State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

We will isn't it it's it's engrossed or any and. Yes yes gross. Senator is to go ahead and re introduce yourself when you're recognized thank you Mr chairman members committee Kim Hammer state to senator District sixteen. You're recognized for closing thank you of members you've heard at length the debate on both sides of this issue your questions have been answered maybe hopefully to your full satisfaction this issues actually been brewing for two years I've said in a couple meetings involving both sides of this issue over the last couple years in this issue's been growing ever since transformation occurred and one of the reasons I want to bring this bill was to be able to get this issue before you let's use a committee exercise your respective wisdom to come to a conclusion one of the things that you heard today is that two of the three boards do not oppose this so there's a willingness on the part of to this reports to come together you've heard about volunteers who had helped run the one board as testified today which with regards to the intent of making sure that the needs of the citizens are met I appreciate volunteers I volunteer a lot of things to but when it comes to the handling of matters by our boards and the members are appointed to them I think we need to lay a solid foundation to make sure that whether somebody takes vacation get sick or whatever the case may be that we need to have a good thorough backup plan one of the things that one drug here tension also is that I served as chair of legislative audit's an absurd on legislative audit the majority of my career that I've been down here segregation of duties and responsibility of the accounting or financial matters is critically important and you've heard testimony today of one of the shortcomings with regards to one of the boards and because of that I think that combining the boards will retain the respective of skill sets knowledge base in order to meet the needs of all three of the boards are being combined together it is not uncommon the boards have respected people coming from various backgrounds in order to bring a different perspective to the matter and has given testimony today at the end of day sometime. Times when people wanna know some they just go straight to of the member of the board that they know personally or the head of the board they can answer the questions for them one of the things also that I would like to point out is that by bringing the three boards together one of the positions if I understood right will be eliminated but yet the ability to share resources across all three boards should help in the event that somebody has to be out for whatever reason but also in order to help take care of some of the Monday in things that workflow can be spread out among the employees represented all three of the boards I do not feel that they'll be a compromise as far as the quality that members of each one of the respective disciplines that are going to be utilized that are gonna be representatives ported out feel that they will be compromised in any way and I think the intent of what the boards are there to do will move forward except for the B. you moving forward as one board and as mentioned this is this bill is presented to you on behalf of the agency but also of the governor supports this bill governor's office porches bill and so with that members I would just a defer to your collective wisdom you heard my reasoning as I said this is been something that's been coming for two years and I'm I think this is a opportunity for you to express your opinion I would appreciate a good vote thank you senator Bledsoe will of committee. Motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye aye All opposed like sign. So I have not. Issued all right I have I have a say it passes roll call. Senator flowers. Senator flowers no Senator Hester yes Senator Hester yes senator king. Senator came. Senator Crowe senator Kroll yes senator Peyton senator yes center Dotson centre Dotson yes Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker not. With a vote of five eight yeas to nays and one not voting your bill passes thank you senator thank you Mr chairman members committee. Next to the we will hear Senate bill seventy one. Senate bill seventy one is already with your committee with an amendment on it if you want to introduce yourself you're recognized senator Dan Sullivan district twenty. You're recognized this This Is been engrossed so we don't need to do the amendments that correct. Yes it's already built so folks as the chair said we've heard this bill once the only thing additional is a a note from the Attorney General that says he right with consulted with the AG's office and he says there are no constitutional infirmities with Senate bill seventy one with that I'll take any questions. Is there any questions Senator Tucker. I you Mister senator you know I've had a lot of conversations about this. And I just wanna talk about a few things that we talked about. One is that I mentioned to you is the mosaic Templars cultural center which is a state museum party Arkansas department of parks and tourism. And. What this bill does is it criminalizes. Giving a preference based on race correct yes. And everything that the mosaic Templars cultural center does what its mission first of all I should say is to preserve and present black history and black culture from the state of Arkansas and every single transaction that they engage in. Rightly in my judgment and whoever's judgment created them as a mosaic Templars cultural center. Shows a preference based on race because every single piece of art in the mosaic Templars cultural center's museum this from a black artist and every single piece of merchandise in the museum store is from black owned business and. If this bill becomes law then when the people who work at the mosaic Templars cultural center. DO their jobs according to the mission of that museum they'll be committing a crime. Can you help me understand. Is that true first of all I'm not an attorney and so I don't know if if if they would be convicted of a crime and again we are seeing a movement nationwide representative Murdock presented a bill or senator Murdock presented a bill last week that he said had no discrimination in all this stuff this is. End state sponsored discrimination and we will not ever in discrimination with more discrimination at some point the state will put that flag in the ground and say we are not going to support racial discrimination anymore that's what this bill does And if you're asking me if someone's going to be found guilty in court I don't know. I'm a so I understand that's what you're into what you just stated but the point I'm trying to make is that it does a whole lot more than that as well because we have a a. Beyond my personal knowledge and I've had a countless conversations about this a lot of programs out there and I'm using right now the mosaic Templars cultural center as one example it may not be your intent to shut this museum down. But that's effectively what will happen if this bill passes and I'm not I'm not asking you if a jury of twelve in Pulaski County circuit court is going to convict them of a crime. But it would I'm not asking to go to that level of detail but the in the bill as it's written would make their conduct illegal in the I mean do you disagree with that I mean that they're showing preference based on race and what they do so is it is your intent not to eliminate that. The intent of the bill is to end discrimination state sponsored discrimination that's the intent of the bill I cannot and I misunderstood I guess because you were asking me if people would be found guilty of that I misunderstood I'm sorry with the goal of the bill is very clear at some point we have to say state sponsored discrimination Ms and at some point people are going to be impacted by that positively and negatively and I can't go through every what if situation and disk disk