State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Members if you would take your state. Senate state agencies. Come to order please. Everyone in the audience thank you sis. We will begin with the Senate bill one twenty one. I think we have an amendment. If you would please someone at the door to close a chamber doors. Someone by the doors please close chamber doors. Thank you. Okay. Senator can you have the amendment. The Amendment to one twenty one. Go ahead Senator Johnson thank you Mr chairman as I told the committee last time I was here I we will amend the bill again to try to clean this up a little better and now we will and this is the amendment and I would ask that the amendment be adopted and then we can talk about. Three questions on the amendment. The by Senator Payton I'll second that motion all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. Go ahead Senator Johnson thank you Mr chairman of. We've talked about this a long time I will not reiterate everything we talked about before let me make a few points and and talk about what the amendment cleaned. In twenty twenty one we pass the. The Arkansas state capitol in historical monument protection act That bill was signed by governor Hutchinson and took effect on April twenty eight twenty twenty one so that's the key operative date in this bill The procedure there was a procedure set up where if there were historical monument. And those were clearly defined in the law. A if there's a question about relocating for some reason as stated in the act which was not just at the whim of any any individual or may your county judge local official superintendent whatever but actually under specified criteria there was a process usually is had to do with the something like a broken water main widening of a street and there was provisions from both temporary and permanent to re locations if that was appropriate the body that was given that authority was the Arkansas history commission which president made up of people who understand history in the poll importance of preserving it so some of the comments that I've had questions I had to answer this year we're really not about this bill but about the bill two years ago which is now all and what we try to do in this is just this is a clean up for some issues that came up a couple cases having do with litigation where the history Commission considered a waiver did not grant the waiver and the people who were opposed to the waiver asks that under the terms of of act in three of twenty twenty one they asked that the monument be restored to the condition that it was before which is feasible possible and and relatively straightforward easy to the judge in this particular case said that you have the authority to order them to do it and uh I disagree with that I think the old law actually covered that but to make it crystal clear as many of us in this body had had to do in the past we are amended our own legislation to try to clean it up that's all this bill is about The Amendment takes out the the it minimizes and narrows the what we call the look back provision in the in the previous. Bill it's simply applies the Relevant section bill it applies to any monument that was removed without a waiver after April twenty eight twenty twenty one or was partially removed by a public entity in the last five years and the portion removed is still in the possession of the public can't entity and basically what that means is if if someone I hate to say through something important away and there's no way it can be restored then it it we're not going to deal with we're going to deal with reality here some of the. Thanks or mention and I take. I give Senator Tucker a lot of credit for pointing out that we don't want to have anything legislation it looks back a hundred years when there's no way anybody would ever know what the disposition of something more so I believe with clean this up both Municipal League and the association of counties the state to a division or department of parks heritage and tourism attorney all look at this and we've crafted solutions that they feel like they can live with and their overwhelming support for the previous legislation that's a joke not withstanding but this is worked out is compromise and I would be grateful if we could get this bill out and get it done and there was some kind of loose and problems that were identified to it with the act and I'll be happy to answer any questions any questions Senator Tucker. Thank you Mister senator I'm just looking at the amendment here what is partially removed means. Portion removed partially removed of well it to use a specific example Senator Tucker there was a monument in the macarthur park it was called the capital guards monument it consisted of a of a pedestal monument that had inscriptions on it and also a statute of a I will I will say agent Eric a soldier who was representative of the members of the capital guards which was a a regiment formed of people from Central Arkansas primarily from Little Rock that that fought in battles of Helen and some other battles in civil war so that's not a monument to jondo or bill Smith that was to a generic soldier the statue was removed prior to the date and if the remaining part was moved after the date of April twenty eight twenty twenty one so this is to clarify again cleanup language related to the situation where you take it apart you move part of it he didn't move all of it I think it's no question that the the monument as a whole is covered by the act because it affected all one monument even though it makes this a pedestal and there's a statue but this is to try to address that that language in a similar situation with the issue in Fort Smith where you have an area dedicated as well as a monument the historic flag display the flag poles were there the flags had been removed some I think some of the plaques have been removed but there are all either in the possession of the city or could be in the case of flags the bill original bill has provisions for where a torn tattered soul will fly. That can be replaced as the flag the individual piece of cloth was not the monument the flag displays them I hope that answer questions. I'll be honest I don't understand everything you said but I I and I think I understand enough of that my concern is is that really the same concern that we've had the entire time that I think the other members of the committee have expressed which is that even with this be to language in the amendment you can look back so in other words conduct that was not legal when it took place is being made illegal retroactively and personally I can't speak for the other members of the committee I continue to have a philosophical problem with that if the amendment. Did not include subsection B. two and only said this section applies to monuments or memorials removed without a waiver after April twenty eight twenty twenty one I believe that would address the concern that I and other committee members have raised again I'm I'm I want to speak for anybody else. But I continue to have a problem. The bill even after the amendment because of the inclusion of the B. two which is another look back provision so I if you want to dress that there that's my question so to speak but that's I still have that I would be happy to address that thank you senator for you if you've actually been a lot of help to to focus on the real issues here so we can deal with them let me point out that in in the B. two it's is still in the position the public entity. And and I think that's meaning no look back whatsoever we might talk about the the action being done up within the last five years but we're really looking at just probably really twenty twenty one right even slightly before but I'm not going to deviate from that particular date because that is the effective date of the entire law but to meet that test that we kind of talked about as a look back it would still have to be in the position of the public entity I think I mentioned to you an instance I won't repeat here of a of a another monument in McArthur Park that was destroyed it is not in the position of anyone so there's no way to bring that back nor will we attempt to do so a bill believe this is a good compromise to to clean this up it has to past past. Those to test it would be removed after or it was partially removed but still in possession of the public entity as of the effective date of this bill so I I hope that's close to covering all the bases as we possibly could could get but thank you for bringing that up and and I do appreciate what you've done to help make it a better bill. Yeah members have questions. C. nine. The your clothes your bill I'm close my bill thank you Mr. No there's no no for against the what's will of committee. Motion might present do pass as amended by Senator Payton. The second by Senator king all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. The motion passes thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. You are if you have Senate bill two fifty five. Just introduce yourself and. You're recognized. Mr chairman members. This is an amendment sorry. Give us a minute. Members of this What you will on the amendment. Three questions motion. Motion to adopt the second that motion all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. J.. Go ahead. Thank you Mr chairman. Thank you members for adopting a motor that Amendment a simple bill that just simply lays out a framework for transparent funding of Arkansas elections. I'll be happy to take any questions. So. If I wanted to bring cookies. Two. The folks working the elections. We'll just keep me from ring and cookies. Or any other individual or or something for the. For the people working elections something the so I don't believe this bill would have anything to do with that thank. Your. Go ahead Senator Tucker playing Mr I'm probably trying to Senator McKee I just have one question by the way the bills written under current law. The County Board of election commissioners. Can accept funding grants or gifts for any reason. Other than from a city or town the county the state or the federal government. And your expanding that from the County Board of election commissioners to state or county employees officials and again I've got no problem there. But the way the bills written it then limits. The purpose for which they cannot take funding grants or gifts so now the County Board of election commissioners after the if this bill passes can accept funding grants or gifts for some purpose other than to hang election related expenses now maybe election commissioners only have election related expenses I don't know I would want to visit with the county commissioner about that or. Maybe that's what you're saying my