Education Committee - Senate

In I see a quorum I see senator Hammer was here. Okay. This call this meeting to order good morning everybody and first off the bat we'd like to wish a senator jim Dotson the Happy Birthday song. You were. You have members it's always when we have no cake we don't even numbered candle but. Right okay the first thing we need to do is we have the rule that we need to look at a dock and I think everybody got a copy of that rule on the fiscal funding that we need to adopt and also we need to adopt that thing on the of Scott lottery scholarship so I'll ask Marty if she would do a little explanation here of both of those things so that we might vote on them. Good morning Marty Garrity with your legislative research the rules that are with regards to the vote of the fiscal impact. Seven ages provides that a bill referred to the Senate Education Committee that is related to grades K. through twelve will not be taken up by the committee until a fiscal impact statement for the bill bill has been provided to the committee and the bill will be listed on the Committee agenda is pending fiscal impact once a fiscal impact is received the will bill will be moved to the active agenda this is been the practice of this committee for many years I think what this rule is just memorializing it in writing and this is a rule that the house committee has already adopted in its rules. The other one is new it's And this was came about from a bill that was passed in twenty twenty one and it requires a bill that creates a new higher education scholarship fund scholarship that's funded with net proceeds from the state lottery or the higher education grants fund account or that affects an existing higher education scholarship to be funded with either of those two of funds. Again cannot be taken up by the committee until a fiscal statement has been produced and the bill is listed on the Committee agenda I will the bill will be listed on the Committee agenda as pending a fiscal impact of this is a little bit different here so once the fiscal impact is received the house in the Senate per the law needs to meet jointly to take up these bills that have required fiscal impact for higher education school scholarships and that's gonna be determined by the house and Senate Education Committee chairs. With that I'll take any questions. Senate. Thank you madam chair so we have a B. and C. C.. Seven C. seems to refer to all bills but it doesn't specify whether it's those under seven a or seven B. or. What what is seven C. how does that. Seven C. I. think the reverberations So because it's under seven it only applies to bills that require for K. through twelve or the scholarship lotteries so if there is a bill that has to do with higher education that has nothing to do with the scholarship that it would require a fiscal impact that's under seven C. so it it all those relate to those two items and see refers it back to it and we're going to take these up individually we can't. Thank you. Okay. The other any other questions Marty. So let us look at the first a rule. For the fiscal impact and do I have a motion except that. By her second. Is there any conversation yes. Yes yes. Obviously this is this is kind of been the practice obviously this committee it is formalized in the house is a rule that I want to caution everybody in here is a member of the house Education Committee in the house for the last ten years this this rule has there's often times things that have no in fiscal impact but you have to sit there and wait sometimes for a week or two weeks or or whatever to even be able to hear it on or have it put on a regular agenda with a rule like this so I would caution members of this committee to vote. Before passing this that this this has some real ripple effect on things that that should be very non controversial and that can come up if things are You know Morton meeting of discussion and having a fiscal impact we always slow down or any member can always ask for fiscal impact before we hear the bill but I would I'm opposed to this rule so thank you. Thank you I guess the one thing is that if we pass a bill in here. And we wanted to be heard in the house Education Committee it won't be heard until there's a fiscal impact so you know. Our server that a stalemate. True however generally speaking the It's something along those lines happens you're talking about another week that goes by before it gets to the other end of the chamber if it passes bills and by that time typically fiscal impacts if there are none have been have been submitted so it's it's typically not too much of a problem generally you you see it before it even gets to the floor after passes a committee but to. The the challenges with that being put on a regular agenda and delaying it. Since we only meet once a week slowing something down for weeks it's not really controversial so anyway I've said my piece Brigitte. We have any other. Senator Hammer. This is a this rule would remove all latitude of the chair to have any discretionary opinion about whether a bill is considered fiscal or not this is this is all or none deal where they all go up for fiscal impact is that correct. That might correct interpretation falls under one of those two categories yes and again what are the one or two categories that higher ed for the K. twelve and higher it's scholarships just nothing else but. it just to scholarships just a scholarship part of it that's all. Okay just a scholarship part but but anything else and would be subjected to having to get the fiscal impact only if it's touched by the scholarship is that correct. Can you say that again sure. Just clarification on the on the higher ed which we're talking about real to one on one but I mean on the on the higher it then it's only if it's going to touch the scholarship otherwise everything else can sail through that's correct. Is is but that's not the case for K. twelve everything has to get a fiscal impact on K. twelve is that right correct. What we practiced for years I mean ever since I've been in legislature that's what we has always been the practice okay both the Senate and house so and it was just we just didn't realize that one part of the rules okay and I'm just wondering why that why the discrepancy that we're going to treat K. twelve one way and not hire the other as far as not requiring all higher ed bills go through like run require all K. twelve bills go through fiscal impact because usually there's the fiscal impact is not the same with the higher education bill this would be for K. through twelve. So we I don't think anybody's ever felt that we needed to have a a fiscal impact statement for higher education bills if even though some of the things that we do may affect their budget that they come and say we can't afford to do that because it's going to cost all right. Okay thank you. Senator Dotson. If I won may make one more point if you look at today's agenda this is a classic example of of what is there S. B. one seventy two I don't intend to run today There is certainly the potential for fiscal impact however there is no fiscal impact statement on. On the website currently so if this rule were to pass this would have to be kicked off the regular agenda and I couldn't even have it brought up for discussion today and pending whatever fiscal impact. Next week next Wednesday if if amendments are made things are changed things like that it could be ready to run but I would have to wait potentially for two three four however long it takes for somebody to even bring a fiscal impact to have the discussion in front of this committee so there are some real ramifications to this type rule like I said this is on the regular agenda and and it it wouldn't be if this rule passes. Senator Hammer. Clarification so I presented bill in here so may bring up about a point I need to amend the bill does the bill have to get a new fiscal statement if an amendment is attached to it. Well we just. You. Has it changed. Overall. Picture what it is you're trying to do in the bill you're adding a name where you're adding on sentence or something like that but it doesn't change the overall inconsistent with. Okay thank you. I just don't think we've ever done that we've never done that before Senator Chesterfield. The Amendment in creases cost that's one thing but usually amendments are very technical. And when you've already had your original fiscal impact unless you're adding more money to what you're going to propose we've never done that. I mean on the committee since two thousand three and we've not done that. That means. Senator Bryant in in the the case of center Dotson's question about that bill today what's the threshold is is the ability to suspend the rules for the fiscal able even of the House might need it if we had to get something through this committee so I can hear you will get through this the that's something to the committee to center Dotson is point and we