are go through all those but clearly people will be impacted clearly many will be there. They're part of life will be improved many it's going to it's going to hurt that's what happens when we make as big decisions like we just made a few minutes ago. Well it it's very nice to say you know what your intent is without considering what the impact is going to be that's that's not really. A responsible governing we have to think about what the impacts are going to be when we pass a piece of legislation and I'm not asking about a hypothetical I'm asking about something that's very specific it's a museum down at ninth and Broadway just a few blocks from here and that's just one example and I can give you a hundred more whether it's the minority health commission or the H. B. C. use in Arkansas you can go on and on and on and these are very real impacts that will happen in virtually every agency of our state government and. Local governments beyond my knowledge and understanding of of very real impacts and so I understand what your intent is but if we're being responsible if we don't just pass these laws in the abstract they're gonna be real in the real world and they have application and if we're gonna be responsible we have to think about what the impacts are going to be and so is it okay with you that the mosaic Templars cultural center will effectively cease to exist if this bill passes. You're describing only one side. There's yes there's going to be impact no I'm not happy that people will lose their business norm I happy that and I know that racial discrimination does not cure racial discrimination that's a you can never have never in the history and what you're proposing it sounds like it's continuing racial discrimination and I say no. What I don't know how many different ways I can ask the same question But I guess you're just not going to answer it. I think I have we can disagree on that also but I think a clearly have. So you're okay with a mosaic Templars cultural center CCSS that and I said I'm not happy that they close okay that's not a business it's a it's a state it's a museum a state museum. I have two more questions I move on from that one one is. In the bill. it does create a crime doesn't not. Yes. And we had a lot of conversations in the course of this legislation legislative session about a mental state for a crime can you repeat tell me what page you're looking at I'm sorry let me find it. Page five. There we go Page eleven. And the line. Twenty four okay. It says a person who negligently violates this section is guilty of a Class es misdemeanor. So that's what we're criminalizing conduct that violates this code as you propose correct. Right yes and the mental state that you've assigned for this crime is negligence. Correct. So my question here I mean it when we when we start talking about crimes in the law. It's hard to put a percentage on actually reviewed I think there's less than ten crimes in the entire Arkansas state code out of hundreds if not thousands of crimes that have a mental state of negligence. And it's because we want to be very careful about criminalizing conduct that people do on accident. Typically we want to criminalize conduct the people do on purpose about what you're proposing here I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly is if someone. Accidentally violates this section and they'll be guilty of a Class se misdemeanor and subject of imprisonment of up to one year. This is a cap this is copied from the four year old law same thing same negligent and I'm not aware of very very few if any people who have been penalized under that that same negligence statute maybe you are I'm not but we don't see a lot of people going to jail for that so if you're proposing that people in this bill are going to be negligent I don't see anymore I think the for you a low impact many more people your position is that the there's a crime for violating for a with the mental state of negligence there is we just we pull that language and put it in here I'll say more okay I'll be taking a look at that you're welcome to I mean that's it we pulled straight from there here's my last question on page eleven in subsection be starting on line seven. It says the state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to an individual group on the basis of race sex color ethnicity or national origin and your your end point is we need to stop discrimination correct yes I'm asking if that's not quite right state sponsored discrimination there's no intent to go into the public sector Karna's I'm asking if you would add religion to that to make sure that we're ending state sponsored discrimination based on religion no one a I've just choose to go with this bill right now is written so we're okay with discriminating state sponsored discrimination on the basis of religion. How are you okay with that I don't think so no so why why would you not consider adding it to the bill because I'm ready to move forward with this bill as written. I thank you Mr. Thank you Sir any other questions. You saying none of we have four to speak against this bill the. Lance Love are. My request is to keep it concise it's been a very long day Sir and the if you would introduce yourself and you're recognized yes I apologize my name so the the lance levar I'm here as a private citizen on my own time I recognize you want to be concise and concerned about people who are hurt by brevity when we will talk to the real issues but I'll keep this concise as like like to start with the parable of the scale I'm choosing right unless I want to imagine that we have a scale whenever I put items on the scale that are the same way exact same way every time I do it everyone of this site's always shows lower than the other left more than the right. And every single time that happens the skills look and say well this isn't this doesn't seem right because the skills off the the same right the same way and so then I go in and I start with just the scale I just the scale so that it brings them to balance as they do so the skills that have always been seen as the ones that are have your start to get upset to say wait you're discriminating against me. By bringing us into balance with each other. And the ones on the other side like wallets took forever fine we get there the problem is we can't Senator Solomon says we can't remove discrimination by discriminating we're not removing discrimination by bringing balance to what's going on because the data show us we are out of balance we are clearly out of bounds and we tell you an expensive I can sure how we're at about. When I first moved back to Arkansas. I was on my way but a decade ago so statue limitations over as about my my way too low. Just to church not turned right on a red light one of the few that you can't turn right on I got pulled over by the police officer asked me how my license was and I said well might my schedule it's it's it's clear I said you know I actually just moved here from Utah somebody you'd license was a Utah driver's license yes I realize this car has Mississippi plates and it's registered to someone with a different last name than me that's because my sister gave it to me and I had just broken the law. The went back and he said let me check on your record and went back in a few minutes later came back and said I couldn't find a record you talk about a failure in Arkansas twenty years ago you're good just don't do that again I just broken the law with the U. top plate license and a Mississippi car registered to somebody else resend all the stuff that that that normally others wouldn't do and and and I got a warning. As opposed to my friend. Despite friend of a friend of my spouse of my friends who explained to me the time. A her spouse who is a successful business dress a nice vehicle with the company name on the side one even gets pulled over as the officer why is being pulled over is not given an answer the officer asking for the registration insurance he gives it the vehicles that you