point if they are if they have other expenses that are not related to. Paying for elections. Under current law must by they I mean County Board of election commissioners under current law they can't accept any gifts to find any of that. but if this bill passes then they can accept gifts or funds for any expenses that are unrelated to the payment of election expenses. I don't think I'm following you completely but I don't think this changes current law to allow them to accept gifts from for other purposes this just simply says for a. Hang for elections you will receive those kinds of gifts grants from anybody other than. Those listed I think it does it out and I reward my question very poorly so that's that's my mind thank you so much let me try let me try one more different way right now under current law that we're looking at in this section. County Board of election commissioners can accept funding grants or gifts for any purpose. I'm I'm probably gonna have the secretary of state's office and answer this question because. Maybe they understand your question. Just introduce yourself and you're welcome to help answer the question. Leslie Bellamy on under collections for Arkansas secretary of state's office. thank you Mr let me ask you this what do county boards of election commissioners do they have expenses unrelated to paying for elections not that I'm aware of I did it for sixteen years of Clark County and I was there coordinator we had our own elections line items and that's all that money was spent for for any special or any state or federal elections we didn't spend money on anything else okay. Do you understand my concern I do yes I can't think of anything else I would accept money for those out there was some concern about going into County general but as long as like somebody if they you know spent money on a county road with that going to County general could possibly go to elections but we work with the AC on that so that anything that deals directly with elections would just go to those election line items in any of that. Private money from a private group or private company would not be put to the election expenses okay. But there's no if the County Board of election election commissioners basically everything that those boards do is related to elections yeah. Okay. king. So their situations out there that's causing you do that causes me there's been election commissioners abuse give me some examples. Sorry one of the instances there were several counties during code yet that is what I'm sorry the COVID if the damage there were some counties that got money from entities like Facebook and other entities like that in those grants didn't really require them to do any paperwork back on what was spent for us so you know they accepted those grants and those are private financing can be purchased for private reasons you know and that was private reasons I mean is there something that they did with that money they spend it on themselves like a no they spend it on elections but there was no documentation to make sure that's what they spent on the federal grants require that we get from the hall the funds that actually requires them to tell line by line with a strain on these funds coming in could possibly influence we don't know but it's just trying to stop an influence that could be done by just agree that doesn't require any kind of documentation on what the funding went to. So the the normal things like when I was when the legislation was long time ago because we didn't have all the COVID stuff but I mean we kind of one of the guys like this was the normal kind of county business things. This state I mean those don't apply to the space for grants or something like that well it could apply but it the fact that the the matter of fact of that is just that there's no requirement of what they spent on the those monies were in other states actually require them to say what they spend it on and actually probably influenced if you elections because it back certain candidates in Arkansas the money was applied with no requirements. In the county circuit not very many counties ticket because they took or federal funding but this is just a stop this before it became a problem with outside entities like better buy Facebook came in respect your Twitter or anything like that we just stop him from possibly influence in Arkansas elections we're not necessarily saying they have at this point but it's to stop it before it gets started that was the first time that kind of private funding had come into the state for elections so there was nothing nefarious that you know up in the situation not that I know of but we didn't have any type of oversight or review of those monies and how they were spending either. So the way outside in things or influence elections it's just one of those preparation things that I think I think that sex we knew I can remember those days I don't know still can election of members elected commissioners out here were written buildings to their self off the Election Commission yeah that still happens a lot there you know poorly paid poorly funded it's getting better but this is just a stop that inside a fluent influence that might come to like a Facebook came it can be anything even you know maybe somebody a private groups it's Fund in a candidate but doesn't come right out and say it puts that money into accounting this is to stop that flow of money so that we do have some oversight you know if you guys happen to get a bad Commission you know the last ones out there so you know it just to stop something before it gets started I see. Senator Payton. Thank you Mr Senator Ricky senator Tucker's comments gave me pause for a minute is just focusing on the amendment I could see where you there to be a concern but looking back at the bill. Section one. It cites the section of Arkansas Code that the your amending with this bill and this section a code is specifically concerning the allocation of election expenses. So the fact that we're saying they can't receive funds for anything other than election expenses would seem to be a moot point because this section the code only deals with the allocation. Of money for election expenses Would you agree I think with respect that's the point it's the. Can election commissions or the state. Their their budgets are for the purpose of conducting elections this just says that no outside groups can come in and give them money to perform the to perform their stated functions so just be clear you're not changing anything outside of seven five one oh forty correct thank you thank you Mr. Is there any other questions. Go ahead senator king. So back in the counties years ago mention the counties where some of my family was from involved in politics the used by whiskey and stuff and moonshine for that that would exclude them from. From the moonshine and Jennifer lex commissioners and people to buy votes. Yes okay that's all in the thank you senator. Three other questions. The. Go ahead close Rockville you know what's will of committee. Our motion do pass as amended second by Senator Kroll all in favor say aye All opposed Like sign thank you members thank you senator. The. Two fifty Senate bill two fifty four. Senator Kroll District three this is simply to what it says to a take out the write in candidates the purpose of this bill is to get on the ballot to have a line to even have a line where you can do write in candidate somebody had to fill out paperwork but they didn't do all the paperwork so this is just to have everyone of the same standard filled all the paperwork and so we don't have we streamline it we don't have things like Elvis Presley Donald Duck written in in just streamlining. Two fifty four. Two fifty four to fifty three AM is the one in Poland. Two fifty four. Yeah. Any questions. Go ahead Senator Breanne. Thank you Mr. So leading up to an election you know you've got a couple of Primera candidates is in very battling it out somebody in third or fourth may not even exist but Let's say something happens in one of those candidates get sicker has a car wrecker something like that I mean when you talk about statewide elections I see how it's unrealistic but if you get down to the local level you're dealing with city councillor JP here or a. School board member something like that I mean don't we need somewhere to preserve the right in candidate for a dire situation where the community maybe maybe one of the maybe the only person that run in the town opposed has committed a crime and the community needs to bring forth a write in candidate I mean how. How do we address that because I see it as a possibility on small local elections. Introduce yourself you're recognized thank you senator this is of a bill that been brought acts to be brought by the state board election commissioners or to make the process simpler so under the current law thank you for writing blank to appear on the ballot for one you can't have a right in right to municipal or or township under current law for a write in blank to appear somebody has to file a ride and like it only votes cast for the individual who files as a write in candidate can be cast so if there's a write in blank and you write my name in that's a wasted vote with the tractor voters they have no way to know that right and I will never be counted. Again it's only allowed in the larger offices so that may be a concern but the current law this whether you have a current law or this bill the concern is is no better address because under that circumstance You wouldn't you wouldn't in that thing with the right now yes Sir please introduce yourself about the college center my name's initials director of the state election. So if I could follow up when did that change I'm I'm pretty sure I was taught growing up that you know you could ever write in candidate. And get through there that change with the electronic voting machines there was litigation and I believe about twenty or thirty years ago where the the prior law was that you had to write in the name of the individual who you wanted the write in votes to be cast for exactly is appears in the voter registration database or list and the court held that to be unconstitutional and then the General Assembly created the state of the law just described do you know when that was or how far does he give you a date but it was I would say confidently that was more than twenty years ago okay thank you thank you Mr your other questions. Go ahead senator king. So what again is different from current law in in I mean most recently the Crawford County situation how does this apply to that situations or anything a prostitute. My recollection is there was no right in issue in that situation but the the the difference in the current laws right