wanted to run it could we suspend that rule and get it through what while the fiscal impact was being worked up and go and send it to the house could you suspend the rule is that is that threshold still two thirds is still available. Yes under item eleven thank you senator Nelson a bill could be considered by the committee if there six votes. To suspend the rules and consider the bills. The back of the first page. Senate. Thank. Anybody else have some questions or comments. Okay well I have a motion. Okay I'm sorry. Okay all those in favor of. All opposed. okay say I'm I think the ayes have it all. Okay fifty. Senator Dotson. For those to pass a bill but is that the majority of a quorum only dealing with matters of this sort. Because. So. Since we have for you is that the majority of the all of the committee. I believe it's five but I need to ask if I can check with Steve cook I would. It's five to pass a bill this is not a bill this is a real. Our. We have a lesser crowd today okay. We have before thank. The state of their homes it's five it's five one. Hi so go ahead. Senator stone. Five. Senator Bryant. Senator Hammer. Senator Leding. Senator Davis. Senator Chesterfield Senator English hi. Three. So it felt sorry. Okay. Okay let's try here second. All in favor Act all posed. K. if they're moving right along to our bills for the day. For. Thank pardon. We will listen. Yes the lotteries. This statements shall be made available to me at least one day before the bill may be called up for final action in the committee that requirement as well. Yes. All in favor. All opposed. Okay so with doctor. Okay so with the right along senator Johnson. You could Senator chair if you want to. Okay. If you will recognize yourself you will be. Thank you madam chair and members of the committee I have Melissa rest with you a here to discuss this bill or to go through it with you **** B. as quickly as possible with the. A link the bill that does a little bit of stuff I'll let her explain it in an open up for questions. Thank you senator Dotson and my name is Melissa Rustom with university of Arkansas system we approach Senator Dotson have couple months ago asking if he would sponsor a piece of legislation for the University of Arkansas System we had gone through all of the statutes in the Arkansas code that references the University of Arkansas to see if there were any that needed to be updated any that perhaps might need to be deleted that were obsolete any anything that needed name changes or otherwise and so Senate bill one O. one is the product of that work and to be happy to answer any questions you might have if you have any about any particular section. Senate body have any questions. Senator Rapert would you would you go through the. The reasons were striking. All the all the code I know it's service clean a provision that was specifically certainly would you want me to go section by section or just give you a general broad categories. Sure there are a number sections Center Bryant had or just simply name changes for instance there are a number sections that have to do with the division of agriculture and it's instant different programs that they're involved in and so we just getting all of those names so that they read exactly the same there's a we had a name change for one of our campuses are fully online campus university that merged with universe of Arkansas Grantham and so there's a change for that particular campus as well there are other changes with respect to a couple of our campuses that are part of the you a system that involved legislation or laws that were needed at the prior to their joining the U. a system for instance university of Arkansas AT Fort Smith as well as university of Arkansas community college at rich mountain there are a number of statutes that are in the Code having to do with the board of trustees and a lot of those statutes you know address Is certain certain pieces of legislation from years ago summer result is eighteen eighty seven there are some that go back to nineteen fifteen and then there are some that are more recent there are there are number statutes that have to do with financial affairs that are old and antiquated and there are processes to the legislature and other legislation that have updated those but the legislation has not there's a section having to do with a revenue bonds for law schools that is pretty antiquated and that legislation another piece of legislation repealed or or change how bonds can be addressed for law schools and so there are at least seven or eight sections or provisions in there that are just totally irrelevant and we just so you know we checked with a bond counsel I'm having to do with those particular statutes to make sure that we weren't creating an unintended consequence you know by removing or asking for those to be deleted we were sure above on council that those were no longer needed so and I know that doesn't cover everything but but broadly that's that's generally speaking what what the bill does And what it's intended to do. I think that answers my question so I was probably getting to that to the bond section so under a different code we're addressing yes health system does that we just didn't acts we don't believe this back when we adopted new that's correct and there is a there is an over arching statute under Arkansas law that addresses how bonds can be issued how boards of trustees you know can vote to issue bonds in it it provides a a process by which that is done and it's totally separate from this particular section having to do with the law schools and so if this language is no longer needed and unnecessary. Thank you mentor page five. One thirty. Take it from of. May two a shell. But one section nine in honor bills page five line thirty. And just wondering the reasoning be behind going to the shell from the may. The questions Senator Hammer. And we go to this particular. I'm sorry I'm it's a good question I recall when we were I'm looking at this particular piece of legislation we were mirroring that after statute that the university of central Arkansas currently has because you as you will note in section nine It identifies you know multiple different areas of study but recent studies you know that are involved in a and a you a system campus and to the best of my recollection that is how the legislation is drafted FOR you CA but I would need to check that to be able to tell you that for certain but that's that's my recollection. Close your because it's related to the course of study for the campuses divisions and universities the unit for the birth university of Arkansas system. And. I guess. Prior to the language being stricken under the may allowances Y. who would have done what with that and what is it you're trying to address to keep somebody from doing something with the well I I'm not certain I'm not certain I'm going to answer exactly what you're asking but I'll do my best and the course the courses of study that are available at our campuses all have to be approved by then you have a board of trustees and so all of those do go through a process they they basically they come to the university of Arkansas system office first of all with the vice president for academic affairs reviews all of those issue all probably know doctor Bob it obviously came. Ranks as well as a professor and so he refused those and then those are presented to the board of trustees of I. H. campus for consideration by the board of trustees in so it doesn't change the process by which those are approved you're just trying to get some tighter control what courses are being taught by is that kind of what it's all about is it. I Hammer if you look at the top of that section nine that first sentences as the course of study the University of Arkansas shall and brace. And then it goes on and lists out specifically but it gets down the bottom and such other branches of study as the Board of trees trustees may prescribe so. Obviously the board of trustees can can go beyond this expansive list that's listed there but they shall I'm not sure that this actually changes the functionality of what the statute does it just cleans it up and says okay there the board of trustees is going to be the one prescribing all of them without basically without any limitation the Biden naming specific courses of study so then the board of trustees will be ultimately the ones held accountable. Because they'll have the approval process the correct I believe so the it's okay it's function now functionally the same as what it is right now it just takes out the specific courses of study that's in statute hearing and and just. Okay give them the authority that currently already have just rewards of the little bit I believe in this section okay thank you senator. Any further questions. Seeing what is the will of the committee your motion I'll close and make a motion to pass through her second. All in favor All opposed thank you pastor bill