State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

And the. Move on to Senate bill eighty You're recognized thank you Mr chairman members committee I have a Mr Miller here from the bureau this bill is kind of long in In length but it basically does a very simple thing if you'll recall couple years ago actually four years ago we started the process of putting all of the codifying all the rules that come out of committees and are on across state government and that process has taken you know we haven't for years it in it it's stretching into a little bit longer that but we're getting close to the go live date and so as we're getting closer bill are reached out to me and said Hey there's a few things we need to make put into statute or not put in the statute most of this is uncodified language but for the transition from one to the other I'm sure if you sat there and started reading through this it was great for going to sleep last night and not before whenever you started to but if there's any specific questions within the details of the bill got Mr Miller here with me to try to answer those And I'll turn it over. For questions. You have anything. I do not Sir Johnson but I'm happy to answer any questions you'll have. Members have any questions. Say no questions what's the will of the committee motion to pass motion by Senator Dotson. Second. All in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator. Thank you. The next will the to Senate bill one fourteen. Senator Tucker you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair members if if you recall a couple weeks ago there was a bit of a scramble on Tuesday January sixteenth to to follow a contribution and expenditure report that we weren't really expedite I I know for sure I was not expecting filing a lot of people I talked to were expecting to file he was in was a no activity report for December thirty first only and it was an unintended consequence of a of a law that was passed two years ago that did away with carryover funds the way the law is written. It says that you have to file your post election report no later than thirty days after the end of the month. and what's your name appears on the ballot now if there's a March primary it's not a problem because you file your report on April third thirtieth which is the last day of the month it's a may primary it's not a problem because you file your port on June thirtieth which is which is less than a month the general election you have to file a report on December thirtieth which leaves a one day gap so. I I prepared this bill and instead of saying thirty days after the end of the month in which your name appears on the ballot says the last day of the month and after the month in which your name appears on the ballot. It was representative eleven bill two years ago that created unintended consequence of visit with representatives about this unanimous support cities the house sponsor of the bill I'm also visited with the ethics commission and Graham Sloan the primary concern that Mr Sloan races just to make sure that if you are raising or spending money after election day for a future campaign that you still have to file that report as well so that's what section two does that language came straight from Mr Sloan which I put into the bill and that's basically it is just if it's the clothes that one day gap so that candidates with a general elections don't have to file a I know activity report for December thirty first only that's not the purpose of the bill. Three questions. Say no questions you're ready close I appreciate a good vote and I move to pass all right I have a motion the second lesson crawl all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign thank you senator. Next we will go on to Senate bill one twenty one Senator Johnson. Go ahead Senator thank you Mr chairman committee of Senate bill one twenty one is a clean up bill from the Arkansas state capitol historical monument protection act which is in twenty twenty one of. Without trying to get too far in the weeds I'm going to try to clarify. There was a definition of temporary that we needed to clarify also and this is kind of what really led to this If you if I were a distinguished jurist and reading the existing statute I would have said this is not necessary but because of some real life situations a friend of mine who just happens to be former senators now circuit judge in Fort Smith said that the The existing law did quality he could rule that. A waiver had been sought and denied. Two. Reinstate a in this case a flag display which is defined in the law. But the law did not specifically authorize him to. Rule that this entity had to restore the previous display now you would think it again I read this thing. Hendren times I think I came to the same conclusion that probably did giving the authority but when in doubt you clarify so the language you will say and this is on the end of page one a lines thirty four through thirty six that the court of competent jurisdiction shall enjoin the removal of the historical monument or memorial I'll or and then move it back over to page to order the governmental entity having title. To restore the the monument to to regional condition location this is simply a clarification of what we did two years ago And it also section three would allow attorney's fees if it were in the case of by an entity that you could to sue in in in circuit court which does not include the state of Arkansas course you would be able to judge could could award fees and if it's is the state then if the going over to page three the claims commission would be able to award fee so that's really what the bill does the substantive portion of the monument protection act is not changed Most I guess everybody except for Senator Kroll was around one week we divided this two years ago centre Payton was my house co sponsor at the time so I hope you all are familiar with that enough that we don't have to go back much of this language is simply a restatement of of what I thought we had written very well two years ago but the judge was a little unclear and at this week's one help clarify that so I'll be happy to answer any questions. The questions Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. Senator Johnson. There's a few words in here that I'm particularly keyed on okay. On Page one line thirty one. it says. My name or moral is removed or has been removed so as in past tense yes Sir and then you go over to. Page two line five. Or really lines four and five. Subdivision applies to historical