registered in his name is then asked to step out of the car well the officer searches to make sure everything in sight is labeled for his business. One of us was white innocent of proven guilty. The other was black. And guilty until proven innocent. And the one who is innocent ever get to thank you guilty I actually had broken the law this person had not. We are out of balance. The bill removes all references to the word civil rights I don't understand why that term is anathema in this call in this legislature. In addition two years ago those of you who are here in the legislature all with the exception of one person in this committee voted in favor. As a teacher administrator recruitment retention plan and the adjustments made in that one yet here we are two years later without even questioning that. Particular part we're already to throw it all out because it is wiped clean in this bill not adjusted not edited gone. The US department of civil rights published a fact sheet on the subject title diversity includes the activities under title six a few quotes activities intended in whole or in part to further objectives such as diversity equity accessibility and inclusion are not generally and categorically prohibited under title six Congress has found that it is in the best interest in the United States to support these schools in this case that are voluntarily seeking to foster meaningful interaction among students of racial and ethnic backgrounds it does not prohibit diversity equity inclusion training it is not printed instruction or training on racism or systemic racism or efforts to address climate. For specific words no they don't also create hostile environment because of race in fact sometimes ill sure said we have to do this to bring balance to our scales are scales are not balanced. I know we want equity we want that getting rid of this right now. Is not the right answer it will continue to hurt I seen it I've been in in these places and washed and talk to people and as a white male. It took me awhile to figure out. Really with any qualities were. And I am grateful for those who have taken me by the arm and helped me see it's not about me and my feeling bad about what's happened is about me recognizing that I have blessings and privileges. And and others may I had to work hard to get where I am but others have had to work harder we're not we're not there we're not at that spot and ask you please vote now and I'm going to take any questions if there are any. Three questions from members. Say none thank you Sir thank you. Next is. Marcella Garson version. Annabeth Norman. This Carmen just introduce yourself and and who you're with you're recognized thank you a committee to invesco the women's foundation of Arkansas I'm representing women and minority business owners today and I know you all have a long day it's been a long day but I would be remiss if I didn't drop a little historical context and this is March women's history month and just so for a little fun fact here My mom was twenty two years old when she was first eligible to get a credit card in her own name without her father or her husband cosigning for her that was in nineteen seventy four. Women weren't allowed to establish credit me we couldn't fire on home we can start a business couldn't build a life of our own financial or economic well. The right for women to earn a credit card in other purposes was extended to minorities and disabled individuals until several years later the end of the nineteen seventies so women and that women and minorities in particular have had a long history of not being able to access things that help them build wealth again create businesses so that's a law that went into effect to help us. in Arkansas there's really great story of this woman in nineteen seventy was driving down a rule road in pine bluff Arkansas and she saw the some old shack interest kind of I really love to put some antiques and stuff in that shack she couldn't go to a bank and get along to to do that so luckily she had some family members that loaned her less than a couple grand that was over fifty years ago today that says he Jones law cabin city Jones is one of the Hendren women helped found the women's foundation Arkansas we exists just to talk about continued economic disparities women in our state face and how do we move women forward we invest heavily in and what we think of economic belt work is just helping women entrepreneurs start businesses we we do a lot of direct work with the Arkansas Economic Development. Arkansas Economic Development Commission Division of women and minorities Services. To understand where we are as a state our economic development you have to understand how far we have to come to really have parity we've got to have more people starting businesses with over eighty thousand businesses in our state owned by women that's about ten billion dollars and our our our our revenue for our state. Think about how much more we just had a little bit more runway of support. I don't believe that the state of Arkansas discriminates. But I know that people do. Is this law. The way that is written going to end discrimination or is it going to perpetuate the inequities that are populations continue to face. I'm the first generation of American woman. I could actually start my own business. My mom didn't have that right my grandmother didn't have the right Cissy Jones didn't have that right she just had some some friends who helped her along the way. This language of this bill. Isn't solving a problem. It's cutting our state off at the knees to address continue disparities and I'm speaking from economic development when we want to be the state that puts people to work. We want to be the state that has riding small communities you go into a thriving small community Arkansas that has a square you know you want to see a thriving community square I'm thinking I really rural towns or the Senate Majority those businesses are owned by women because women believe in starting businesses in their hometown and helping their communities thrive. If the state can be a partner to that. However we have to push our economy for I mean the Arkansas economy forward. Sir how great okay we'll talk about other disparities you know I again Arkansas. We lead the nation in. Maternal mortality we have more women dying post birth in our state. University of Arkansas for medical science Arkansas minecraft Commission literally has programs to address this because disproportionately that's a black woman or dying. This bill would eliminate the state's ability to address significant health disparities in our state. Arkansas should be proud for his role in the civil rights movement we should be really proud of what happened just across. The highway here at Central High we should be proud that we have a renowned African American history museum but we want eliminated state funding. We talk about the quality of life one a tract in new business new industries our state they're going to look to see what we're doing. We have an opportunity to continue to move this state forward in twenty twenty to the governor the Arkansas governor's commission on the status of women recommended that we continue to invest in women entrepreneurs this state by seeking out partners and stakeholders to do that Hartland think tank out of it in the Arkansas recommended we have got to do something for our to print your support ecosystem we're going to continue to feel the Arkansas economy that women and minorities are the greatest opportunity for our small business economy. Again I don't believe that the state of Arkansas discriminates I know that people do. I know that. We have to align our programs to changing trends in our state if the state can't be a partner or a leading voice in this work. Who's going to be I'm a I'm a small public foundation you know the money that we raise we give out grants we conduct research we host programs. The state should be the leader in this. I hope that I'm not the last generation of women. That