thank you very much thank you let's see could pass over represented Dalby Senator Solomon are you presenting today are you waiting. Of. Yes. Thank you madam chair and thank you committee I appreciate you sharing this bill I thank all of you heard this bill four years ago it's almost the same exactly the same bill accepted goes from outside to inside and you will likely hear the same arguments opposing the bill now that you did then in the previous arguments they talked about the opposition talked about this would create chaos on campus there would be Things going on they couldn't stop and that those were the primarily the arguments if you have the bill if you'll turn to the back page. Page five. one line six this bill does not materialize are substantially disrupt this did not as defined in the code so you cannot materially disrupt inside or outside if you look down and online that section three eighteen through twenty one yeah particularly prohibits material it prohibits disruptions in classrooms lectures and other presentations are events and administrative offices so the the argument that this is going to allow for disruptions they can't control disruptions the bill specifically. The night of. A lot does not allow that. And look in line fourteen it talks about it's illegal to do such so if you're looking back on the first page to amend the areas that constitute a public forum so again all we're doing is moving with legal outside to what's legal inside and we added on page five of those protections to make sure that there were no disruptions on campus. it getting the subtitle it talks about allowing inside what's allowable outside. I'm looking down at the bottom of page one it changes the title from the robust university minds act you're free thought higher education so I don't think that's a point of contention anywhere. Home page two. If you look at line eighteen. The goal is to avoid stifling of expression of on campus inside or outside that's the whole purpose that's mentioned several times throughout the bill on line twenty three it talks about a significant amount this is old languages from the of the bill. A significant amount of taxpayer dollars is appropriated to the state supported institutions we spend a lot of money and hire it and it's only right I believe that we have the same freedoms outside as we have inside with additional protections. In line thirty four we strike some language there we talk about individuals may find unwelcome Ann collegial disagreeable or even deeply offensive. That simply clarifies language in the performance and that's what free speech is about it wouldn't be free speech if if everybody agreed there wouldn't be a problem but free speech allows foreign language that is in Camby on collegial disagreeable or even deeply offensive but again remember there is language in the bill that says it can't be disruptive. I'm on page three. Again it talks about material a are substantially disruptions we mentioned that comes out throughout the bill one of the most important is on his line eight through ten lawful protest in any area of campus again lawful protest on disruptive. In any area of campus during the times when the area has been reserved in advance for another event so if an area is reserved for another event you can't have disruption to protest in those areas another protection to make sure we allow for free speech. But is protected and the universities have an opportunity to make sure that doesn't occur. Hi line eighteen it talks about expressive conduct we're just trying to simplify there's a strike there we're just trying to simplify and describe what the first amendment allows it allows that expressive conduct. If you look down and lines twenty two through twenty nine that's current language that's allowed outside and we would allow those inside now again one of the arguments you heard when we pass the bill the first bill four years ago that this bill would allow for all kinds of disruptions it hasn't occurred. In line thirty six page three it does not mandate the use of specific words including so this one of the things I'm concerned about there's a lot of canceling going on in the cultures now if you look around the nation about some of our higher ed institutions there are certain words that are not allowed and if you use those words sanctions they're going to use space a specific pronouns and other things that some students are being saying they can't do that I know that's offensive but it's protected by free speech so if you look at page three it says does not mandate use of specific words including without limitation pronouns and it goes on down the rest of the acts of that section the line nine it says state supported institutions of higher education may impose reasonable restrictions regarding the time place and manner of carrying out expressive activities so if you're worried about things getting out of control on campus inside that language specifically says the university has control over that. In line sixteen. Of there's no new language there in conversations with higher read there was some question over what the campus community aye we changed that language to say that all people legally present on campus so if you're legally on present on campus you're not disrupting your disk lob a bill controls that. Again and line nineteen indoor areas that are generally accessible to members of the campus community. To see throughout the bill again I hit line twenty five starting there it actually makes the gives the institution more authority maintain and enforce reasonable. Regarding the time place and manner of carrying out expressive activities so people want to engage in expressive activity they can talk with the university in the university can have restrictions regarding the time place and manner of carrying out express activities again census is inside university does need additional protections there. You look on the last page we already covered that I will go back over it but again the university's understandably need and have more opportunity to control of disruptive potential behavior. I have a question that I was asked about whether or not universities have contracts with businesses and they have protected information by contract in the the comment was made this may put that at risk it doesn't the bill says that that you you that's that's already illegal I'm looking for this section in the bill where it says that. But it listed the can't violate the law and if you have contract law that has a non disclosure agreements than that by contract law that's covered so the thought of the idea that someone's going to be sharing legally sharing protected information if the information other it's just not accurate. Of. I think I've covered everything that I need to cover I'll be glad to answer any questions. Senator Hammer. But manager. First question would be on page three. Line eighteen and nineteen. In the previous bill that was run last time. You're stricken a line about protected by the first amendment to the United States constitution could you explain why that is stricken or what the rationale and what. It just strikes me that we're going to strike something out the. Takes up the first amendment I don't understand that thank you people can start something up anytime they want so I'm sure they can but the restaurant we struck that that to be more expressive of what the bill does they already have their first amendment rights no one can take them away from that and this bill can't give them something they already have. So by striking that sentence. And adding the word express of it just further explains what the bill does they can have expressive activity the fact that we struck that language really is You always have your first amendment protection this bill can't take that away. If that's your question what yeah I guess but. If what you say is accurate. Then why was it ever put in the bill previous bill because you cited it why why was it put in there in the first place. If it didn't need to be there. Well I thank Again we just want to further explain what the bill does I don't think it was. Board member and chair turn this on. The the fact that it's in there then and we struck out we just saw the need to change it I mean I think it would simplify the bill and yeah I don't need to speak on the other bills I don't think it changes what this bill does. Okay then one of the one off of your back issue How is this going to. How's this going to affect the employer employee relationship is that it's not specifically geared to just the student or the teacher this is going to be a pretty broad net that's going to is it a broad net that's going to catch the employees as well and how's that going to affect the operations of the institution between employers and employees I think it improved by weight but people feel stifled if they can express themselves in this gives everyone the opportunity to express yourself freely. Okay