now we have a right in process where only an only a a name written in by the voter who a name they don't have privilege to would be counted we think that's a track for the voter's an unnecessary complexity this is there's a lot election bills to make the process a little more complex this is a fine trying us trying to find one space to make it a little simpler and you know anyone who wants ballot access can put you can get a petition together can get their name on the ballot then voters now I can count I can cast a vote for this name or not but a write in blank where the bride in. You have to write in a name you don't know in order to get your vote cast we find to be a system that adds needless complexity. Do you know last time a write in candidate is actually one election. I believe there was a case but again it was in that prior status of the law. Again a more than twenty years ago I'm not. Have no ninety Griffis yeah. Three other questions. Your. Do we know how many other states disallow write in candidate I do know that there have been states there was the the weather write in candidates kid be disallowed was litigated in the spring court found that they could in the state of Hawaii which is again under the law you could write anything the the system that you envision when you asked original question I don't have a number but I know there are a state. Okay thank you. Go ahead Senator. Because if I miss this I was distracted by the indeed refer the comments not. Are you you're not outlawing right and can its entirely they just have to follow the process early enough to make sure there's a blank on the a ballot that'll probably be counted or you doing way within the time you know that that we're doing with the entire the current processes they have to file when everyone else files Blake will be created but only cast only name the name of the person who filed would be counted as it was yet okay okay so we don't we don't think that process serves the voters we want to do away with so no writing Candice at all that's correct okay thank you. The questions. Seeing none your clothes. Close with do pass all right do pass but the Senator crawl. Second by Senator Hester all in favor say aye. All. Thank you in. Well I was just gonna say that the current system obviously is not serving the voter but I I didn't realize the current system didn't cover write in candidates I do think it's unrealistic to think that write in candidate. At a at a state level has it has any chance of of anything but. Maybe we need to address that and it seems to me that passing this bill might make it harder to address that with another bill so I wanted to stand for voters from voting yes on this thank you. In the discussion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. Senator you passed your bill. The. We will move on to. When a bill the. Senate bill two sixty five. Senator Tucker. For two sixty seven yes. Please proceed with presenting your bill Mister chair. Blake Johnson the Senator district twenty one the This was transferred in the facilities review committee and the transformation process share socialization requested it be moved back to public safety. went to the governor's office the major public safety was good with that major both all parties were good with that they're still of budgetary process it has to be done with the transfer of those those funds made that's what this bill does it brings out those detention review facility facility review over to public safety. A questions. No one signed up to speak for against the only one of the audience. A. Close your bill closed. I was well motion. Her second any discussion all in favor. Any opposed congratulations Mister you pastor bill. Senator Patty. You are up for Senate bill two seventy two. They're amendment. Okay. Amendments on two seventy three you're recognized for two seventy two. Senator Just go ahead and and introduce yourself and and let the Daniel introduce yourself and that way we get past that and you're looking proceed after that thank you Mr chair jim petty and I have to bills here today the first of which is running on your local. Sorry thank the chairman Daniel Schultz state Election Commission director all right go ahead Senator promised I was getting there just in my own way sorry. two bills two seventy two and two seventy three both of which are related to election laws the first one is an axe to create the election integrity review process this bill provides more investigative authority to the state board of election commissioners it provides details related to the level of criminal law violations related to that investigation and then at the bottom line is it allows for more transparency in our election laws by creating this election integrity review process I don't know Daniel if you want to comment beyond that. It just briefly I can say you know there is another sure I'm not bringing any news here a lot of interest and and and enhancing the integrity of our election process well the state board looked at that as we see it the place if if the if the General Assembly wants us to do more to protect election technically the place to do that is in the the the most attenuated type of voting which is absentee voting and in the voter registration records so what this would do will allow us to do I am a review of those records and it set up so you would over the over a decade on a biennial process you do the entire state to to seek to determine whether you can find indications of fraud right now we can investigate but we have to have a complaint brought to us we're not allowed to go out and look practically just to be clear this would come with a an ask first an investigator in some attorneys in personnel so I don't want to be transparent about that but. Yes Sir. But it this is a strategy that we developed in order to enhance the level of scrutiny the mail voting gets as far as whether it's authentic now no votes would be discounted as anything like that would be a post election review in order to to see whether there were any criminal violations of the law. Three questions from members. Go ahead senator king. So it's Hudson Hallam in that case last time we've had felony convictions. An election fraud. Was two thousand at ten I can't think of another instance off top of my head. Of. So I mean everything in this thing you can currently review yourself right this is just the the difference is well two things one as I said this is coming and contract with personal requests we don't have the bandwidth to but do this as is but the other thing is our investigative authority is tied only to complaints that we receive we don't have the authority to go out review records on a systematic basis so that's the difference. So would take a two thirds vote of your board to initiate the process so that well so what will happen is you would randomly select fifteen counties and then if there were other counties that say for instance there was an election where there was a. Time we were other explain you that on May are not properly timely recording of reporting absentee and early votes like they should and could be an example yes Sir if there are any indications that this election you know it needs this review in addition there were there's a mechanism to add the default is a random selection with the capacity to add a county to the the systematic review if it were deemed necessary by the board. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. This create a lot of work for the Election Commission I guess you are prepared to do it well as I said earlier this is coming in connection to it with a personal request those those will go hand in hand I also filled mentioned earlier I apologize if you allow me to and does the opportunity answering questions please we're also including in this a machine audit of the primary currently the auditing process only applies to general so it it's in the primary and the general under this bill. My primary concern is about the selection process for the counties that you indicated that over the course of the decade all seventy five counties would be covered. And understand the math there you have to fifteen a year so the course of a decade fifteen times five seventy five right yes Sir But I don't I don't really read that in the bill the way the way I read in the bill is you could have fifteen that the fifteen counties are randomly selected and it doesn't say the fifteen from the twenty twenty to election cycle are excluded from the random sampling. You know for the next time and I think would be highly unlikely that the random sampling for five times in a row would. it cover all seventy five counties unless there's a mechanism in the bill for that. I see your point of the that's the the way it was intended to be executed but I see your point that's not plainly cleared the language. So really the the larger concern is that some counties could get picked on really thank is not gonna be just more work for the state Election Commission it's going to be more work for the counties that engage in the audit as well. And there could be a legitimate basis for review That's not really my concern. But. You might have a county thank you it just gets thrown in every time and not just because they were picked in a random sampling but because. A two thirds of the board voted. And I really don't have a concern with that provision because if it's selected by two thirds of the board it has to be based on. Something that may have occurred for report. I really more concerned about subsection C. there that says the joint performance review committee can designate any county there's no standard there like there is with subsection B.. So Joint performers Review Committee could just pick. I ranted County. And say Hey. These folks are gonna be audited every election cycle. And I just. I would like to see a little work on the the county selection process due to reflect the intent that you described for the random sampling and also some some standard in there you know if you watch the NFL for the met or Major League Baseball with the challenge of play. You can do that but if you're wrong. The rest got the call right you lose your challenge you see my analogy. if you're right then then. You know then you keep your challenge and so the the if there's one performance review committee Pictou county and there was no finding of any wrongdoing that council should be off the hook for a little bit our I'm just thinking out loud right now but my general concern is. The county counties can get picked on through the selection process and in seven four one twenty three two. Yeah I may be wrong here but I I thought that that would be addressed in and in some sort of rules promulgation process not and this is established saying this and