monument or memorial removed before April twenty eighth twenty twenty one so. The monument protection act was passed in twenty twenty one correct yes Sir and it was the reason for that magical date of April twenty eight that was the effective date and there were triggers in the act and and with it stop me from getting further than you need to know of. Any monument that existed on that date fell and protection of the act any monument created after that date could fall under the protections of the act but only if the entity that created it applies to the history commission to have included now let me give an example let's say. Some city in the next few years or some young our cans and that becomes a member of the space force and becomes the first human to set foot on Mars and they wanted to a monument to the space force then that entity that creates that monument would. Apply to include have it included as one protected under the money protection act the reasoning behind that was that some very wise lawyers pointed out to me that it could be a loophole that someone could use to say that something that was not intended to be a monument they even mentioned that what if someone wrote it off Hitler World War two on a concrete block and threw it out in the yard of the courthouse that someone come along say no you can't remove that because it refers to World War two and it refers to historical figure therefore to protect that was the the Prost Bective thing we were trying to avoid that possibility if it's something and and if if some entity on the other hand wants to put up a short term monument some kind they're not thinking about it being permanent then they would simply do not apply to have it come under the protections of the act so that was the logic of it I hope we're not back to we can do this again another time but that's the reason for that date that was the actual effective date and anything existed prior on a prior to that date was covered under under the bill right really the only point I was getting at there is that the effective date was April twenty eight twenty twenty one yes so the way I read this. If the city or town is pick pick a town city of Dardanelle. Remove something the way this is written in nineteen sixty three. Then at a citizen of Dardanelle could bring a lawsuit to recover attorney's fees to have that monument put back to where it was when the city of Dardanelle took it down in nineteen sixty three am I reading that correctly. Senator only if the city of Dardanelle put it in a warehouse and still had possession of it and that that long a time I'm I don't even want to go into the common law iterations of that and I trust good lawyers like you help me figure that out but the idea being that like in this example of this flag display that was in this litigation it was in possession of the city it was just not being this place so you know taking the nineteen sixty three I mean you go to twenty twelve or twenty fifteen or twenty eighteen or whatever the case might be. The main thing I'm trying to click whether you like the original act or not I'm not trying to re debate that act I want to clarify your intent is for this. I understand the rationale for passing a law having it apply prospectively from that day moving forward because people have clarity of expectations they know what the law is when they act I have a philosophical problem with passing a law that goes back in time and what I'm trying to clarifies it's your intent for this law to go back in time for something to to re put something back up that happened before the effective date of the act is that your intent. Let me answer it this way Senator Tucker the language that the April twenty eight twenty twenty one day is in current law it's re stated in the bill just to clarify that that is reached it is re stated in in the new language related to the Clean up we're trying to do but if this bill didn't pass what you just pointed out would not be resolved one way or the other and I'm hoping that surely there's got to be at a way to whether it's through some kind of I don't think it's ex post facto in any way but there may be some some common law thank you the intent was clearly that if you. Two down a monument and stuck it in a warehouse then it for purposes of the act it's still a monument now if it's sold destroyed disposed of hi it's just the way it went but and and obviously it could something could have been done without being in bad faith it was just forgotten about and you just pointed out of six instance where sometimes we need to go back and look at these things but I don't really see it is a problem with the but the issue you bring forth is under existing law would would still be there in the bill wouldn't change that particular part of it. Okay I don't think S. post facto applies because that's just. Criminal law but in the rationale still applies which is that people need to know what the law is when they act and if you change the law after they've acted. You can't go back and say Hey you not not if someone sues you over this you're going to lose in you're gonna have to pay their attorney's fees for something you did before this law was passed so anyway that's that's my concern and I take your word for that it's an existing law but that's my concern with with this particular bill. Thank you Sir any other questions remembers seeing none I have over Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr chair centre Johnson I mean we this is this what the area that I was talking about before and I think the. The the. The before word on. Page two line five is that the the one that I have probably the biggest concern with is the going back in time Page two line five says it removed before April twentieth that debt service twenty eight twenty twenty one that date certain I mean I. I don't know how we can we can do that. After. If it's removed after April on or after April twenty for a twenty twenty one I think. The law would apply but this is going back in time thank prior to and I. I can have a challenge with that so. I listen to your your explanation to. Senator Tucker but I I still have that same same harbor and we we talked about earlier. Senator Johnson the the Bill passed a and there was an emergency clause and the effective date therefore was a date approved by the governor and that was April twenty eight twenty twenty one so it's not an arbitrary date it had to do the effective date of what is now ACT NO three of twenty twenty one so we didn't get but it was it was everything from that day as