all right I'll get it thank on that per second of I think the assumption is that if people have free speech that's going to destroy the employer employee relation that's the assumption I hear you expressing I think when people abide by this law they can't be disruptive they can't walk around with the chancellor's office as it brought up to me in a conversation what do you do about people who walk around the chancellor's office going I hate you you're in and talk calling people names and calling other people names that's prohibited in this bill you can't be disruptive but you can have free speech. And that's those guidelines are already covered in policy with university in this doesn't they have guidances the Bill said drew be restricted in some of those areas we're not replacing that policy I think it's a very broad question did you say how does that affect how people get along this section would be free speech is causes people not to get law I don't believe that's true I think free speech helps people get along when you can expression shall free late in an appropriate manner so if you have employee or employer and you want to sit down have a conversation you shouldn't feel restricted as to what your free speech rights are. Okay upon the queue manager. The Amendment okay all right so Senator Chesterfield. Thank you madam chair and Senator Solomon welcome to the Education Committee we work with Senator Ballinger on this bill several years ago and one of the reasons we want to be kept outside was because sometimes in spite of the fact that we say it shouldn't be disrupted it becomes disruptive. And since classes take place throughout the day. We didn't feel the safeguards that the guard rails with their to preclude interfering with instruction would you speak to that please. No. We're not talking about outside we're saying that what we do specifically was keep it outside so that he would not be disruptive to those classes that take place inside what do you guard rails to preclude that from happening other than hoping it doesn't well there are guardrails I mentioned them in the the this section that says. indoor areas that are generally acceptable to members of the the university has inside the authority regarding time place in the manner of carrying out expressive activities the university can prevent that I'm looking for the other sections This this provides for protection inside they can't because I said they can't go to the to the. chancellor's office and start screaming and hollering that disruptive and in here it says Find this section. Online Page three line a lawful protest in any area of campus that is generally accessible to members of the campus except during the times when the area has been reserved in advance for another event so if areas are reserved for another event ahead of time they can't these university has the authority to limit what goes on in those areas where classroom may I'm leaning we're in classroom may. Getting a class there. If you have classroom B. which will allow the group to access. If the group's behavior becomes disruptive classroom a is disruptive is disrupted. So how do we do that is this on the university to provide the security to preclude all of this from happening. Is that what you're saying it falls on this it falls on that date the I think that's already true that the university has a responsibility I mean there's nothing if they'll if what you describe happens now the University has the authority to stop that what happened now because we are safe specifically that the activities that could be outside what you just said bill a second ago that that sometimes what we want to control we can't. That was your statement previously was in my statement is still that because it's more difficult to control inside than it is outside let me move on well saying that free speech anyway anything we want to express is fine we just recently passed a bill that said drag queens cannot perform. But according to this legislation they can as long as they're not disruptive on the college campus if the law. We also said we also were concerned about the Holocaust you have a whole cost in nine years. Those individuals will be free to come on campus. And so I'm just wondering are you thinking about all of the consequences of what you're saying. Now okay the yes I am thinking about all the consequences and this bill provides for protections if the drag queens one of March through campus and down the hall they're free to do so okay and if they're not disruptive okay but they won't be put in jail like we have in and out of the we'll you're asking that the question not that this bill doesn't contemplate if they're not violating the law you don't go to jail if you violate the law you go to jail what you said in the other bill that if two people perform its appropriate act and therefore is subject to some kind of prosecution is that not right. No it's not right that that's not what the bill do if there what is not. If you're walking down the hall and you're engaging in appropriate activity then you're at risk of going to jail if you're walking down the hall and you're not engage in a pre an activity for just walking down the hall dressed as a drag queen dressed as a cowboy are whatever you don't go to jail you didn't violate the law the law of this bill says that you're violating the law include you by creating a disturbance are engaging in an illegal activity then you're violating with this bill says simply walking down the hall dressed as a drag queen violates no law. But if they choose to express themselves in other ways. There are still peaceable but people find offensive. Listed yes that's a. Well the court's judge that. We have a lot the laws provide a guideline thank you said if you're tractive one is walking down the hall and not violating the law then one can walk down the hall that's exactly what this bill does if one wants to come to take the position that drag queens are others who choose to be expressive in their behavior this bill protects them it doesn't punish them it protects people that want to dress differently transgenders drag queens as I said cal boys if you want to dress in your outfit go into. You can't be disruptive this is a tremendous bill to protect the very people you're talking about. Senator Leding. Thank you madam chair. Thank you Senator Solomon I think you started out by saying that all we're doing here is taking the format from four years ago which to my recollection was of a compromise bill where everybody came together with constructive conversations and came up with something everybody could live with just applying it indoors but then you walked us through a lot of new language in what seemed to be a lot of changes including my colleagues point here striking the line about the first amendment and then I also share my colleagues concerns here about safety and you mention the campuses have a responsibility to keep people safe. that isn't always easy in my concern about moving this endorses that we've all seen situations where the capital were committee rooms might be really packed and becomes much more difficult for capitol police to keep people in that room safe and I'm worried that that could happen here in the classrooms I know you've said you've pointed out language in here that says I can't be destructive behavior but I'm wondering like who decides what's destructive because we've we've talked about drag performers here in the last few minutes I imagine if a group of them walked into this room we might all have a different opinion about whether or not their mere presence here was destructive such would like you to talk to that for a moment. Thanks a lot to talk about with the specifically that latter part about who's going to determine what's distrust we go I I'm remembering in order what you said so if you don't mind I'll take that order so if I remember correctly you stated that we work collaboratively on the bill and that is very true and one of the things that was argued two years ago was that there were no protections we ran the same bill there were no protections far inside and we heard testimony in that discussion over what disruptive what was destructive what wasn't disruptive so we have the new language that you indicate was that it is true we did add new language specific to what we heard in testimony then about one the university's ability to protect people and go about their business which is teaching and I think the things that we have added to that. So that's the answer your first question about why we added it and I did meet with university folks into work is collaborative Lee as best we could but again we we they'll be testifying against the bill and you'll hear the same thing that they argued last time which is we don't have control and we don't know what disruptive is evidently they do they've had disruptions on campus a lot for a lot of different things and they have done a good job in