can be seen in our economy but. I'm very fearful of language what we're seeing here today and what that's going to say about. The living here working here starting a business here. We have to have an opportunity to amplify the voices of marginalized communities and our state. We have to give them representation we have to give them access. We have to give them the feeling of being valued and you're removing language today that I'd knowledge is NY is a woman that a knowledges are Marshallese community our Hispanic community our black community. You're moving this language that actually helps people see us in our state. That's not discrimination. My mom wasn't seeing. I'm fairly new generations being seen as someone that can create economic mobility. I do hope I share Senator Solomon what we can do that discrimination state discrimination and again I don't with Arkansas is discriminate but I don't believe today that we are here and I think we need the current language that identifies. Past transgressions against populations because we've got to advance we've got to get the state the ability to do it. Thank you so much for your time I'm happy to answer questions thank you ma'am centre Payton. Thank you Mr. You made the statement that you were the first generation woman that could. I'm being entrepreneur and I just like for you to explain to me. I think I'm older than you. And I grew up and we'll be in Arkansas little community of less than a hundred people nineteen seventy two seventy three seventy four of us far back as I remember. There were three stores. Two of them were owned by women. And my first job was working for one of those women in one of those stores. So I'm just curious why you thank your generation is the first generation of women there could be entrepreneurs not be entrepreneurs establish credit. Prior to nineteen seventy four a woman could not establish credit she couldn't get a loan she can buy a car without her husband or her father cosigned for her. Well I thought you made the statement I heard that statement earlier. But I was pretty sure that I've heard the statement that your mom's generation didn't enjoy the opportunities for entrepreneurship and maybe they didn't enjoy the government support but I can promise you that women owned businesses have been a lot of all for more than mine in your generation absolutely I agree I did not mean to and make that statement or to make that we have a long history of a women owned businesses but you accessing capital getting loans for growing that business that's always been a hurdle and prior to nineteen seventy four again you would have to have credit established through a male partner or a family member to do so Ron there again I can remember when credit was not available to the males either it was it had dried up completely in Arkansas due to the. To the Long on the usury law thank you. Thank you ma'am appreciate your testimony we have one more. Tim Orman. The remainder disunity sure self and tell us who you're with and you're recognized thank you hi my name is Temara Llano I'm the president of the human resources team here I'm a President of my own consulting business for past twenty five years it's a little rock based. consulting business for last twenty five years and then fifteen years prior that is vice president of human resources for a couple organizations here in or Arkansas My primary focus is is working with clients in Arkansas and across the country in the areas of manufacturing service technology construction banking in the preparation and implementation of affirmative action plans and also in defending them in the event of an audit. With the office of federal contract compliance plans. also served on the Arkansas society for human resource management which is a professional organization of two thousand HR professionals in the state and we represent employers all over the state from small organizations to large. Companies in the state. We oppose Senate bill seventy one in its present form and believe in support. nondiscrimination which seems consistent with the intent of S. B. seventy one. And also in preventing preferential treatment. Which seems consistent with the intent behind Senate bill seventy one which is also prohibited under title seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. existing federal and state law prevents discrimination with respect to government in employment benefits in the provisions of the existing law that the bill strikes for measures and introduced to print prohibit and prevent discrimination ensuring that all groups had equal opportunities with respect to state government and Bennett benefits and nothing in the existing law requires or allows preferential treatment. Where we differ in this bill with the Arkansas society for human resource management and I believe in the spirit of affirmative action employers to do business with the federal government or federal agencies which includes hundreds maybe even thousands in the state have affirmative action obligations in affirmative action insurers there is not discrimination in hiring promotion. Terminations or even compensation to not only include women and minorities under executive order one one two four six but also under section five of three with individuals with disabilities and veterans readjustment assistance act all three of those are primary components of an affirmative action plan so affirmative action. Prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination in employment decisions and certainly prohibits quotas. We would like to offer our experience and expertise in this area it to the sponsor of Senate bill seventy one. That HR professionals in your organizations and companies across the state that we do every day to prove and clarify. To make the bill better in recommend that the committee postponed or further study and consideration. So with that I'll be glad to answer any questions from the committee and thank you very much for your time. Three questions from members. You saying nine thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Senator if you'd like to close. Thank you Mr on this mention couple things one I think this bill was filed January the eighteenth and they are they're coming asking to hold this bill and I'm not prepared to do that however I will meet after this it still has to go through the House procedure and if they want to meet I'm willing to do that. Secondly this is a needs based program so to automatically would say that when these when we change this over we have two years to do that we changes over some of these programs that are government sponsored. Well in need will still qualify we can't just say there they no longer qualify when they have in the. Next immoral behavior behavior will never justify another immoral act and if we agree that racism and carve outs or wrong and we've got to stop that anyone says what is the endpoint to that and we say well the end point will come when no one is impacted this is never going to happen someone's always going to be have impacted favorably in some disfavour Billy. If we think no one will ever get hurt will never reach that point in fact folks nine other states are all or have already passed this legislation and there are seven or eight more working on it even California since nineteen ninety six is had this legislation. We don't hear the sky hasn't fallen in California over this it may be falling for some other things but is not falling over this. And very soon we're likely going to see higher read removing affirmative action far it missions to college so I think Arkansas does have a rich history of ending discrimination we have minorities running for office all over the state we have more African American governors and I are mayors in our community that I think we've ever seen before we have more African Americans and other minorities in our state government employees and holding high office it's time we set that stake in the ground and say we're going to end state sponsored discrimination