campaigning at the state capitol I mean I would end up being on yeah. you know we prohibit Candidates for office from you know campaigning in county owned buildings or having even having campaign materials in a county owned buildings or other back you know government facilities is it really appropriate for members to be up here with campaign paraphernalia all over their vehicles going about the state capitals in this be kind of a neutral territory I mean what what are your thoughts on that I mean you're not actively campaigning by parking your vehicle I don't think I meant and for almost for virtually everyone in this legislature almost none of your constituents are here at the capitol they're all in your district so I don't know who you're can't whose Boettcher trying to woo by having a sign on your vehicle so I it's an interest I think your question is an interesting. Intellectual exercise I just don't know that it's a. I don't know it's something that gives me a lot of heartburn. It further questions by committee members. Say none the one signed up to speak for against bill representative right recognize close we mail I'm close for the bill and I appreciate everyone's patience and the wonderful questions. Represent your right is closed I have a motion representive cloudy a representative got what you motion. I have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. seven two bills passed thank you Committee Ravager Richmond you will run your bill. While we're here let's do it. Committee members were fix the heater here House resolution ten forty eight represent your Richmond you're recognized. Very quickly House resolution ten forty eight is a resolution the call on United States Government Claire Fenton all to be a weapon of mass destruction and designate the Mexican drug cartels a foreign terrorist organization why call on his weapons of mass destruction well it doesn't matter if it's a nerve agent choking agent or blistering agent. That those are all considered weapons of mass destruction those are chemical weapons and fit in all is a chemical that's killing about one hundred ninety six people a day over a hundred thousand Americans die each year to an overdose sixty six percent of those are overdoses that could be related back fit now so this is a chemical weapon this is chemical warfare and this is a weapons of mass destruction. Now as far as the cartel goes. The cartel is armed with several private armies which are the ones that are allowing this stuff to enter our southern border and I think it's time that we send out a message of federal government needs to do something besides hand wringing that it's time that they put that hand in a fist and do something and I think that the people of Arkansas as well as the General Assembly here would agree that we need to send a message and that message is we're not going to tolerate this any longer and that we will use whatever options are available to deal with this problem. It's time to take action and quit just sitting on the sideline hoping that somebody will do something let us be the first to start thank you. Representative Richmond has presented his house resolution of any questions from committee members. Say none Pitsch Richmond you better close I'm close make a motion to pass information remote a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Shame none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no graduations resolutions passed thank you Mr thank you committee thank you for that enthusiastic vote. Probably. Committee thank you I'll get you out of here I appreciate it right pretty well wiped out our agenda we got a few that we didn't here but that's because sponsors were not here thank you again I can't tell you how proud I am may be this meeting is adjourned.