effective date going forward so anything that was in place at that point in time but if something has been removed or you're you're potentially opening it up for. Everyone who has whatever is deemed as a historical monument to go back and restore something to a location it may not even exist any longer if if a building has been put in its place what is a city supposed to do if they've sold property and and you know is in a monument that they have in storage it was removed ten years prior to the effective date and they sold the land in another building has been put on that location they have to go tear down the building in and restore the monument to that location because of the small I'm trying to find the definition in the previous law but is specifically stated and I believe I can find it A historical monument in existence on the effective date of this act is considered. Historical money for the purposes of this subchapter. And then it says a historical monument not currently displayed by public entity is considered historical monument for the purposes of this subchapter that's that's from existing law of act act in three now of but your language here says that it into I'm missing where it's at. it's line three on page two right above it that says that it will restore the historical monument or memorial to its original condition and location so yeah if it was in storage as of April twenty eight twenty twenty one. Is the original location in storage. Now the original allocation was where it was displayed however this is where the waiver could be sought from history Commission let's say. The street had been widened as long as it did if the that that's kinda where they could grant that it would to simply be a convenience location because the streets not to lie anymore it's for lying and you don't have to bill the you don't stop construction of a water main or street over this but yet I like the waiver aspect of it because those are for like unanticipated yes unintended consequences but this is the actual. Legitimate consequence it's likely to happen in certain instances I don't know I I would feel a lot I think you've got the beginnings of a really great bill but as long as it's on or after April twenty eight twenty twelve let me ask the committee I'm. If you take at ten oh three twenty twenty one bill in context it speaks on page six of of the the the act it speaks to the Historical monument in existence on the effective date of the act which is the the April twenty eight twenty twenty one day. And then it speaks that a historical monument not currently displayed is considered a monument for purposes of this subchapter and that's once again as of April twenty eight twenty twenty one if the committee would prefer I'll I had I do not mind deferring this talking to the bureau about some cleanup language I I think it's clear but I will tell all to be happy with the language and and I'll be happy to hold off until we can can can claim it if you all would please help me come up with something I Senator Tucker is a great lawyer and he catches what he's all you could use this word it would fix it I'm open to that be happy to do that thank you will go on the committee thank you senator If no. The only senior. Okay question by Senator Payton yes all right thank you Mr so when you look at the language it has been questioned here containing the date. This line four and five a page two and that date only applies to subdivision F. three a the only part of this law is subject to being prior to April twenty eighth twenty twenty one is subdivision F. three a so if you scroll back up to the bottom of page one line twenty nine that is if three Hey. So the only thing. That is subject. To being prior to April twenty eighth of twenty one is if a waiver is not granted yes Sir so one if a monument from sixty three is being fussed about the commission can grant a waiver and that goes away. Number two if they decide they don't want to grant a waiver for monument from nineteen sixty three then it says that it could go to a court of competent jurisdiction and be settled in court which I would hope that a competent court. A court of competent jurisdiction would also be a competent court and waiting nor a frivolous lawsuit like that. So. Is it your understanding. The. It only applies to subdivision F. three a. And that the commission can avoid any frivolous action by granting a waiver. I think now Senator Payton everybody understands why I want you to be my house co sponsor this could you use all through it and you see exactly the point yes Sir that is correct although on the other hand it's important to note that we very carefully did not grant. Waiver authority to the history commission except under specific delineated circumstances for example if thank the commission was made up of people who just didn't like a particular monuments or whatever reason they could. Arbitrarily you know allow it to be a waiver or not allow waiver based on that the purpose of and it's spelled out in other parts of of ACT NO three but it has to do with instances such as I described lack of we were going to build a new street or we have a broken water main we have to totally re locate utilities and and we we we need to be might be moving same exact monument but moving it over you know forty feet or something like that that's what was envisioned in it not giving a blank check to history commission or any other agency level that could basically do an end run on the law so with that exception what you stated is absolutely correct it has to do with the end product of this process which is action by the commission to deny or grant a waiver and then someone goes in the circuit court that would be the court of competent jurisdiction that with the judge would rule based on that in his ruling would have to be carried out up or down his ruling would would be in order and he could issue a writ of mandamus to whoever to carry forward with it now you summed it up perfectly and hi if that pacify as everyone I'd I'd go ahead and get that day but if you'd still like me to to chew on this a little bit more go back to the bureau I'd be happy to but I do appreciate Senator Rapert bring forth that that clarification because it does definitely just apply to that to if three a. Okay I that to is has to do with it when it gets into the waiver process thank you thank you Mr. So. You know discussion. A member. I appreciate the discussion if it doesn't it doesn't pacify my concern because it still says that if a waiver is not granted which may not happen and it