I appreciate it I'm closed thank you senator. what will the committee. motion by Senator Payton second by Senator Hester the any discussion on the bill. Discussion Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair. I'm honestly I don't know where to begin We're better than this as a legislature. This is irresponsible governance. We we pass a bill after bill after bill that's based in theory and we ignore what the reality is the food catus being along California that is demonstrate Billy an obviously false demonstrates Tripoli and obviously false other states that have passed laws about affirmative action they're dealing specifically with admissions and higher at they don't have laws on the books that say what this bill says and it's it's very easy to understand that and figure that out. It's one thing to sit up here and I re building and say oh let's and state sponsored discrimination while ignoring what the impact of that is going to be and that's what I mean when I say this is irresponsible governing we've not heard a single example. From Senator Solomon. About the type of state sponsored exist discrimination that exists that we're seeking to a radic eight. Yeah we have countless examples on the other side of what this impact is going to be. The mosaic Templars cultural center this is a museum about black history in Arkansas that will cease to exist if we pass this bill that's not a thoughtful way to draft a bill and pass a piece of legislation we're gonna kill a black history museum in Arkansas. Because we want to quote in state sponsored discrimination. We have another example and and the I'm not gonna go through all of them because we would be here for days. We have another example of the minority health commission they're seeking to address the maternal mortality rate in Arkansas it's three times as high for black women as is for white one. Well they're trying to study why so they can help reduce that this is a real thing in our state. Your dying over it. And we're going to prohibit. The minority health commission from studying why black women are more vulnerable to die from maternal. You to have a more term mentality rate than white women how is this progress. and it doesn't matter you can still you can start with health but you can go to capital ability to retain capital like she testified to or education you can pick your sector employment housing and doesn't matter what it is there's going to be a demonstrate ball need. On gender and on race in our state. and we are so far behind. As a state. And all of these areas and we're just cutting our. Or rejection I would say we're shooting ourselves in the foot but that's drastically understates what we're doing if we pass this bill It's cutting a nose off to spite the face doesn't doesn't apply either it it It grossly understates what we're doing if we pass this bill my my bottom line message to our members as it's not just this bill we have to be more responsible we can't just govern on passed bills online at on platitudes. Because these are pieces of legislation have huge impacts on people's lives in our state and we're not taking that into account when we pass bills like this and I cannot. Say how strongly oppose this piece of legislation thank you senator any other discussion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator you pass to bill. Next we will go to Senate bill sixty two. It's just the next one on our agenda. You want to do the thirteen OO seven first. We can of the thirteen oh seven for if you don't mind Mr all right reserved the Amendment hang on just a minute let us get amendment out. Yes the first. The explain your committee met. Yes Mister Jeff Wardlaw state representative district ninety four you guys following amendment the first part of Page two delete lines nineteen through twenty five basically re write not to add that the ward says discriminate does not include actions brought forth by investment adviser according to the investment related guidelines policies that's already noted throughout the bill but it wasn't clear that it applied to all the levels of discrimination so by putting it in the definitions there it makes the bill a lot clearer and applies that throughout the second part of the amendment is on page nine delete line eighteen R. twenty eight and then inserting this exemption from by vestian what that does is it allows the retirements to divest when it's fiduciary and when it's agreed upon and good for the retirement of agency that way they do not divest and includes any money they can wait until those funds are back on up tick so with that Mr be happy take any questions three questions on the amendment. What's the will of committee on Amendment. Motion and the second by Senator Hester all in. Okay. Okay go ahead and ask your questions. Thank you representative Wardlaw does this amendment makes to where everybody's good with bill. I'd be scared to say. Should but I'd be scared to say I'll before we adopted if this is agreed to and the first part of the amendment is agreed upon through Stevens brought that to us this afternoon of those kind of rush deal but they want to make it clear on the definition discriminate so I think that makes them perfectly fine what about the second part second part because Senator he'll was handling that negotiations I don't want to miss speak but it definitely makes people happier I think is the key word there. All right well glad to see The Amendment and and. I'm hopeful that the one have near as many problems or discussion against a defense case thank you I think that would make two of this. So that was a question what's the will of committee on the amendment. Motion by Senator Dotson. Second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. Opposed Like sign. Thank you and you're welcome to Received on on your minute bill Mr committee's been here a long time we went through this bill already pretty much at length I would say that I appreciate a good vote is the bill as amended. And be happy to answer any questions all right Senator crawl. Now I see that this says they can divesting not lose money correct yes in the in this amendment if you read the last sentence on the last line of the amendment it says that all to insure that fiduciary duty. It is met yes that I would say that that's what that means is they shouldn't lose any money by the division so after they divest but they cannot go back into the any of these after her afterwards correct ones are on the list correct so the the prudent investment rules not gonna apply after we pass this sure. I do just for the record I wish that they could I wish that retirement could be because I would say that that the company or the the investment we'll call it for better options if they come back and they're not discriminatory and they get brought also the list they can most definitely go back but as long as our own list they cannot go back. Thank you. Senator Payton. Thank you Mr N. representa Wardlaw appreciate the work that you've done on this and except in some changes in I just wanna make sure I understand the committee being used here to establish the list. Ellen page nine it appears to start in line seventeen. The list is like a one time list and then they're going to solve the committee. There's no reason to keep the committee active all the time so once they meet and form a list if any other. Problem arises treasurer or of notices that then they can petition to governor governor recalls the committee back in they can look at that point decide where they go on the list I thought that's what it was doing yes my other question is then. I think I see language here that would seem to indicate a companies on the list they change their behavior. The governor is the one that decides whether or not they've changed their behavior enough to just be justified being taken off the list or do they reform the committee for that the reform The committee for that's my understanding from the AG's office okay so it's going to be the committee in charge of who goes