controlling what goes on the campus this just offers very specific advice to what their ability is to control disruption she can't be disruptive and they have police on campus who do a good job of deciding that. Okay did I miss one of our I don't know I I'm not sure we we still decide who's going to be that the final decider of what's destructive but you you did I think cover the other the other ground my other concerns you senator Hammer pointed out the striking the line about the the first amendment and listing and all these other things my concern is that we're also going to be on the first amendment here and you you say that you know we spent a lot of money on higher ed. Personally I would like to see is invest a lot more but we spend a lot of money on a lot of things and I'm of worry that we're creating a separate your here just for higher education because this would not apply to any other state agency or state entity correct this is the specifically for higher ed institutions and so now we've got two separate tiers of. A free expression who would be in the other tier with this this law would apply to other state agency's correct. Correct sure we're only we're only addressing higher ed institutions so that seems like a creating a separate standard just for higher education I read you two of them one this statement about striking the first amendment you can't strike the first amendment that the district in the law but one can't strike ones right to the first amendment you have that so the fact that we removed it from the bill does not remove your first amendment right we agree on that I do believe we felt compelled to include if for some reason the first the first piece of legislation senator Hammer noted and to me like if we have if we know that our first number right just exists why do we have to list out all these other things we all enjoy the protection of the first Olympics so that's why I'm concerned we're going beyond that this personal protection the language we strike that first amendment language it further explains and simplifies what your first amendment right this that's what we've done we strike that we put other words there that further explaining you can have expressive language expressive behavior in the in the In appropriate areas at appropriate times obviously if someone started standing up in the classroom screaming and hollering this destructive behavior now and it's covered by policy now you just can't do that this bill doesn't provide any protections for those people who are being disruptive. I do have a few more questions but I can get back in the queue there's no one else. Senator did you. Would you would you do me a favor and just give me a real life example of how. A the the previous bill covers the outside I get that. Just a real life example that you see that would necessitate this bill that they would already have the privileges. Allowed. To do what you're trying to assure a need of an it couple example perfectly real life if you want we have we have a professor that says we're going to be respected respectful of people's I gender assignment of their pronouns and some students disagree with that and they express that in the classroom in a respectful way that the university can then have a policy are they have a poster of of a drag queen show or poster up of the second amendment meeting and people are offended by that expressive language of a poster in university says you can't put that post right now we'll break a policy it says you can't do that. And students are walking down the hall in a in in a drag queen ship parade and students say we don't like that and we don't want to drag queens walk in our halls you can't dress in that time or in the school makes a policy that says you can't do that now we may we've got a lot of higher ed institutions. And this bill presumes that there may be some that don't like that and they're gonna make a policy that says you can't express yourself that way this bill protects that. Students walking down the hall in the the. I miss pronoun someone missed agenda them I guess is the term they missed agenda them and disrupt and as a as a result students engage in a dialogue and send someone reports in the administration says. When I'm in the hall this is my pronoun and I demand people use and university makes has the potential to make a policy that says you will not miss gender anybody this bill prohibits the so your intent is with this legislation is to. Prohibited. Universities. From what adopting policies that would. Otherwise. Limit limit that we have your you're trying to get this in place so that guides the policies to prevent the mischaracterization or or what you just to even though we struck through the first amendment right there this expressive activity which that word. Expands on the what that means it says you're allowed to express yourself and university can't this stop okay so I'm walking down the hall some is coming the opposite way I don't like something and I and I say something about that. What is right now with the first amendment right why would I not be able to already do that under my first amendment rights to say no I'm gonna call you Mr I will call you Mrs I'm not going to use some other identifying term or I don't like to Calabar had a stage why would I not be allowed to do that now if I'm already secured by the first amendment rights to do that you can with the university may make a policy and some have you seen some universities I'm not aware in Arkansas but I'm aware of universities nation nationally who banned certain words and certain behaviors and they make policies to do that this bill stops that it provided for for provides further protection of your first amendment rights. Could. So why remove the first amendment clause I hear the argument but based on what you just answered why remove that first amendment calls out of the bill. Could not just with me. We're I mean if it makes a difference in passing the bill will pull it down change that but I don't imagine that's going to garner Senator Leding is vote but the again we're we're just. Further defining one the legislation cannot give you your first amendment right you can't do that this expressive materials it's striking that and putting in other words just clarifies what your first amendment right is and we may disagree on that okay but that's the intent here I pledge questions are now free of a potential lawsuit by doing that because bile I mean the things that are being added to the bill. Beyond what the first amendment says and and if I'm not articulated trucks right now but I'm just a nice stop you right there yeah it doesn't go further it just clarifies for defines what your first amendment rights are it doesn't go further than the first amendment it just talks about what the details of that first amendment right are what about the things that aren't listed there protected by the first amendment right that aren't listed in this bill how do we deal with those things we're we're not we're not listing all everything in your we're just talking in general terms expressiveness not have it just further defines what the first amendment is so if you want to express yourself and your dress express yourself in your hair style express yourself and all those things that's without language expresses it just further defines and helps clarify in specific terms what those rights are. Our thank you thing that you. Right. Thank you madam chair as far as the. One for each for line twenty five there's other other areas line nine same page. We're Page Page four lines nine through eleven as well as line twenty six. And I understand we do a lot with you know regarding time manner and place. The with this bill out institution to say restricted entire classroom setting. Where is exempt since your certain conditions of their students in the room when they're having class I think is. So instead of the room and there's no they're not disruptive the whole thing about disruptive behavior you can't disrupt. And the. People who are opposed to this bill. Kind of disregard the fact that the bill allows them. Two regarding time place and manner of carrying out expressive activities. The bill seems to Disregard of the opposition seems to disregard the authority and power that you have any ability you have to control what goes on. So I'm not I'm not really familiar with how the adoption of the previous. Forum acts happen with the prohibit free speech zones from being on campus and require collectivity of it well that was that was the end result of that yes I don't know that I don't know that free speech zones were in here or in the previous legislation but the result of that outdoor. Free speech bill was that it prevented free speech zones worker yes and essentially what we have now is indoor is in my opinion we've created a similar situation by. Being indoors and I thank you is just kind of set occurred could a university to clarify everything inside a