has been removed which is in the past tense I I totally understand what's in Pitsch Senate is limited to this subsection but it still says it's has it has been removed whether was twenty twenty nineteen ten you know whatever the case might be if it has been removed and no waivers granted that a person can sue and they can recover attorney's fees. They won a lawsuit to recover attorney's fees for something someone did that wasn't against the law when they did it so that's that I still have the same I understand it's more limited but I still have the same concerns of Mr chairman I will work my friend senator Tucker who works it may very well many things and we'll come up with something that it passes the Clarke Tucker test and I feel like if you go to the US Supreme Court that pass that day so I will pull it down for now we have to that were signed up to speak against it the and mark Whitmore and Lanny Richmond the second. DO wanna speak now or wait. I would I would advise weight. So all right so if you're gonna pull it down with some hopeful and we'll we'll clean it up all right thank you thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. We will go to Senate bill seventy one. Senator Solomon. We have amendment to pass out. Give the members just a little bit of time to digest the Amendment sissy amendments longer than the. Senator I would ask that you go through this amendment line by line okay remember the. Well then the first line to be the title to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment by the state of Arkansas and other public entities I think that's very important this only applies to the state if you look at the start there in section one there's a lot of stricken language here. section to talk it strikes equity and talks about equality. in the at the end of that it talks about strike some language affirmative action language and uses nondiscrimination language you're going to see that through that bill several times what strikes. The civil rights and strikes affirmative action but refers to desegregation and non discrimination and again that reference that references the title that's the purpose of the bill is to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment. If your you again you're looking at section be there of that it. Replaces us civil rights with desegregation and non discrimination responsibilities that is again repeated in section two. And again I'm sorry Missy to and in the. The second page. Yes strikes if you see the very first part there in the it strikes civil rights but replaces that with desegregation and non discrimination. And then section three part one again replaces equity with the quality. And then section for it strikes a lot of language in there that references back to those previous laws. By the way we work closely with the attorney general's office on this. Your Fay on page three again it strikes a lot of language. And if deals primarily with our educational system state education system. And I'm assuming if you have questions on a certain line just. Stop with the and then come back to questions or if you prefer you can ask him immediately but again we're we're striking and I'm on page four section six they're just repealing language based upon the former codes that were replacing. If you look on page five. Another. Comment or language when we replace if you look in section nine it talks about there is established the critical need minority teacher and it just talks about the critical needs teacher so again we're removing preferential treatment are discrimination. And if you're looking at about that section nine B. we're gonna talk about the purpose of the program is to attract qualified teachers to the delta I think everyone knows we have a hard time getting teachers to the delta whether there minority or other and with this bill seeks to attract everyone. And not discriminate against others. If you look on page six. Then be. Talk about critical need teacher scholarships. So minorities would fall still fall within that critical need category I would assume. In section eleven the same thing. Section thirteen the same thing. And section fourteen Senator. We're trying to attract attract teachers into critical need areas and not discriminate against any teacher that would like to apply. Page seven. Again very first line there are talks about critical need teachers. And this section eighteen it talks about equal employment and hiring programs again it distracts language that is specific to our eliminates discrimination. In the and not get towards the bottom there of of the last part it talks about the state of Arkansas does not discriminate in access to employment opportunities for this eliminates all the sections and all the stricken language with examples where we do discriminate. And and are selective in who we can apply. You get over this section twenty. That's that's the new line I think that's the the start of the new language. Mr chairman I need to go through that at this time. At the end of the amendment. I would say it as an overview in this language has been. Adopted and seven states would we would be the eighth I think to adopt this it has passed. A constitutional review. Excuse me by attorneys at that level and there are no court challenges at this time Senate. At this action is unconstitutional not be glad take any questions. The question of Senator Hester. I guess right now we're just about to amend the bill is that correct and then it would be your intent to vote on the bill today yes. I mean you know how the going from one page to nine pages in the voting on you know I'm I'm with you I have some friends that I very much value their opinion that are never going to be for this bill but I do very much value their opinion on this I just wanted to I just want to clarify that the I'll go on to the bill in a minute but for every time I make a motion that we accept the amendment. Senate senator Biden. So we have a motion and the motion by Senator Hester second by Senator paying for adoption amendments. Ask questions. Yes. Related. I just have the same concern that that Senator Hester raised. I just wish we had an opportunity more more than just a couple minutes to refer to review this and visit with people about it I'm. I'll totally deferred you Senator Solomon on getting the Bill your own donations that you want to whether I like it or not but I'll defer to you on that but it it's a little bit unfair the members of the committee I feel like to go from a one and a half page bill to a nine page bill than expected to