on the list committee in charge who comes off the list governor in charge of when we've. Convene the committee that's right thank you thank you Mr. Thank you senator three other questions. Senator Tucker. Apologies if I missed this represent Wardlaw because I know Senator kroz ask you about the retirement but in this morning's paper I read that. Okay eight percent is the and that is made in the USA address in the amendment that's what I'm asking a process that they estimate this bill could cost that they could lose thirty four point forty million dollars a year as a result of the bill and teacher retirement said they could lose seven million a year as a conservative estimate as a result of H. B. thirteen oh seven is that still the case even after the amendment I don't I don't think so if you read on page three of the bill at the beginning one of their big concerns they never gave me their financial impact first off they never gave me their financial impact but I I've heard discussions around one of their biggest hits was these fees from their investment provider our adviser which is Black Rock we can say that but on page three of the bill it exempts Black Rock from the diff the discriminating definition it says that discriminate against energy companies and this is in every one of them does not include actions by an investment adviser in accordance with this so to me that's a false impact because they are exempt so their policies wouldn't matter as long as the investments not into their company or is that exemption I just says right there that does not include actions by the investor I'm sorry I was asking for a one number do what you have a line number yes first line I'm sorry so that was understood as a topic three. Okay. All right thank you so that's the reason my quote in the paper was that I think it's minimum because we took that out at the request by the way. The other questions. Seeing none Your clothes for your amended bill of sorry we have. We have a couple. Jeff Stubblefield. The. Clint Rhoden. Introduce yourself and tell us the real soon you're recognized thank you committee Clint Rhoden are a executive director of Arkansas teacher retirement system of thank you Mr chairman thank you committee or let me speak on H. B. thirty cents or thirteen oh seven this morning this afternoon So I'm just gonna read a statement so I don't waste our time rambling on and on so First of all I'd like to say I believe that the investment goal of the teacher retirement system should be to maximize the return on invested all return on its assets based solely on financial risk reward analysis. If I were retirement director of the in a pro EST states such as California Maine Maryland I would be concerned about being forced to make investments based on non financial factors such as climate change or so for justice. I understand Arkansas wants to send a political message to the financial service providers that it is unacceptable to discriminate against certain industries that are important to the Arkansas economy I personally agree that financial service providers should not be allowed to refuse services based purely on political ideology. These financial service providers should not be making their decisions based solely are they should be making their decisions based solely on financial factors. It has been in dollars that a three thirteen oh seven could be across the state and is as the director of the teacher retirement system is this added cost that is essentially there is that it is the duty of it is my duty to point out that cost. I was asked to estimate the financial impact of thirteen oh seven on the teacher retirement system back in January I ask the ACT eighty R. S. investment consultants to estimate the financial impact on our assume greater return as a result of this bill passing. Finally only two weeks ago we were able to get them to commit to a range of fiscal impact. The H. R. service my consultants have estimated that this bill if this bill passes it could result in a reduction of the HRS assume greater return on its assets the estimate estimate at its most conservative level is ten basis points at this zero point one percent. This causes primarily from a risk of higher fees due to lack of access to competitive financial services. This is the case even if I'll only if you financial service providers are added to the list. Currently a terrace has about seven billion dollars in direct investments therefore conservative estimate would be the seven million dollars per year that we have you know you have already heard. in my opinion as it relates the teacher retirement system this bill is not needed to call is eight years to do the right thing in order to maximize return its ATR DHS board has taken a disregard ESG stance four years they have instructed the investment consultants not to use factors. Related to environmental social justice or corporate governments as the basis for any investment recommendations. Be a tourist board follows current Arkansas law to make investments falling prudent investor rule the requirement for diversification and to make investments solely based on risk reward analysis as of the Judiciary to the members of a terrorist. Due to the appearance of the sound investment policies HRS annual returns are often ranked in the top ten percent of national pension systems. The state that have proposed or enacted it anti EST legislation have you for provided exceptions for the boards to hear for furniture duties which possibly the Amendment. Of could take care of or they have just exempted retirement system's altogether. And worked and legislation in another regard I do appreciate the sponsors legislative leaders for working with the me and the other retirement systems to amend the bill to continue to reduce the impact on the retirement system's. first of all narrowing the scope under direct investment assets does lower the impact. He said of of that we still have to look at estimate costs and that that estimate cost deal could be too impactful for a TRS. I respectfully requests the committee just consider exempting the HRS and other retirement system's from this of title twenty five subchapter it's a brand new subchapter that would essentially near the West Virginia anti ESG bill that this is based then we could work together to codify the H. R. S.'s Board current practice of disregard ESG in a separate bill under title twenty four which is essentially is where I believe that type of legislation blogs. Thank you so much I'll take any questions thank you is there any questions. Is centered. Thank you Mr chair so I didn't catch are you are you speaking against the bill or four I didn't hear and. I definitely would lean toward speaking against the bill I mean I believe that the the retirement system should be excluded from this title twenty five subchapter and if there is legislation that controls the ESG regulations of the way that the the board to react I do believe that legislation laws in title twenty four that is the law this section of the law that pertains to retirement courts. So Since you're opposed to it this language that was added. Are you opposed to that as well on this amendment right did you have a comment I don't think that's what's on the website. This last paragraph there that's basically added to the very end of the bill. I would say I mean it's it's very close I mean the only problem I might have is that it seems to be narrowly tailored to strictly this treasure of the State. I know the represent Wardlaw you know represented that it would be for all the retirements which would be great that would be a huge step in the right direction to honor the fiduciary duty of the retirement boards but. So correct me if I'm wrong that's that's kind of the way I read that last line is is strictly and it's based on the the treasurer of the state can exercise their fiduciary dates duties but I don't specifically see or I could interpret that the retirement boards get to exercise their fiduciary duties to. Minimize risks