freeze a a stone and not allow free speech I think you see a lawsuit on. Thank you. Senator Leding. Senator Davis. Thank you madam chair and I agree with your intent of you know protecting first amendment rights and what you're trying to do but I do have a concern I mean it does seem that structures are allowed it says if their minor brief fleeting and and if the disruptions are isolated and short or duration and so to me I think like if you're outside and protesting and you have short out persons chanting or whatever and and your fifty a hundred two hundred feet away from the building with the classroom like that's one thing but if you're in the hallway next to a classroom like for me I get distracted very easily AT T. at it so when I lose focus because of a disruption it takes me minutes to get back and be focused and I just imagine what does that look like for class for kids in a classroom setting that and have fifty minutes of a Class only two or three times a week and is that going to disrupt their learning time that they are paying thousands of dollars for and so my concern is just that it does allow for disruptions in shorten isolated durations and so and in my second I well that's not a question more of a comment that my question is where it says that an it can be you know that that institution can and restrict regarding time place and manner of carrying out if you're in a building and classes are going on they say that that building and they say that that isn't events. So where it says I'm sorry Page three line ten it says during times when the area has already been in advance for another. So if you're in the Smith building and you've got classes running all day in that building could you say that building is reserved for another event which is classes so you cannot go in even in the lobby of that building could that constitute and you know them saying like there's an event going on in that building yeah I think there are endless what if events and I think you're describing a valid what if a vendor and I think. That the university could do that yes you have to remember that the universities I'm familiar with they have huge open areas or study areas there's lounge areas there Make room areas all throughout the building now so you might in a classroom area have the cordoned off area that six or eight kids will study here you see does quite. So you know if those students somebody. Does a very brief event somebody tells a joke and somebody laughs. That's what the bill is intended to direct if you have a very brief disruption out the library wants to buy the library on eighty one. If the university wants to say we you can't have a short outbursts anywhere anytime that's a pretty high standard and I think to allow with again you're gonna you have they deal with this all the time anyway there are students going through their through the rooms creating brief events that can be destructive events that happen outside that affect what's going on inside those brief disruptions are Unique and unusual that's what the bill allows up for and I I just can't. Make all the what ifs. Thank you everyone of those out that's what gives the University latitude to deal with that they have quite a bit a latitude to deal with that in the the intent of the bill is to allow. Students to be expressive and we're seeing a lot of bills now that. Seek to restrict expressive behavior this bill allows for expressive behavior and allows people not to be penalized as long as they're not disruptive which I think it's a good standard in each university will have to decide what's destructive at their university and just like universities had free speech zones and they lasted for a while until somebody challenged and said look that and work the same thing will happen with disruptions you'll have the debate some point somebody's going to say you're violate you are disruptive and I want to stop in the university will have to put restrictions on that and if they're reasonable double stack if they're not reasonable like this for free speech zones was not reasonable then that they will have to change for their behavior is yeah well that's I think with the latitude and and vagueness and some of the language that can be a good thing but that also with that comes liability and so if they and that's why I'm just thinking like if they can say this building is reserved this entire building if there's a rec area and and there's going to be at a protest or something in there but it I'm sad to classrooms where classes are taking place. And is there a way to make the language maybe less thank you no words like where classes are taking place like including not limited to our classes are taking place in a building like my concern is if they restrict and if universities restrict an entire building and because there are classes taking place and they want to minimize disruptions and have a good learning environment and but with that they end up getting sued you know like how does that play out like so my concern is just like the liability on there and and like I appreciate what you're trying to do but I'm just concerned that. It's I don't know like you have a negative effect on your under either with that exactly I mean that's the remedy and that's again if you look back at the previous bill on free speech zones the L. the university said we have the ability to control that we're not gonna let you do these things and eventually it went to the court the court said that you can't do that and unfortunately the universities in Arkansas agreed voluntarily to and free speech sounds and you the comment about the they're valid but you have universities and higher ed institutions that are small and you go down one hall and you pass all the classrooms so that universities said being disruptive in that hallway we're not going to allow okay that would seem to me to be reasonable if you have a of classrooms along side of small micro rooms and hallways with the set aside general it would seem to me reasonable that there that the. Disruptive standard changes based upon what the environment is and based on the architecture there and again that's just. You can't make a one size fits all determination because all the buildings or different. Yeah I think it if manager at that that goes back to and the definition of disruptions like what is that if I if you're walking down a hallway and every ten seconds you know the students like chat one word and to me that seems isolated in and short duration you know so like what is the definition of disruptive and when do those protests meets that definition and when and is university admin allowed set column off because it's destructive to a classroom a learning environment thank you I just have concerns about that when kids are doing thousands of dollars for education that they're not able to understand and agree with you for the call of administrators and when you take on the job of a chancellor and dean are a teacher whatever level there's a lot of responsibility goes on with that and your responsibility is primarily to help children get our students get their education and when destructive behaviors happen whether it's one person shouting every ten seconds are ten people's shopping everyone second invested job whether of the administration and that's what should be again the purpose of the bill is to allow expressive behaviours inside with certain restrictions that we didn't set aside for outside. Senator Leding thank you manager is. I have just a few more I'll try to be quick I wanna go back to the nondisclosure agreements NDAs really quickly I'm not a lawyer with the non disclosure agreements you said you don't believe that this would allow an employee to share of particularly sensitive information maybe with university has a partnership with a private company Again I'm not a lawyer the language you would seem to apply to just things covered by state federal law like if the for for that kind of thing minor you are. Is there a line that says you can't violate the law. Having a hard time we had circled one is amended stricter District prohibit a prohibition against a. I think if somebody on page five yes here we go Page four line five. For any matter except for a matter prohibited by state or federal law nondisclosure agreements are private I remember what tell me your page on Page four line starts on line four on any matter except for matter prohibited by state or federal law. Yes so. My understanding from talking to attorneys is that federal law covers those nondisclosure agreements we have those come up in and committee work someone will testify before us and not they say we're not going to share that information because it's protected by mine nondisclosure agreement so it's already against the law to share by can by contract the contract says you can't tell anybody what what might be that is what my costs are that's covered by contractual law. You signed a contract are university signed