then the rules would be created by the board of commissioners and and and now that was that was my. Understanding is this would be a of a A procedure of the agency it certainly would come within the rule it would need rules potentially to governance so it it certainly I would commit to addressing by rule as far as the that the random selection element on the obviously the J. P. R. as a different question but if that would satisfy you I would certainly make the commitment to to doing that or or whatever I think that would satisfy my concern for subsection a I mean I trust your commitment on that as you mentioned J. P. R. is a different matter. And there's just a little opportunity for. Abuse there my opinion. You obviously more senior than I am but I don't know that that we can or cannot prevent JPR from doing what they do anyway I mean they're gonna be able to step in it regardless what this says and and and and ask for an require the review and and in a scenario no matter what this says you might missing some in my arm well if that were true I don't think you would need to include subsection see in the bill. Big but but I I don't think that's true. And that's why subsection sees included the bill it's specifically authorizing JPR to addict because this review process doesn't exist currently. And so your specific specifically authorizing JPR to added county to list. And I would prefer for that to be a that's that line to be just cut. Because then you only have the random sampling or if there's if the reports to the state Election Commission like for example you know there was a county this this election cycle but did report its results for a while so we can use that as an example about the Election Commission would have added that county to the list if it wasn't included in the original random sampling of that's non political the Election Commission is they're doing their job specifically related to elections plus there's a standard in subsection B. for. There has to be a basis for adding them to the list and if subsection sees not eliminated it would be better from my stand point to at least put a standard in there like there is with subsection B. so anyway. Senator can you have a question. So just this covers all elections me presidential primary primaries I mean. Remember reading or something. But yes so this would be the way centers as one of sure I'm being correctly that it would be conducted the odd year the off year and it would cover elections of that cycle the okay. Your other questions Senator Payton. Thank you Mr and I understand what you do not support it but as I first or read this I mean. Sometimes I have to look back and forth about dates and what we're doing so on page two line thirty through thirty three and basically were saying. That after each election cycle during the following year we're going to this review of that election cycle but the wording here. It seems to trip me up for some reason. It makes it sound like the election cycle is in the odd numbered year. Obviously what's going on in the odd numbered year is the review. But it says following an election. And then it says each election cycle in the odd numbered years following an election. Maybe it's just me but I think we did a better job a word working at the. Yeah I have I a rich you're saying there and and you know I think for me I'm I'm a grammar kind of got to but so I'm not surprised someone you know read it differently because I seem to read it differently most of the time but it it reading it in full the state board of election commissioners shall conduct an election integrity view of election related documents and records following each election cycle. Maybe a comma in the odd number years following an election is is the intent they have an and so I mean obviously we're doing the reviewed during the odd numbered year we could use the term previous election cycle. Somehow you know to make sure that we're identifying it is going to be the previous election cycle in the following year. anyway I think it's just room for. Confusion argument with somebody may have another reason to argue but they use that for a lever so if you do amend the bill you might wanna try to fix some clear language there I'd appreciate it stay at the end so so noted I again the intention and there's a about twenty five or thirty of these coming through the intention or or or as I understood it was to create the process which would include the rules that would be promulgated and and obviously approved by us at at some point I don't think we can can could. Potentially cover every scenario and then I hear what to Senator Clark is saying on the the J. P. R. but I don't I don't know that we can. Alter that process anyway I think this is just creating a process by which we can do the review and then they have the rules promulgated I don't think this was intended to be because there's it doesn't really. Cover the details of that review process what are the procedures that are going to be used to review and so thank you thank you Mister senator Dotson. Thank you Mr chair So Daniel you'd said that this unit company of personnel request but that's not part of this particular bill what what are you talking about as far as we're talking about adding one or two people have you already made that request is it in the budget right now my understanding is filed isn't budget And the request so that you know there's there's there's kind two things one our current operations to there's the extra we are tight on our current operations we've added several things over the past two years and we did add one individual to he was very useful to to go out in the field of trying dress problems this is initially be ale this together with the current operations go from one lawyer to lease hiring authority for three certainly to one additional lawyers immediately and a professional investigator which we don't currently have currently the lawyer has to do the investigating as well two. Three additional personal is what you're requesting well it well they're technically the rooms for that but the other individual would not be necessarily directly related to this part of it would be a difference I thought you said you had one attorney right now you're adding to the yes so only to attorney positions an investigator and then it additionally we have a vacant position which I would keep we have two vacant positions one of which would be not filled and then the other one sales of the three additional positions before national actual people would be the proposal. And and you think that that is in budget right now or is it will it I mean it is I'm notified that it has been filed yes it's been filed okay thank you. Your other questions. Seeing none we have. To speak to people Tony Scroggins this one's to speak for the second speak against Donnie Scroggins. If you come down. Our. All right thank you. The speak against. Brady Shearer okay. Speaking against. Introduce yourself and who you're with us and. Recognized thank you Mr. my name is Brady shires I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas public policy panel on the citizens first Congress before I begin I would like to state explicitly that our opposition SP two seventy two does not mean that we oppose a safe and secure election process rather that the contents of this legislation do not further those goals well I believe the author author of this bill is acting in good faith there are several aspects of this legislation that I believe undermine a stated goal and may lead to serious harms and abuse on behalf of the state of I also want to echo some of the concerns I have raised by Senator Tucker C. may hear some of the same things so looking into the legislation the review process establishes between fifteen to twenty counties would be selected I will I will go over some the things that were said earlier but my main concern is with the J. P. R. selection process is well having some sort of stipulation similar to the two thirds vote I think would be appropriate for the JPR in this case just to avoid them picking on say Pulaski County or Jefferson County every year. Furthermore after several discussions I've had with several individuals the primary concern I heard was for the potential for abuse When they begin that when the the state board begins the review process and they see something questionable what accountability do they have that they'll be acting in good faith to give a brief example in twenty twenty and Faulkner County there was a resident who had a stroke and was able unable to sign the absentee ballot Hendren and substructure eight line that a witness present they signed off on it the county Clerk the state the County election commissioners all verify that that was the case now supposed to the State Board saw this example and they thought there was something fishy there and they would decided to ignore the testimony of the Clerk in the staff and everyone involved what kind of accountability with their beat that the State Board was acting in good faith I think maybe some sort of accountability on them as well might be appropriate lastly I but I have a just a a concern in terms of subsection four on page four so sorry subsection F. on page four of the way I read this I think this allows to for some different her protections I hope this is in the committee clarified so as I read it an election official who refuses to turn over documents is by that very act committing an election law violation that's fine with me. The second interpretation I think is a bit more troubling that is an election official who refuses to turn over documents is by the act covering up a separate violation of election law this latter interpretation seems to fly in the face of the right of due process and assumption of innocence again I would hope this is something that could be amended where the former interpretation is the intended interpretation. in conclusion of all the voter fraud is exceedingly rare in Arkansas in fact there be only three cases of voter fraud in Arkansas since the year two thousand that's according to the heritage foundation I feel comfortable in saying that the state board with this new authority would likely not find the front that they're looking for I am aware none the less this legislation will most likely become law and because of that I would like to see this legislation be in the best shape possible free from the ability of abuse since mandate will also be able to carry out stated objectives if the sponsors of the open hope up be open to making changes based on the on the concerns have been raised I do more than happy to help finance currency I would urge you to oppose SB two seventy two. Thank you thank you any any questions from committee. The same nine thank