are minimized cost. Okay A different a different question I heard you say that Senator Wardlaw Reppan Wardlaw. Able to. All right thank you you've said that investments need to be made purely off to do sherry. Best return on investment I think everybody wants that for sure are there things that you do not invest in that will probably give you a return on investment like. I'm no medical marijuana casinos things of that nature have pretty good return on investiert means any legal investment based on financial risk reward some of the cause you know medical marijuana or casinos like Senator there may be risks associated with those types of industries that would outweigh the decision in which to make that investment but that would be what the that would kind of be a my opinion as to how the investment consultant would consider that so just because we don't invest in it And means that it was because of any social reason it very well could be the cause consensus at additional risk associated with those industries. So there's no there's no list of industries or anything like that an honor there is not it's it's the direction that the board has consistently given the investment consultant says do not use pro yes G. factors Particularly you know what do not bring us companies that are purposely trying to boycott fossil fuels or trying to develop sustainable portfolios for climate so your senate do that right now we already do that prior to this bill yes Sir so this bill will have no effect on you. The the impact I see from this is it is if there is nobody if there's no financial services put on this list. for whatever reason it would have no impact registered but if eighty. Financial service providers actually do get added to the list the very first thing the investment consultants will have to say is. We have to consider this not acudir a reason first as to why not to invest in them and that the not begin your reason is simply I got put on the Arkansas list. That essentially is my biggest concern is that kind of it will cut down on the competitiveness of these financial service providers but if you're already giving them the same instructions that are within the bill to not invest in these types of things. There is no need for divest meant because you're not invested in any. All right thank you yeah. Thank you Sir three other questions. Senator Tucker. Thank you I'm sure you address this Mr road but I as a scene of one man and I didn't catch everything you said in the paper today L. estimated seven million is the is the number still seven million or after the amendment I mean that would be hard to say this is that's an estimate come from the investment consultant that we use that was part of that ten basis point costs would be having to divest of. Particularly fixed income type assets that have maturity rate. Dates that you if you. You know cash out early you is that the two. the other is the competitive lack of competitive advantage that you get to having a large number financial service providers. That being restricted will automatically raise the cost and therefore reduce our turn on something or are separate returns so. There will be an impact whether seven million or some other number. It. That is that is the opinion of the investment consultants as there will be some type of impact it is very hard to estimate I mean it as we acknowledge there is no list it's hard to guess what the list will be there other states have done similar legislation best I can do right now is just kind of. Yes based on lists from other states so. Thank you. Thank you Sir really questions saying man project your testimony thank you have a we have one more Donna mori. All right thank you ma'am the. Your clothes your bill provision Wardlaw. Thank you Mr. I absolutely think it's funny that the impact is from the financial adviser that is absolutely not impact a bill now by the language in the bill that was asked to be in the bill by them it's been really funny working through this with when we went down the house in which the committee they were neutral all the retirement systems were neutral all these minutes been made in good faith to help them have least impact to our employees of the state and our teacher retirement system of. We've tried our best to to get our point across and absolutely honored the discriminations of the bill but do it in the least impactful way that we can find to get it done Members you've got a good piece of legislation in front of you and I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you Sir what's will of committee. Motion do pass as amended. Thanks second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. All opposed. We have been here all day. All right discussion. I'll I'll be brief. I've seen situations down here to use the word inconsistent to be diplomatic about it. were people taking consistent positions right now we say that we are for limited government and with this bill. We're saying we're regulate the conduct a private business. I can understand how that's limited government we also claim to be fiscal conservatives and we know this bill is going to have a fiscal impact it's going to be hard to know what it is but even representative Wardlaw when he ran the bill the first I'm Committee asking if it would have a fiscal impact and he said yes there will be a fiscal impact only to make a point that's what this bill does it makes a point that's it so that's the second way that were inconsistent but specifically for this committee to pass this bill right after we just passed SB seventy one the irony is rich beyond measure because we're saying we're ending discrimination based on race and with our very next or or gender and with our very next item of business we are gonna pass a preference of discrimination if you engage in fossil fuels or the trade of ammunition so this is the most explicitly hypocritical action I think I've ever seen in this legislative body for the entire time I've been a member of these two bills right next to each other. Thank you senator. Go ahead. Thank you Mr chair just a point of clarification based off comments this is A publicly. Public funds we're talking about public entities we're not talking about private businesses we're talking about public taxpayer dollars public funds that are being invested in entities and just wanna make sure that that's clarified thank you. But they can't contract with private businesses so we're using the public funds to regulate the conduct of private banks that's what this bill does regulating the conduct private banks through what are public funds are allowed to invest. There is a discussion. Red centre Payton. Thank you M.. I thank. Senator Tucker has somewhat of a point on on this issue Earlier today on the Senate floor. Because of the threat of the federal government withholding highway funds we. Took our state database and turned it over to the federal government so funding does have a huge impact on on the actions down here. It concerns me that this bill. Is kind of like an affirmative action. Reverse discrimination thing. But I do see it is extremely temporary one I read those last couple of paragraphs we're the committee will create the list as it existed a. If the actions change then the list changes and there's no need to reform the committee if if if things get better. So I I like the fact that there is an end to it and otherwise I couldn't afford to per share. Go ahead Senator girl. My biggest concern has been being good stewards of the people's and retirement funds and I want to tell you thank you for your maintenance I am not a hundred percent happy but I'm a lot happier thank you. All right. It is a motion saying none all in favor say aye opposed Like sign. Thank you Sir the representative you have passed your bill We're going to start senate bill sixty two. Thank you Mr committee for a positive vote Senate bill sixty two is basically the same bill I accept this this pushes it across to contracting from the state so it's similar to the Israel boycott same