a contract we won't tell anybody about this. In this for this new policy wouldn't give an employee the covered to share potentially sensitive information in violation of that NDA in which case I got to decide whether not have been violated when they have to go to civil court victim violated that they choose to violated if they're gonna get in trouble you can't violate the law. Nondisclosure agreement is covered by contract law contract law says you cannot if you sign a contract that says you will not share the contents of this contract and you share the contents of that contract you violated the law. Okay is this says it's covered by state and federal law. You can't violate state or federal law and share that information okay and get away with it you can hear the one. Okay we'll move on to my second point we can move on Talk about this bill is meant to protect expression of but you do specifically include the word pronouns here at the top of page four and that raises a little bit of a flight for me and and you cited an example where a professor is walking down the hall and accidentally uses the wrong pronoun with a student and suddenly gets a lot of trouble I find it hard to believe that a professor you know there's not gonna be some grace there and the people are gonna be forgiven for maybe making a mistake. Of I guess what I'm concerned about here is that in this particular instance we are carving out space for people not to honor how somebody wants to express themselves because for a lot of people even though you know some of us might not necessarily agree or we can find it confusing You a lot of people choose to express them wait it's not even really the expression it's it's that the core of their identity but by including the specific line about pronouns we are carving out space for people not to honor how somebody wants to express themselves so what if you can first amendment already does that. First amendment allows you to to express yourself if you wanna miss agenda someone or mispronounce your you can do that I mean that's what in the first part of the bill that the first amendment protects exactly that. C. don't think a creating a policy that would allow someone to intentionally disregard how somebody chooses to express their first amendment already allows you to intentionally disregard of somebody's program okay well we can leave it intentionally the first amendment also allows you to intentionally dress how you want okay and if people disagree with that they're free to express that okay well since we're talking about the freshman's my last point I do I do have concerns or going beyond version of a protections and it even says so here on page two line ten the first amendment is the floor of free speech protection it really seems like what we're trying to do here is at a lot more and obviously it's the first amendment I consider to be the most important I'm sorry Page two what line Page two line ten the first amendment is the floor of free speech protection of. I was incredibly important but it's still not without its limits and I'm just afraid that with this bill we are trying to carve out additional spaces that could have some serious unintended consequences of the I don't mean to be a flip. For your motion for yours and how you want to feel is I have no comment on how you feel but the first amendment is the floor that's that's what that's the protection that allows for expressive people press and sells if I want to have preferred pronouns for. If I disagree preferred preferred pronouns hi but you can't limit that if I want to dress however we've been through this several times but if you feel like things this is going to cause something to happen I'm sure when they drafted the first amendment people were very fearful what's going to happen is we're gonna have disruptions all over the place for free speech that's been the floor of what we do and I think this bill takes what is reasonable and says you can do it outside you can do it inside with some limitations on this bill since those out. Thank you mention. Westerfield. Thank you madam chair and again thank you Senator Solomon for taking my question on page three. Beginning with line thirty it says except as provided in subsection of this section a state supported institution of higher education shall ensure that members of the campus community have the fullest degree of intellectual and academic freedom and free expression not respect strict speech that an individual may find controversial and collegial disagreeable or offensive. I guess. My concern is is when we send our children to college. We send them there to learn from someone we hope knows more than they do. Any for youngster who is in college feels that what he knows is greater than that of the professor. Indecisive the end to engage in a debate about that particular subject that is being taught. And the rest of the class is left out of it in by the end of the pier you not come with the material. Are we doing them a favor. Yeah we're not having a good teacher in there you don't know if the instructor instructor can't control if the instructor has a lesson plan. And they deviate that less of if the students are going to determine. That we're going to move the professor away from what their lesson plan is then the professor needs to re direct the students back to the lesson plans and if they can't. We need a new professor sat our job now is to make sure the keys don't disrupt us and we can't do that that means that we're not a good teacher. Is that what you're saying now that you gave a very. And given up because we have some youngsters and I probably was one of them at one ten who have very strong opinions about things and that's a good thing. But my strong opinion should not interfere with the ability of the others to gain the knowledge of the professor true we can't professor don't put kids out of class like they do in elementary and secondary so I'm just when we when we make at this broad. That no restricted not restrict speech that an individual may find controversial on collegial disagreeable or offensive. Those are all very subjective. All very subjective depending upon the individual. So I'm worried as we open this Pandora's box and we at this then we have the potential of learning not taking place. We're learning should take place this because somebody just walked in the door already feels he or she knows more about the subject the professor does that's a concern of mine. I understood and agree. The bill specifically prohibits disruption so if a student is disruptive to the point you express that they are not allowing the professor to do their job that's just ripped of behavior and that is that bill addresses that what line did you start on by the way I'm sorry. Right. So. Hey. Of this. We now say. That's not a bill. That leaves job. She is outside he or she knows. Casamance. C.. Yes. Right. She's on. Everybody. Over here make sure you don't have. Reach the author at. You have to do that. So. Per S.. We will or. Easy to use or not. The people inside. An easier. Building or. This. And in. Shall. I'm. At the point that that becomes disruptive violates the law and if we don't have administrators and teachers who if they're going to allow students and never draw that line when the professor says what you're doing is disruptive stop in if you continue you'll have to leave the room and the professor the administrators the chancellor's they all through this bill they have that authority know whether or not the exercise that appropriately or whether they exercised it to two great extent and that will be decided in the court which is the proper place it's the same thing that we have outside of we just haven't seen those disruptions that you described will. Well I would disagree with that but I mean that's where we have some disagreement. Thank you madam chair Senator Solomon I I really appreciate what you're trying to do here I mean the the original form act I was co sponsor of an and the. To create a lot of discussions and was really good piece of legislation and if if this was just simply adopting some of the stuff in the inside of it I think this goes kind of beyond that and. I don't know I've I've made notes and. March stuff up and some of the street areas that you've struck the first amendment language in there and we've discussed that or it's been discussed quite a bit that that kind of stood out to me specifically on page two line thirty three where you didn't just strike the first amendment stuff but also to instruct the ideas and opinions the individual might find and what brings. And it kind of changed up the entire sentence there About one get stuck on the first amendment stuff because it's been discussed repeatedly but several sections in here I mean the first amendment's striking through that language is in several sections on page. Page three. One thirty if you look at that it says except as provided under subsection C. is that