you for your testimony. Consider video on a closure your bill. So when the bill you can go back three years but the records retention is only two years. That right Daniel. What what to line number you talked about. Four or. Three years all. I think Senator two things you're correct the the major record teaches two years on the election record but not on the voter registration records those are permanent in the three years was based upon dissociative criminal statute of a. How about propose. It in and answer questions members looking so you're going to need extra positions in money to implement this yes Sir. Okay so what if we passes and you don't get the funding to get the expiration of that in the twenty twenty five session I'll probably come back and ask on. Passage. Okay you know I mean it's just been my experience on the voter fraud thing provides looking at that you know audits very rarely catch voter fraud I mean it's almost needs to be on a proactive side of looking into things quickly when there's allegations with this voter registration fraud that went on in East Arkansas for years no one did anything about it of. The there is certainly is true to that I would simply say that we believe that our strategies we can use we we have some some process some cases that are we've looked at this year you can oftentimes tale It was a simple thing is for a bunch of absentee ballots requested to go to the same address that's worth looking into very similar dresses so there are you know whether a cat races where you know ninety nine percent of the ballots went for one candidate versus the other we there are some tales that that can be looked into so and you know mostly local prosecutors are not going to get involved in this one is they're short staffed like everybody else I mean when you have an election complaint that immediately needs to be looked into within a matter of a day or so but the. So I don't I don't know that you know I'm not opposed to this I don't guess of but you know certain your funding and all that I'm concerned about that just don't know that. It's gonna and cover anymore I mean I said I'm not saying anything the past election board of election commissioners literally blocked off things and would investigate or do anything. May I use the example in two thousand eleven when I went over there and found all the voter registration fraud and everything to come back they did absolutely nothing. I mean that's the kind of thing immediately you need to have prosecution today need to wait three years I mean I'm not opposed to this I'm just saying. There needs to be immediate response just like if you have a voter fraud situation or or negligent or nefarious or anything immediately needs attention local prosecutors are not going to do it because like they have politically that's been on the same people in that I mean so there's there has to be another process to deal with this voter fraud and things like that immediately that's just not out there but anyway I said this questions. If I may respond that Senator there is a another bill that would do would require the Attorney General to create a prosecuting us up of the bill members of the AG staff they would service special who can service special prosecutors that's kind of the peace to address that I know it's not a perfect solution but as we've discussed before we're committed to being as far reaching as you want us to be. It is far better everybody thinks I'm so hard negative is far better than what it used to be twenty something years ago trust me the name of. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. Senator can ask you what you'll do if the appropriation done pass. So I guess my question for you in my in my view I understand what you're trying to do and you know election integrity is important might be the the bill needs a little work just not a ton just a little I don't think I can vote for in its current form. You know I may pass over. My no vote anyways and that will be the first time the session that's happened but but I think it needs a little work because I think there's real potential for abuse of particular counties and there needs to be as a safe haven and that if you are audited and it's clean then you're not gonna be alright again for a cycler to or some such thing. At the same time I think the smarter approach would be to wait to see if the personality of rations passes before you pass this law and that way you know. That's the order it should go in rather than pass this not knowing about the person now in in two years later coming back to to ask us to undo this so mark my question really is if you would consider just pop just pausing this tweaking it a little bit waiting to see if the personnel preparation passes before we pass this law. So it is something of this so we sometimes you have to pass something and see if it gets funded so is there something you could put a law if this doesn't get funded this this law goes away is that possible. Well that is at probably an interesting approach what what is in here is some not codified language that says that the mandatory review doesn't begin until after the twenty four election cycle so if we have the resources we can do this review until then but will it'll the mandatory cycle of fifteen counties would start and after the twenty twenty four election cycle so that's the way it's been approach I mean just looking at the budget things and everything like that committee to get funded it's going to have to come through your you're going to mend your main appropriation bills to fund this is that right or you have a separate amendment I don't what are you doing in budget to to do this the I'm. don't miss speak but there is an amendment in the appropriate to the appropriation bill the proposed budget so the the proper represent real that was passed out a joint the the budget hearings does not include is the precession ones no Sir okay so you in a minute I mean how is it okay to put something in there that clearly defines that if you don't get the funding in. This doesn't the. This bill is not. You don't get these positions funded then you don't have to do this it's not gonna happen. You can't do what you want to do with this without the that's correct yes I'm not sure exactly what that would look like that so we try to do with the the the just with the nonqualified maybe a better way to do it really smart people there and Joint Budget taken staff people to continue how to do that stuff and have done that before I don't know I that's the only thing I ask is. So couple of things. Funding good question I don't I have been here for about however many days since January ninth so I this is all new to me but I know being on joint budget that that the appropriation process occurs and then it has funded or not funded now dealing with legislation that's new may be very very different result but I think the overall over arching theme is improving and ensuring that our election integrity look stays in place there are bad apples out there we we all know it and these these these bills in the aggregate. Are all intended to address those to Senator Tuckers earlier comment I come from a public accounting background where we have peer review of of audits and and and tax policies and our procedures and and so. While the focus is on finding fraud there's also the benefit of of reviewing the processes and maybe we uh in reviewing the random fifteen we find that there needs to be clarification in the rules process and so it's not that this is arming a and an honor to go out and and and bully and and and beat up on folks it's to also look for areas that that need to be improved before something happens as well so I'm comfortable we've we've met several times I'm comfortable with what the intention is in terms of of promulgating rules and and and making sure that there's not a a bully pulpit there for for those I'm comfortable with moving forward with the with the bill without the appropriations with the amendment that may or may not get there hi I'm. I'm just I'm afraid that we're going to end up well on down the road and we're going to have twenty five of these that we want to do pass but we we run out of time. I mean I'm not opposed even pass it I'd the funding I'm just asking rather have a law on the books that you can't implement because you don't have the money just make sure it's just. Withers on the vine I mean we have to pass things and then see if it be funded later in RSA maybe there's some other mechanism to be done that that has to happen amount it's not a big sticking point I'm just saying. We'll have a law on the books that you have to do something required and then you turn around and say well we did our part I mean I've seen this happen we're both ways for legislators go well or some agency goes well you know we passed it but the legislature did fund it and make us up to be feedback that's happened can happen so I just. I mean I understand about fun and you know doing something in the funding coming later maybe not that's not the issue but I would just wish for legislature part that. If you're not if it doesn't get the funding then the law then the law they're going to factor so just consider it. You members have questions. I see no question your clothes your bill. Center I'm closed so you're any discussion. Seeing none whatsoever the Committee. Yes motion by Senator Hester second by Senator Dotson all in favor say aye. All opposed. Lexan. Your your bill passed. Senate bill two seventy three and there's an amendment all members have the amendment. Click to get the easy one out of the way. Your vote is second to. The Amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment. All second all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. All right. Senator you are. Recognized. You're both been introduced so. Go ahead with this Senate bill two seventy three. Thank you Mr chair so this one is is a intended to Modify the selection and and placement of of voting sites and somebody just tried to call me and what math and it'll allow for runoff elections to to have meaningful polling places a polling sites based on geography and and and the definition or or where the the runoff occurs it's a common sense bill that allows for the most voters to have the most access to a run off ballot in a run off election. Would you like to add something. We have to if you'd like me to this is simply this is more of a bread and butter bill for for the state board this is situation where under current law the the law says you have to change a polling site are votes that are within thirty days of an election well you don't necessarily know what your run offs are going to be thirty days prior to a run off so if you have the potential for a county wide run off. you