discrimination definitions it just says that we can't contract for goods or services are or anything if they discriminate the same manner without me having taking questions and and I need to say that we have agreed with purchasing our procurement to an amendment in the house in to mirror the procurement laws that are there today which is seventy five thousand are threshold instead of a one thousand dollar threshold of that just makes it fall in line with everything already in statute in state government. Thank you is there any questions. Seeing none would have one to speak against sixty two Jeff Stubblefield. For. Not available. So your clothes your bill Mr I'm closed R. J. good luck Sir what's the will of committee. Past motions second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye aye All opposed like sign. Thank you representative pastor bill. We are adjourned. Which bill. Three fifty three. Three fifty three. Mr chairman we we adopt an amendment this morning on this that needs to be expunged because there is a another. Something else that was pointed out by Senator Tucker after we amended it so I would I would move that we expunge the vote by which the amendment passed this morning. And if we do that then motion in this second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye aye aye All opposed like sign the or at you and now I have a new amendment to the amendment. This new amendment does the exact same thing on the the second third parts that of the amendment we adopted this morning the only difference with this one is that it strikes out on page. Three lines twenty eight through thirty one it deletes that and add this new paragraph in here instead if you look that paragraph there was some language in there regarding the Arkansas rules of civil procedure we struck that language out Apparently that's not necessary in there and could be potentially problematic with the courts so separation of powers. I want to get in to get into that at all so um this replaces it and streams live and streamlines item H. there that paragraph with this new language and We're happy to answer questions on the amendment if if there are any before we adopted. You got a question on Amendment Senator Tucker. All right. The motion on Amendment motions center motion by Senator Tucker second by Senator Dotson all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you your you're welcome to Present the bill as amended bill as amended all right so basically this this legislation I believe is needed We we operate with level of confidentiality with staff employees. And the assumption that all of our communications are confidential and privileged however the the The language of the the law doesn't completely cover all of that if you look through this bill the new language would cover communications with legislators without authorization between employees and former employees so it would keep that level of confidentiality that privileged communication after an employee leaves employment so that. The communication remains confidential and privileged after employment and I think that's important that we're able to to. Maintain confidentiality on things that were working on as as legislators things that may or may not ever come I mean may or may not ever be filed legislation it just are is basically working papers so more happy to try to answer any questions but that's that's the overall Ten thousand foot view the bill. The questions from members shall go ahead Senator Tucker thank you Mister senator you're our conversation about this when we walked into the room and I just kinda want to continue that a little bit after I've because I think you're but I think you were getting at is that there may be a crime for any state employee not just the BLR employee who discloses information is that what you're saying resigns so If I have that here. Hold on. So right now under. Under twenty one eight dash three oh four there's prohibited activities which include public servants and twenty one eight. Three oh two penalties so any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision this subchapter shall be guilty of a Class B. misdemeanor which includes public servants public servants being Public appointees publicly public employees or public officials. And that reference. Is. Twenty one dash eight three oh one. Okay so currently there is if you're an employee there is that level of confidentiality that is there an assumed it's after someone leaves employment that it would be necessary to to insure that the that that same level of confidentiality is maintained. Okay I'm just gonna say. Kind of what I said to you earlier and invite you to respond. Which is that you know if someone uses a confidential communication. For pecuniary benefit. I think that's. Criminal conduct if they gated by virtue of their official position as any state employee. That subset I'm sorry for the context for the other folks I'm really everything about the bill I mean a is basically finding from my standpoint the criminalization of the conduct is really what my concern is about so if they're using confidential information that they gained by a by virtue of their position which is subsection to on on page four of a starting on line eleven. I think that's criminal conduct knowingly disclosing something if it they're not using it for pecuniary gains I just don't of that to me rise to the level of criminal conduct and the other thing I mentioned to you senator Dotson is if the person is an attorney which many of the many but not all of the people that we deal with at B. L. R. our attorneys then they're subject to discipline from the office of professional conduct. If they ever violate their attorney client privilege and there are a number of facilities that the office of professional conduct can impose including loss of your law license which for a lawyers a pretty severe penalty worse than a Class B. misdemeanor I would say so anyway I. Should our conversations with BRB after absolute confidential I'm I'm in a hundred percent agreement with you on that you know creating a penalty for knowingly disclosing after a criminal penalty for knowingly disclosing afterward is what I have a hang up about so just invite you to respond we'll if you look in that that's that's part of the amendment that we added is ensuring that if you're following along on page four that knowingly is not only on online nine struck out a line nine added to line eight so it covers both items one and two under under their. Someone has to knowingly disclose confidential communication received while employed as a legislative employee or knowingly uses confidential communication received while employed as Legislative employee for his or her personal gain or benefit which that second part is what you said you agree with the the criminal aspect of that I really don't know how you could leave the the first section out where it says knowingly disclose confidential communication received while employed. As a legislator employee you can even get to number two if if you didn't have number one there. I just don't see I just don't see it that way I think you could just have subsection to only. If the one for legislative employee knowingly uses a confidential communication receive on port as Legislative employee for his or personal gain and benefit. I think there is. maybe we're kind of splitting hairs there. To the point here I mean there's an or their so I mean. Their their alternatives to each other they're not dependent on each other. One is for personal gain benefit one is Just. Disclosing all the confidential information which is basically what we're trying to get after so. It. I think they're both valid and and necessary for the the point we're going for in the bill. Your questions. Seeing none I have no one signed up for against the bill your clothes bill I'm close make a motion do pass as amended. Motion and a second by Senator crawling discussion. All in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator patiently bill.