C. referring to what what is B. one see under there or on the following page the C. on page four line nine it says a state supported institution which C. is that referring to except as provided under. Under section C. of this section so This Is section for. And you have a B. so would meet on. It would be on on the next page right for yes so it seems as if that that being the case be one there. C.. B. one C. there at the bottom page on the on line thirty six those it seems contradictory at least to me that tell me what's contract help me understand so what what contradicts what evidence provided a state supported institution shall not mandate the use of specific words. But it's the entire intending the bill is to allow for free speech The intent of the bill as to what now to allow for free speech with the may I respond to that. Researchers already guaranteed this this bill does not. Guarantee you free speech you're already guaranteed that this bill talks about what free speech looks like what expressive behavior looks like but the actual wording in that line says shall not mandate the use of specific words so and I understand you he continues as without limitation pronouns but. But it's not specifically pronouns it's all other. Each so it shall not mandate the use of specific words so conveyed prohibit Prewitt you from mandating that somebody addresses you senator or if the president walks in. or judge or his or her professor or anything like that in mandating the use of specific words titles things like that so It means that I have the I would have the freedom to express myself as I choose. And I couldn't be penalized for choosing not to call one of us senator. Okay. On page four. That the storyline Lines fifteen through twenty here. Also wrote down in. This seems like it opens it up to all members of the public and yet it says members of the campus community that on on line sixteen seventeen strikes members of the campus community and adds all people legally present on campus right you have if you're legally present on campus and you fall under the guidance of this bill so. Any member of the public could potentially be legally present on campus. At any given time unless the campuses locked down for some reason well that are servers city may have their own guidance as to who can come on campus we after legally present I would think so I mean I I've walked on. Campus of the college of a mile from my house. Three percent you know so some cases if you violate the law you're barred from campus so if you have been barred from campus previously then you would not be allowed back on madam chair may have asked I'm I can see from that we've been here for a while and obviously the boats not going to be favorable I don't think I'd like to pull the bill down at this time and allow you to committee to go on with their business I appreciate the comments and we can improve the bill will try but this time I like pull the builder. Thank you. We actually enjoy these little discussions I'm sorry it took so long thank you. Okay madam chair question yes thank you yes if somebody has has driven down taking a day off of work even though he's pulling this bill is it customary to allow them to and I don't know if this exists House chamber meetings or they do have to come back then was because they want to I can't have the opportunity to speak today and no no okay thank you. Thank you can come back. Okay moving right along. Let's see representative Warren. Yes. DO identify yourselves please. Committee state Senate district six. Of less one representative District eighty four. To see. Miller representative form. Do all the heavy lifting. Okay. Thanks for hearing me up basically this came up with a constituent it's not going to affect most everybody in the state. Once yes ma'am. H. the eleven on eleven twelve. House bills. Yeah. All right already. So this is really not going to affect most of the people here but for those counties that are still under the FCRA order we do not no school choice as the rest of the state knows it so. What happened was the assessor has now got laser precise Ability to define school district lines so I had a constituent that came to me he bought a house in nineteen sixty nine. Realtor you're in lakeside school district said great so this last fall he got a new bill and it said he was in hot springs school district Dr Hernandez is familiar with what I'm doing here and because I've never been in hot springs school district. So. He called the assessor and the assessor said yeah we we're sorry everything used to just follow the roads but now we they would get very precise so the school district line went straight to his house. So and then couple of other people said Hey I've got the same problem so. Things may change but until they do. What this bill proposes is that if the school district line now goes through someone's prop House. They get to choose which of the two school districts they attend so Right now and the tax base will still go for the majority of the House lies that district will get the money the tax base but as far school district because these people the realtors didn't do anything wrong the people block where they thought they were going to school so nobody's done anything wrong it's just that now we are able to bury the very precise so. This just allows those families to choose which of the two school districts they would send their children to. Senator Chesterfield yes thank you and good morning John welcome to education thank you Michael you said something that I didn't quite catch about the tax we're with the welcome welcome to here with us because those of us who always been in the second one and the fourth okay people get to understand how that feels okay a little bit what I'm trying to find out is what is the tax dollars go is a split between Noel what is a male where the majority of the house ways is what property tax will go to that school districts this will allow the individual to decide between the two districts and states where he or she exactly it's like this guy this guy had a daughter that was a senior she was going to play golf ball they would have had to a for for the the title had she played there she ended up going and living with their grandmother so that there was no issue. Thank you thank. Senator Hammer thank you with regard to school choice this won't affect and I'm sure this footage of fact a lot of people but. With written with regards to school choice for them having to go through the process of school choice and in this bill will eliminate all that from discussion right. Right and there's discussion right now that we may come out from under the FCRA order in our county that think they're only two counties that have a D. circle order but. Which we would have school choice light body says right now. We we do not have that ability okay our thank you. Are there any more questions Senator Bryant. I. If you that the minuscule zone went right through their house as of yet two thousand square foot house yes. And and actually up I am in a neighborhood where like the street runs right here and there's a new house being built and it just cut straight to the corner of the subdivision and there's a new house being built so it's for a company like fifty fifty with the house and but I mean that has not happened until just this last year we would also like I I'm not disagreeing with with you tend to your bill if we need to give them clarity but if another fix be to ensure that the GIS does not allow that to happen they they have to pick a boundary weathered through parcel line or by streets. I think the boundaries have been set did not know exactly where they were until we got the technology to say okay here's the specific where that actually runs and I talked to my sister and she goes Hey we we hate that this is happening we didn't know we just went with the street in front of the subdivision or in front of the house but now we know it's not that it actually goes through the house and Senate right I believe it's not only just the house but the majority of the property right so there are many instances where it cuts because their property and half and normally they will be required to go over the majority of the property is not just. That makes sense and I'll add one more piece that has to be their primary residence an undivided a partial. Any further questions. So what is the will of the committee Committee. Do pass by her second all in favor. All those thank you thank you Committee thank you Mister chairman okay and not senator Dotson European. You're passing over this okay all right. Well then Senator Leding. I since we do not have a rule that I am legislation has to be at a special this call impact you're free to read your. Your bill and I appreciate the opportunity but I came in and said that I would have to have a physical access to people okay well that next Wednesday then you might want to think that state. Thank you very much.