may want to plan accordingly and then you have the only run also the Little Miss how the in the corner of the county but you set your run off polling sites to cover the entire county it's it's logistically to make sense what this attempt to do is create a kind of an audit by automatic exactly but it's a default it says your your run off polling sites or whatever vote centers or whatever you would have what it whichever vote centers you already had that fall within the territory if there are not of course have to create some now this isn't a problem with the normal call it's not a vote center because you only open the polls that have ballots to be offered but in a vote Senator every ballot is and every vote Senator and so you have to guess under current law where those vote centers need to be this would simply say whatever vote centers you have are those that sit in the territory where the run off is occurring. Three questions Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr Tell me this if I'm understanding it correctly. Basically what this is doing is saying that if there is a run off in let's say a As a state Rep district or for state rep seat that any of the voting centers that were were during the election. Those same vote centers have to be during the run off for that if they're geographically in the seat that's having the run off but not the ones that are not outside of that say there's ten outside in the county out out besides that any any of the in the footprint of that particular that's a good job for okay thank you. Senator Hester and then senator king. Thank you so we had a particular interest in Benton county this past election cycle maybe this was the impetus for this for there is a run off and they're worse early voting sites in one town where somebody was from but the other town where members from like in grad I remember there was no no work for anybody go photograph that a drive to another town early that this would address that corrective started basic fairness it would so if if if both of towns had a vote Senator prior to one in the original election that yes both towns would have won by default it also clarifies that there can be additions if necessary but there can't that would allow for subtractions of of any of those that were in the territory haven't run off. Senator king. Well I had a run off so I had it in six counties so you know me one other complaints on say aye I think we talked about it this is separate matter we continue to talk about is early voting hours for a run off is only normal clerks hours no Saturday or early voting. Of so it's great you know opening these up could help that situation if nobody's willing to change the early voting things for run off second two you go to run off you really don't know what it's like but the other question is before I vote on this so I could see how many counties have in what counties have both centers and which ones do not. I can give you a list but it's more than half have of centers. Can before we vote we get you a list of can we get it before a vote on the vote on this can we just get that information because that's very important because we have six counties three counties don't have vote centers I mean. You know I mean you can look at I come just curious to know how many have both centers and and what counties a are. Before a vote on this. Can I consult with my colleagues if the if the will of the committee go ahead. I will also say that there are symptoms of the twenty five or thirty that we're working on there are some run off bills that are being introduced as well that may address your concern there I can I can get I do have that list so I can go over those with you a lot of our. Office and save the money in and use that money to buy voting machines later which no one. Talks about that we're going to have to do eight twelve years later from now on thanks to. So I have served I have a partial answer all that we're able to get the remit sixty are the number that happens as a fifteen counties that do not have a that's correct. Do they have the new I mean when it didn't the county is commenced so the fifteen counties when did they purchase their voting machines. At. It those were purchased as you well know center those are purchased kind of in a Hodge podge of charges but the latest would have been the the twenty twenty election cycle when the last counties were supplied so that the last counties purchase voting machines that did not have the capability to vote centers Senate no Sir no Count all counties have voting machines that have the capability have that the just some of them haven't implemented it unnecessarily why does not implemented it is their own choices County decision. So you have some counties that have vote centers competing if you have a race you have can you could possibly have like what Senator Hester St. I mean County panels Election Commission county boards let's misters. I have too much power. I mean they could manipulate into something put a vote Senator ins one place and pop up will run off the could make a huge impact in a lower turnout election the lowest of the low or low turnout elections in a primary runoff. This act and simply say that this bill does limit the discretion the way it's designed so made I don't I don't obviously solve all of those there's more to say there's more rules before this this loosens The rules kind of right no this would this would if if your concern is the suppression this would would be a tightening if if that's the way you want to phrase it because this would right now they get they have to guess before but they get to pick where the roll of where the vote centers would carry forward into the run off and this will make it with the discretion is not there now I'm just interested before a vote on this what fifteen counties have not means that possible to get a list of the counties which does not have vote centers. And get a list of the ones that do I'm not sure how long that would take it's certainly possible yes Sir. Okay stand and again don't want to push you into anything but but I know there's some runoff election but the key issue is that you have counties without vote centers of. You know they have the capability implemented I mean there needs to be some uniformization made that. If they have the capability to do it they're not doing it they should be any of other counties that are specially if you have a congressional race we had a congressional run off race one two thousand one so many can impacts dealers I don't that's just my question for program. If you can find out. Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr chair So I've been looking through it may be in here and I'm just missing it but When it goes to the run office says the election where these vote centers are gonna be located. Sometimes there's different sites for early voting in day of election voting which one is this referring to is a clearly stated somewhere. Well it it it's it's stated in the context of what the section applies to that it's in which the this bill sets but it is election day only this doesn't affect early voting in anyway okay so because it's in the code section under day of it would only applies to a day of flexion locations thank you. Senator eighty. Thank you Mr so I'm just trying to get it straight in my head what the current landscape is versus what we're doing here so if a county has these vote centers. They are compelled to maintain all of them and keep them open in a run off for. No the so perhaps examples helpful so in the last election cycle in the primary there's a decent chance we would have a statewide run as you'll recall in the looting governor's race that didn't happen as it turned out that a lot of council thought it might there's also a Democrat race that had the potential for state run run off the didn't happen so some counties because they have to kind of guess because you have to make any changes thirty days prior they simply chose to maybe open all their sites and then they put the position where the only run off they actually have this in a municipal population on the far corner of the county with two hundred voters and there's paying poll workers to sit across the entire county on the run off period or there's no the the one that's not a very facility we're talking about something other than these vote centers the regular polling sites are they compelled to keep them open County wider just within the district the regular polling sites will kind of work by default because the regular polling sites you only open the ones that have The the ballot that's involved in the run off because they don't have all the ballots they only have some of the balance okay so my last follow up then goes long lines what Senator king was talking about on page two line nineteen. This is the County Board of election commissioners may establish a new vote Senator. Is that not giving him a little bit of tanker in. Opportunity based on what Senator king was questioning it. It is one way to increase yes Sir. So they may know that there's an area that is very favorable to one candidate and try to make it more convenient by opening a vote center there well that's that's one way to look at the alternative would be there may be a part of the district that was served by municipality that was just outside the district and so or nearly those voters would go here but under this rule now this is just on the other side of the house districts line so that one's not open it but that's leading these voters under certain I realize there's two sides to that coin but that's Watson thank you thank you Mr. Senator Kroll. I answered my questions were answered. The your any other questions C. nine we have one person to speak for the bill. The only problem. Their conversation. And. All right thank you Sir. The Go ahead Senator. So are you going to wait to run this through we get information about the because if we implement something I mean I think there's an obvious fairness issue that could be amended or watch this to make sure every county in Arkansas have voted centers I mean to not have a vote Senator in one county. I can't believe that they would make that decision but maybe have a good answer for that I don't know. I have a Texas they're working on trying to to the line that I can tell you that one of the reasons some of the counties don't have them is you have but if you have a vote Senator yet bill to have the tablets that a mark of a voter who votes in one poll and every other polls they don't go around but more than once and for that you have to have high speed internet and so I think access to that is is one of the issues not that that limits a. That's correct it's just some some counties have more difficulty having access to the to