vote on it at at this moment I understand what you're trying to do here but there's there's still other parts of the code that are included here's you know for example. There's a minority and women owned business development in in title fifteen. Which in my opinion is good law and if. The it creates a commission and the Arkansas and ADC essentially to try to provide make sure that minority women owned businesses get certain amounts of state procurements and contracts and that sort of thing and but people who if you if your bill passes as amended then. If that office does what's required to do under that act then they'll be guilty of a crime and can be sued and held liable so I just there. I have concerns about the bill I have concerns about the amendment I have concerns about the up the process so you know sure Dr respond to that please I think the point you're making your valid and if the amendment would be adopted today than I'd be willing to back off and give people a few days to to talk about the bill and I thought I sent you a copy of the amendment maybe I didn't but I thought I did but I think it's valid to be part be open to the public for people to view and talk I've got conferences later today on the bill to the Committee would adopt the amendment that I'm willing to this will of the committee to back off and wait Our father review and eat and you may very well sent to me and I may have missed that that's the case I apologize but I I'm totally good with adopting the minute if it's engrossed and I don't know how that process works if it gets engrossed so that the members of the committee can view the the bill as amended as well of course as the members of the public. What would be engrossed if it's adopted. I thank. Senator what. Yeah. Thank you Mr so for on the discussion of the motion on the floor to adopt the amendment I'd like to say that normally are. Be all. Enter completely rested in Grossman but in this case it's very easy the original bill became section twenty in the amendment so only engrossing is just slide the original bill into section twenty of the amendment it's pretty easy read. It is the amendment on the website. It would be if we adopt it wouldn't. Okay. Thank. I thank the amendment is filed yesterday I would think the amendment would be on the website. Yes the. The effective act is that were eliminating effectively eliminating. Affirmative action and make and in reality making the affirmative action available to everyone not just a select group which it says in the title to end discrimination that's what's in the title. That's the that's the effect so if. Those that are familiar with affirmative action is bill effectively ends that. Senator possibly rather than adopted and in here for clarity you can pull it out on to the floor and amend it for engrossing. And then it can be placed back into the Committee as engrossed. It would probably be clarity for what you're wanting a new. And the Public that's just a that's just a suggestion we have a motion and a second on the floor. And in our community here but to if if if for clarity then that's probably the procedure. That would make it more clear that way would come back in the committee engrossed. You can do that would be my preference to bring it back to the Committee and grossed and I again I appreciate with the committee chooses to do but I think it's important that people have an opportunity to to discuss it I really think that the the I don't know that people are going to change their mind after reading this that's not going to happen people are are pro affirmative action or against the bill and saying this is going to change anything and for those that are open to As a bill suggests that this is ending affirmative action and and ending discrimination I think they're pretty set in their ways to some what's what's the will of the committee heard a motion to accept the in a second I think to accept the amendment so that we have a motion and a second but for clarity how do you want to proceed. And I mean you can pull it back to the floor and amended it for free admission and and yell at me thank you I'd like to. I'd like for the amendment to be accepted and then I'm willing to pull it down have been engrossed and come back to committee. I don't think that's the option I don't I don't think that's an option you don't have my preference would be to hear the bill today okay. So we have a motion and a second sure the amendment all in favor say aye hi All opposed Like sign. The your motion for your amendment passes Do you want to wait I'd like to hear the bill today okay. We will proceed then after the idea of you have seen the amendment and if you'll go to the. Section twenty which is added there. The important parts there to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment by state entities so this only applies to the state this doesn't apply to private businesses. And it lists their on line twenty six and twenty seven those institutions and then it repeats in line thirty this state shall not discriminate against in the list of those issues there in line thirty four this this section applies only to an action taken after the effective date of this act so this doesn't this act doesn't reach back and affect any decisions made prior to the date when this bill becomes effective and then and on line thirty six it says this section does not. Many feel of on line one it does not prohibit the consideration of the state by bona fide qualified based on gender that are reasonably necessary to the normal function the employment if you look on number three it doesn't prohibit any action necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal programs if and if ineligibility would demonstrably resolve the loss of federal funds you can read those. And there's a lot of section where this just doesn't apply had a couple really good questions one question I'll try to get out from the questions you want to follow up we have some of our higher ed institutions award scholarships are ward up of benefits and offender individual one and two write a check for a college athlete our other musician band whatever they want to write a check for a scholarship and that went through a foundation this does not affect foundations if that individual wanted to write a check for a certain profile you know one of I want to write a check for a scholarship that promotes and fill in the blank maybe a race or gender That would be very questionable just like we wouldn't want the state saying this scholarship applies to anybody except people of a certain gender or race so those that's the discriminatory language that we're trying to put in there That encompasses it again this has been vetted at the national level how we would be the eight state to put laws like this nondiscrimination laws in effect I think it's necessary I think the time has come to do that and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr chair Senator Solomon just for clarification because I I've I think I've read every word and compared to that section twenty is the original bill there were no changes between correction twenty and what was originally filed correct okay thank you and the the amendment just made was more specific and dealt with some specific entities and that. And it may not be all inclusive there may be other issues out there that come up as a result of this and if there are there we'll correct them. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair. I have a you know a number of concerns Just from a philosophical standpoint you know I don't I don't think you and I agree which which is okay but I if we pass this bill what it basically says is if this passes through the process becomes law in the state of Arkansas saying. That discrimination no longer exists racism no longer exists sexism no longer exists and there's nothing more we need to do to make sure that. People who have been historically discriminated against and historically this disenfranchised there's nothing more that we need to do to put them on equal footing with everyone else. I think that statement would be absolutely wrong in. Morally and factually I think we have a long ways to go to make sure that. People who have been historically discriminated against have the same opportunities that people like I do. and. So I think I think this is the wrong direction for the state for that reason and I don't I don't think. If you do. Look at what's happening in America I think that's hard to disagree with. read to a county disagree are you want to continue to go ahead this on just one second Senator center. Beyond just a philosophical. Differences thank you and I have a I do have specific problems of the way you know the bills put together I don't think there's a lot of clarity and and what's being done through the amendment when you change you know how is critical to find some things like that you know of a rather big problem that I have is is what I mentioned. There's a whole subchapter in the code that's the minority and women owned business Economic Development Act. That's not addressed in this at all. As with a lot of axe there's several sections of code related to that. one of the sections of code talks about the the purposes of the act and it says the the purpose of this subchapter support to the fullest. All possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minority persons and women in state funded and state directed public construction programs and in the purchase of goods and services for the state I think that's the right goals for us to have a state and you know this course moves in the opposite direction. For a there's a lot there's a lot in that subchapter but just as an example it says that all state agencies shall attempt to ensure that the following percentages of the total amount expended in state funded and state directed public construction programs and in the purchase of goods and services for the state each fiscal year are paid to minority businesses. Business enterprises and women owned business enterprises for minority business center enterprises ten percent and for women owned business enterprises five percent. To meet those numbers in the law reflect the fact that we're not yet where we need to be because obviously. We have a much higher percentage of minorities in Arkansas than ten percent and when we set that as the goal if if. If racism more over than it would basically work out to be where the percentage of contracts you loosen and goods purchases to minority owned businesses would be about the same as the minority population in Arkansas but our goal is much less than what the minority population Arkansas which shows we're not where we need to be yet and obviously five percent for women is not even remotely close to the percent of population of women in the state so to me. We we need to have those goals to get back to the to I mean to get to where we need to be and and we're not even close to where we need to be yet in my opinion and then you know just the last thing I'll mention which I which I mentioned before. We're creating a crime here. At whoever works at ABC and does this will commit a crime under this law when they do their job. But not just for the folks at ADC if if someone negligently violates this act. Most crimes require a mental state of intent or knowledge. For recklessness there's not a lot of crimes in the book that have a mental state of negligence. This is creating a crime for negligently violating this act so we're subjecting state employees to criminal liability fines fees imprisonment for negligently violating this act in doing their job and also subjecting cities counties local governments from the state government to attorney's fees. So for all those reasons you know in your obviously welcome to respond senator I don't really have a question but but for those reasons those are all my concerns and will be voting against the bill. Go ahead senator You effectively accuse me of racism. And the the statement that you're making that racism isn't over I agree and sexism isn't over and if you're. Affectively again I think you're saying that this bill denies that and since I'm presenting the bill that I'm guilty of those things I take I take I disagree with that strongly I don't think the bill does this there's nothing in this bill that says does sexism racism those other discriminatory things there's nothing in the bill that says that is true so to characterize that is false in my opinion This bill puts everyone on an equal field I mean if if the purpose of affirmative action. That is to give people who are in the course of action that's exactly what the bill says the bill says people who in are in need qualified and had doesn't have to be based upon race or sex or gender or whatever this effectively puts everybody in the category of if you're in need this bill addresses that but I think it's very fair I think it's more fair than with the current languages As to whether not there's a crime committed and you know we're serious we're serious against racism or serious against the Well being taken advantage of our not