the internet to to run the public's if they want to use them in that way. It. This. I have just you had at that you are at least a of commented that there may be a reason I can tell you that's part of the reason this income. Some places. I was. I'm I'm I'm comfortable pulling it down and you and getting you the answer answers that you that you need on this one so will will pull this back and then we'll get together because I do want to to get with you on the other that I think are coming on the run off. Senator Breanne. Thank you Mr so what one more question I appreciate you pull it down because I'm still trying to figure out all my. Concerns but on the bottom of page one when it says of or when a run off is required in the county that only utilizes vote centers I just noticed that for the first time so do we have counties that have a combination of both centers and polling sites and will any of this applies to those counties. The yes we do have those counties and now they would send example would be this county Pulaski it has hundreds of polling sites in every voters assigned a polling site but they also overlay on top of that the opportunity to go voted to vote Senator that are there maybe a dozen or so so the. The the challenge that I'm that we're trying to address here is one that crops up in a vote Senator only county the problem having to guess where your polls are so in a county that has the hybrid model none of this applies or does part of the supply well the in those counties then the polling sites again would sort of be able to default forward because you would only need the polling sites where you have ballots that are involved in the run off and I understand that yes but that's current I'm just asking for does this apply to any county has the hybrid model or does all this only apply the counties that are. Vote Senator vote Senator counties only the vote Senator only can thank you thank you Mr. Thank you for bringing that we'll here is soon as possible thank you. Next we'll hear house bill thirteen oh seven. Okay. They go for. Thirteen eighty one. Thirteen eighty one. There's introduce yourselves and you're welcome to appreciate. Senator Dave Wallace District nineteen. Representative Jeff Wardlaw district ninety four. Thank you guys for being patient with us been a long long committee thank you Mr chair measure referred to our point out that there's no state money involved in this is all paid the private funds it's kind of a second part of the bill that we did a few years back which deal with Johnny Cash in this debate statues been established in Washington DC we're now bringing back our. Statues that were in washing DC for over a century. In This bill that looks delish on the fourth floor we'll do a replica of Johnny Cash and daisy Bates and then they'll be out there for everybody to be on the fourth floor that's part of it the other part in fact the first part gives us permission to. Take the returning statues and offer them to any public entity and that's what we're doing I wanna let allow representative Warlow he's more specialists and I am and he could probably explain a bit better. I think Senator Wallace explained it perfectly I would like to see in this language included in the the first bill that we we sponsored but we didn't get included so here we are to clean that up and make sure we get our statutes all. Your any questions from the committee. Sam Nunn you will close your bill sure we are closed we are closing present a good vote I honestly meant shame your speeds. That's experience after. Which will of committee motion by Senator not to the second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you you. Thank you Sir. The. We will hear thirteen oh seven. H.. Home. It. sure cells and the this is on house bill thirteen oh seven energy sure sales and you're welcome you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair Ricky Hill Senate district eleven. Jeff Wardlaw district ninety four. Thank you Mr chair this is house bill thirteen oh seven it's an ESG bill as defined a defined financial providers if you look over on page. Three and four it explains the definition of that what this bill basically does is any financial institution in Arkansas who. Is banking are doing business with a company that up discriminates against the ESG according to firearms ammunition also feel that the state of Arkansas I will not to be do business with them. This. You for them to read it does the powers to the. Thirty general and the the the treasure to keep the list made up of all these companies that that do this they have a time frame sixty days to. To take to take care of this and to be identified there's also a way in here if they are being falsely accused where they can. A remedy that by bringing information forward to clear those sales. And also on this one. If you don't do your we have made provisions in this bill for retirement system's we have met with them we have made changes numerous changes to me to me what they want us to do on this for verification for direct and indirect investments we will use a working if they wanted in here to accommodate them on that side of it in this for the overall bill we work directly with the the bankers association to put this bill together for Senator to get a good good mutual understanding of Arkansas values what we want a state are sold people put us in office to do to take care of our firearms ammunition the fossil fuel. Customers out here. The representative Wardlaw anything. I would just echo center of hill's comments and I will tell you if you follow me over to the definition indirect holdings in the bill I currently have is not final form so I can't say this the page number but we did exempt all of the retirement system for one a four one K. four one four three B. four fifty seven those those pieces of language are added in directly with consolation with the retirement system's themselves and reason for that is because when you look at a mutual fund is made up of so many different funds if you. This excluded them because of one fund that's really not fair to the other so we just exclude them altogether so that we didn't have to worry about the indirect holdings the director deems are still. being held accountable to the bill and any violation of discrimination is firearms guns. And fossil fuels will be withdrawn and three or sixty five days from a direct Olding of I would just say that you know other communities throughout the US have put their money where their mouth is and they've changed directions of companies because of it this gets us on the right track for Arkansas what's important to us you know our farm industry in our state is growing immensely we have remained in arms which is one the bigger plants and I just wanna make sure that we stand behind on the support on and make sure they get the financial means that they need to operate in our state with that Mister I'll be happy to answer any questions. Questions for members Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. What what do we need this. There's banking institutions out there now that will not of loan money will not give capital to farm industry today and we're putting state tax dollars into those banks today. This may help change their policies to where they would give operating capital to the to the industries are important to us there's also banking institutions and do not alone and do not help capital with fossil fuel of. They have their beliefs and we have our beliefs and that's why we needed to try to change those policies are to set forth that we won't do business with those folks have that policy. We're not the first state to contemplate a law like this correct other states have passed them yes. Have any of the laws change the behavior of the banks that you're referencing. Of I don't know I've had some tell me in the last couple weeks that that there are some policy changes come and has there's number number of states of looking at this low this time around so that the numbers growing I guess is what I'm trying to you Senator Tucker I want only one thing on this if a company is denied credit from a bank under normal financial practices. They that that is not where this will come under under place of they are excluded under normal banking practices which are defined by each individual banks policies. In other states in the past this law like Texas for example it's it's cost the taxpayers of taxes hundreds of millions of dollars. I read it in media reports representative Wardlaw that you contend that the financial impact to Arkansas taxpayers will be much lower. Can you explain that and in can you estimate what the financial impact to Arkansas taxpayers will be for passing this law do you have any. A fiscal impact report or any evidence for that number I don't have a fiscal impact report and we've actually asked for someone no one's been able to produce one taking out the indirect holdings on the retirement system was one of the biggest impacts or brought forth so taken that out reduce the heat immensely of but no one is brought us any number that shows any significant are evidence that it has an impact currently do you believe it'll even if it's one dollar of cost the Arkansas taxpayers something I believe that a call something. But it's it's the state record one more question I'm on center court. Senator Payton. Thank you Mr number one I wanna say thank you for bringing this bill I think it's very important that we push back against some ideas and policies that I know my constituents don't agree with. Hi and that's why I'm a co sponsor on the bill because as police support the direction you're going here but but some concerns have arisen when I realized that the language of the bill puts off consolidates all of this decision making I guess between the Attorney General and the treasurer. And I guess somehow I I just would have envisioned it we have a panel or board of more than two people. Our. That seems like a lot of responsibility and a lot of power to an to vest in in just two people are. That would create a black ball list of other investments are companies that that we shouldn't deal with as a state so That is a great concern for me and then also is there any liability protections for those two people as they make these decisions. And and put people on a black ball list I mean are they going to be subject to being sued and personal defamation defamation of character and and accused of. Biasion and reasons that an intent that may not. B. there's the. I just think it be better if if this bill is crafted a weighted vest that. Responsibility in a in a lot the slightly larger group as we know both of those are elected officials who may or may not have any background in banking or understanding of of these investments So I'd like to ask have you considered that why you chose to put it in the treasurer and the attorney general's. hands. And if you could just. Help us. You know the old saying don't reinvent the wheel we look at some of the other states and our bills pretty much mimics the West Virginia bill Texas bill had a mechanism in it to where civil lawsuits could take place of screaming aide or told somebody would loan money they can they see you civilly for that we didn't within like that aspect so we didn't use that we had in our original draft that the treasurer made the list tell the listing consolation with the AG so they G. re didn't have any teeth in the bill we met with different stakeholders they expressed concern about that in direction of language I mean in consolation with language and they asked us to change it with in direction of because the AG's office does have a team of attorneys that can look at the legalities and the prop policies of those financial providers this bill only deals with profit or financial providers not all the other contracts and all the other things in state government so we we felt like that was a good reason so we did amend a bill on the house and to include direction of the AG but that was the reasoning behind its because he did have a team of attorneys that do have the specialties of because they work with those boards and commissions throughout the state and they can make those decisions in a holistic look instead of just having a vendetta are political reasons target ever follow up. So I also sit on the retirement committee and the. It has come to my attention that there is a another bill by a different house member. Already trying to address and what they perceived to be a conflict of interest of have in the treasurer's office sit on the boards of the retirement agencies and fulfill these roles so it seems that this bill is creating a perception of a conflict of interest for the treasurer already and this bill is not even past Committee at So the fact that you have eliminated. The retirement. Funds from the reach of this bill do you think that eliminates the comp and we didn't we didn't eliminate the retirement funds in holistic from the bill we only eliminated the indirect investments from the bill. So the program not enough then to address the directions of the the member. The direct Investments like where they invest into the steel mill or they invest into the pellet mill where they invest in the different things directly those investments are still held to the standards of this bill okay so I would take that to mean then you don't think that addresses the other members concerns about the potential of have of this bill creating a conflict for the treasurer's office. In happening to have such a hand in creating the list and then being a member of the boards there invest the retirement funds I mean he's elected official and I like to see elected officials on board rather than appointed president Senator Payton I have no idea what you're talking about well I'm not talking about that bill I'm talking about the conflict that this bill may create for the treasure and it's already been. A concern of another member who is filed a bill to try to alleviate the conflict that had been created until this bill passes so I'm just asking about this bill do you think it creates a conflict for the treasurer's office to handle these responsibilities and set. On the retirement boards. With that the trader will have to answer to the people of Arkansas he had the dust of the lady in elected positions that will be up to them to know whether he needs to vote or not voter or stand aside on some of the issues that they're facing retirement board. So you think you have it is an art director so you think the treasure can handle both roles I think the treasured hamlet okay thanks thank you Mr. Senator king. So what's the process in this bill to Arkansas has a dispute House up or down. Getting up the. So in the bill they would file a complaint with the treasure of the AG's office they would have sixty days. To to answer that complaint once the complaint is answered by the treasure the AG's officers forty five days of allowed for for response and then at the end of that if they're determined to be in discrimination they go on to the list at the treasurer's office. So of you mentioned there's an impact to this I mean is it too much to ask for. Financial impact I mean if it's going to have an impact of like to know what it is for a vote on. I think it's one of things really hard to get a financial impact on and two we know which financial institutions are in discrimination so be really difficult to see what that impact would be to the state I I don't know of any that are in violation and I don't want to speak of any on a microphone that are in violation because they may or may not be enough on that out before we do. We've passed and not been given an answer yet. Well can we wait and see what that answer is minutes not a hard question to ask. You can't know the answer then. Why would I want to vote on. In the process laid out on page six by the way on the okay how they go through. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr like to follow up on a couple of points Senator came Senator paid for making. That process that you lay out the the treasure has the ultimate say correct. In the so whatever the the treasure says there's no appeal to a court or or anything else of a financial institution is listed. Yeah you can file a reply you can file definitely found that as for is me found what page it is Senator Tucker. It's actually the treasurer at the direction of the Attorney General they since they'll send written notice that a financial service provider and it is has a complaint. Per your accent representative is on page six and this may make a move to page about things on page six looks like line five on a copy I have. This is the written notice under subsection D. one of the substance of this section shall include the following information it goes through the things that are included in that letter and then at the bottom undersea it says the placement of the finance provider on the list is forty five days unless within thirty days the following receipt written notice that they can appeal back and that in within the first thirty days and then if they're found to be in violation to be placed on the list. So yeah I mean it gives you the Attorney General is basically the person telling the treasure that they are in violation or they're not in violation I have a question about that but I'll get back to my first question which is that. What if the the treasures Office office at the direction of the Attorney General wrongfully determines whether a bank the Secretary this bill or not there's no recourse correct they can't go to a court. They're just out. And they will be with me be removed from the list at their found innocent. But if they're if they're wrongfully accused they should reply that thirty day window to plead their case to the AG's office. But ultimately it's the Attorney General's call period that is. Okay. Follow up question on that is. There's several places throughout the bill you just mention one of them. Where it says that the treasure of State at the direction of the Attorney General. Are you aware of any president in code. Or in Arkansas history where one constitutional officers taking direction from another constitutional officer. I'm not we had a G. look at the bill and they didn't think there was any violation of constitutional matters in the bill. I mean is that out of the AG's office this morning we didn't come out there's a problem. Have your visit with treasure's office about. I have not I thought the traders Office outside just a few minutes ago. Now let him tell you his opinion I will speak for someone else. Okay these are all private banking institutions there. That could be subject to the provisions of this bill correct it is yes. I I have nothing Mr. Three other questions Senator pain. I guess I got my attention The the treasurer at the direction of the tourney General trying to comprehend what that means I mean if they said the house at the direction of the Senate would do this I think there'd be a lot of concern and I could see why the. Senate wouldn't be concerned if it was the house at the direction of the Senate but the house would be concerned of maybe the Attorney General is not concerned with the say in the treasurer at the direction of the tourney General but I would say that the treasury would be concerned. I'm just. I think this bill needs work and I'm I'm proud that I'm a co sponsor on it but I'm I'm I hate to say that I think it's I don't think it's done yet so. Author do you do you really thank it's just having and I love our Attorney General and I love our current treasurer do you really think just having those two minds is enough to make these decisions without. More people involved tell me what you're thinking as far as what how how would you see a board set up. At least three but I'd probably prefer five people that would you know share the responsibility and have a vote in determine whether somebody's going to be K. do not. And and you know I don't pretend to be smart enough to know who's got the best minds in investments But I'm smart enough to know that it's not always. Are going to be who the people elected treasurer or Attorney General because you know when you. Run for those two positions you're probably not count touting your financial skills as much as you are you're. Lawyer skills for Attorney General or or a. I guess treasurer may be a different situation they probably do have accounting skills but investment skills I'm just saying I don't think that something as big as this should be in the hands of only one or two people and I don't like the idea that you put one constitutional office at the direction of another constitutional office. Then I'll reserving them asking questions back on only if you know as far as a make up stuff like that you know that I'm just I don't have a problem with that whatsoever account I like that it's going out there well I appreciate that and I don't have. The answers because I've just been sitting here trying to contemplate this for the last twenty minutes okay thank you Sir. Your questions. Senator Tucker you. All right so. But that's what I think say it I would like to pull this down to address the center Payton I think he's got some very valid points out there as far as what might be a five man board and I would like to ask him to work with me on on developing that in sales in the beginning Cainta ankles and gather on that all rights are at the Mr thank you very much thank you. I don't think we have any other bills or anybody around bills so. We are adjourned.