having a seat at the table we're serious about that and if you're going to treat people differently then we're not going to stand for that there will be a crime under penalty and we expect our state employees to take it seriously and make sure we don't do that and I think the example that was brought up about the athletic scholarship you would never stand for someone donating to a state institution and saying we're going to put this scholarship out there to everybody but juice Jews can't get it I'm gonna put this scholarship out there for everybody except for in fill in the blank we don't want discrimination at any level and that's what this bill does not appreciate a good vote. In other questions. You will only weigh their mass chair read it will if if there's a question you you're more than welcome but. The general questions from members. Saying man you are close for your bill. Again I think hold on hold on I have I have one person to speak against the bill signed up I apologize for. The release is there. Would you come around and introduce yourself and. This could come around the. This go up. Senator if you win sure how the. S. the button. Bruce push your button so your mac is on. Introduce yourself then let the members know who you are and who you represent and you're welcome to to or share opinion against thank you. You push you push the button again this version one time. Okay thank you. Hello my name is Bernice Mazari I hit I am here representing the black chamber of commerce and community development of Arkansas we are five oh one C. six ACT chamber of commerce and fiber one C. three nonprofit I am the vice director of the Little Rock reaching. are concerns also hi do operate a minority owned business that is certified to ADC can care painting. my father and I do have a family on painting business a construction business he is a native of Little Rock out of Portland Arkansas. And and neighborhood that they call free **** being back in the day because this was one of the groups of people who gain their forty acres and a mule from restitution from slavery my great great grandfather then went on to buy an additional sixty acres of land which we used to far. so I was actually born from in Chicago and came back to Arkansas came to Arkansas to help my by the with the family owned business with the pain business one of the things that strikes me the most is when he said that nobody he didn't really have a lot of support everything he learned he he ended up figuring it out on his own. my generation with the help of the internet and those other things and also being probably from an urban city was exposed to a lot more things in even my my cousins and families who do live here in Arkansas. what I find the biggest benefit of the minority business is it did expose me to opportunities that I would not have been a preview to or exposed to and I have a lot of collaborative partnerships because I work in the business community are we all work together beyond race I will say. That I personally felt like. The minority owned business program was a great. Kind of a substitute for a restitution reparations because I felt. Supported by the state by the government because of this program. And it encourages me to encourage others around cooperation collaboration and even share my skills to help all people I do had a young adults skill building program which I call placed resources where I'm helping young adults gain gain skills but a big part of that exposure for me was because of the opportunities that came to us by way of the the other opportunities from the minority women and minority owned division. I will say that. If you look at the chart of slavery and even that jim crow laws in other black codes those things we just a generation ago my father was any generation we're Arkansas should the schools down for years because they don't want to support. Integration of the schools that was in the same generation are women also in this generation women also got the right to vote. So. The program the affirmative action in the minority and women owned business programs or programs furious I have not even had not even lasted a full generation it is B. being effective. and I feel like this is a. Premature elimination of the program to allow it to work as far I understand your concern around discrimination. but instead of. Removing a program that's built to help. other people in the. Equity. in equity division I live there's a lot of problem programs now around the P. E. I. what we learned is that equality gives everybody the same footing but equity helps everybody get to the same space they all need some groups need different levels of support to get to the St Clair feel not necessarily equality but the equity around that. I would propose that. Instead of removing the minority program that we install that it may be is an option to create programs to address the specific needs of the people of the persons of the groups that are having trouble maybe if it is around education class or income or income status and that was my contribution as a recipient of minority and women owned businesses I am contributing back to the entire communities with the things that I've learned as a result of that and as a result of the black community development and our chamber of commerce we are also building programs to help to contribute to the community as a whole so that everyone benefits and we are also. I am aware of the need for equity and in contribution of that as well we are also in contribution of that personally and as an organisation and even as our community. Thank you. Thank you any questions. C. nine we appreciate your input thank you very much thank you. There is a discussion. questions on the bill. If no one else signed up once will of committee. I'll close the real story thank you yes I appreciate with the comments for and that's the goal of the bill you heard the testimony that everyone should be included your testimony that we work together beyond race we heard testimony and questions about your targeting certain groups who have been discriminated against this bill is. Direction we end discrimination whether it's race or gender whatever those are that this bill in the Senate discrimination puts everyone on an equal foot the bill has been successful in other states right now there's a court case before the Supreme Court on college admissions and all the court watchers agree that that the most of the court watchers agree that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of ending the quota system that we have an higher at that some have an higher it this bill directs up puts us in the right direction you're the comment that this was may be premature I think it's the right time I think we it's time to move beyond being discriminatory towards and non discriminatory towards others we put everybody on an equal footing that's what they'll this bill does not appreciate it. Thank you senator what's will of committee motion by Senator Payton. Second by Senator Dotson all in favor say aye. Sure. Don't do pass as amended when every way I'd like to move do pass as amended has by Senator Dotson discussion so I'm in business and most people know that I run to auto auctions in this state so the people I deal with my customers are business men and women who are car dealers used car dealers and new car dealers. The idea. That you can't start a business. Without a government contract or without a government grant. Is is foreign to me and and my customers the used car dealers as state Arkansas the new car dealers as state Arkansas are very diverse group of business men and women of all colors. And races and. I know that in recent years the business community has come to the state of Arkansas and the government for. Help over and over and over again. But the idea. Just the business side of this I know it's broader than that but the idea that you can't succeed without. Government. Intervention. And regardless of your race or your gender it is foreign to me. I know that in years past you read history books and that was probably true. But you know I'm getting on up there in years. And I started in business in the early eighties. And and. I just haven't experienced that and I've I've been among crowds that were very diverse in my business experience I just. I appreciate the bill I appreciate a good vote. Members of the all right. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr I'll be very brief. The couple things I want to say number one is a it it it certainly was not my intent to accuse you of racism senator I do think the message the bill sens is that racism is over I don't think that makes you can disagree with that and I respect that but I don't think that is an accusation of racism in a lease that's not the way that I intended I just wanted to say that for the record Beyond that I mean what you're talking about. Thank you if if you say for example if someone said we're gonna set up a scholarship program for everyone but but members of the Jewish community and that's already illegal I mean we couldn't do that under current law the Civil Rights Act Senator Tucker the the equal protection clause this would be a discussion amongst our members not not to presenter show please directly with those comments because you don't wanna replied that's not this time of discussion so just among the members. I was so. Okay thank you Mr chairman so that I just wanted to mention those couple things in and I don't think there's anything in current law senator Payton says that you can't succeed without government help or or intervention what we just have a few laws on the books that say because of historical. Disenfranchisement of discrimination which I don't think anyone can dispute some people just need we need a little. More focused attention to make sure that you have the same opportunities as everyone else had so I still think we need those laws and and we're moving in the wrong direction by passing this bill. Any other discussion. We have the motion and a second all in favor say aye All opposed like sign. The. Senator your your bill passed. As amended. German yes Sir so I think everybody knows that this will go to our for the next they were there but it will sit there for a day to be amended and engrossed so this might I don't know pending whether it will stay the next day we have sessions sit on the floor to be engrossed them will actually be voted on thanks. So the. Senator Dotson. There will be one eighty or any or not. Go ahead Senator thank you Mr members committee Senate bill one eighty is basically real quick clean up bill on an international term if the if the if they brought to me to to adopt Basically the the the new terminology by the government accounting standards board I've got DFA here if there's any questions but it's not really a an incredibly complex bill We're happy to try to answer any questions if you have any. Any questions. So which is pretty much a cleanup bill senator it changes the. The order of words basically puts comprehensive annual financial report instead of covering the engine and you comprehend the. Comprehensive annual report it makes it annual comprehensive financial report. So the acronym is different. Any questions. No matter where many opposition to it no one no one signed up to speak against it the what's the will of committee. Motion by Senator crawl second by Senator Dotson all in favor say aye. Any discussion All opposed Like sign. If. Is there anyone here to do house bill eleven sixty four eleven sixty three or ten ninety nine. All right let's go to ten house bill ten ninety nine. Thank you Mr not sure how I feel about presenting a bill that the ten ninety nine but. Anyway the representative Collins contacted me you us several weeks back and Part of our laws concerning for you. had a terminology there is that if you wanted to give the attorney general's opinion on documents that you had requested that had been denied that you had to immediately. I feel to the Attorney General. For Is it for the opinion. That at some point was interpreted to mean. Within twenty four hours and so representive Collins wanted to clear that up in the law and state twenty four hours however after visiting with our Attorney General we thought it more prudent instead of stating twenty four hours to say before the close of the office of the Attorney General the following business day so you know it could happen on Friday afternoon and twenty four hours would expire on Saturday and there'd be no opportunity to ask for this opinion so just is just clarifying language to make sure everybody knows. They need to make that application very quickly and that is defined as by end of business by end of business the following. Business day at the tourney general's office. Any questions. Seven nine your clothes closed and moved to pass rap motion by Senator Payton do pass second by Senator crawl all in favor say aye aye All opposed like sign. Thank you senator. The seeing no other business no one version of the other House bills any other business to come before the committee saying none we are adjourned.