ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight (3PM-5PM)

All this meeting to order. And just so that everybody in the audience knows this is basically you know we're we're the appeals process and unless a member has a direct question we do not take comment from either side but if the member has a question then we'll call if a question for either side and will allow both sides to speak but as a rule we've had all the material to review from the claims commission and so unless a member has a specific question about your case we do not take we do not take comment but the if they do we certainly will so any opening remarks all right we're gonna start with Adam C. one a she were. Members agenda item C. one through C. five or litigation reports or settlement submitted by agencies for the subcommittees review we will begin with C. one which is the department of labor and licensing will someone from the agency please come to the table introduce yourself and present the reports after each report okay perfect. Thank you Mr chairman of miles Morgan associate general counsel department labor licensing I'll just go down the list here eighty was a wage claim filed by an employee that wasn't paid as wages we try to contact the employer he wouldn't return any correspondence or call so we filed suit once he was served he came into the department and paid the wages that role will grow to the employee and we mail that and then we fall of dismissal once once he came in and paid so that that case been dispose of the second case dates back licensing board this was a lawsuit to collect the penalty that the board assessed against the defendant based on code violations at a job site inspection he has been served and we're waiting for his an answer from him to proceed if he doesn't follow answer will follow motion for default judgment that's a similar case with C. the defendant others code violations and a civil penalty is assessed by the H. FAQ Board and we are waiting for his answer he's also been served by the lawsuit. And assuming he doesn't file an answer we will proceed with a motion for default judgment and then finally the electoral Xander's it was another civil penalty he was service and he got in contact with us and paid as penalty and so we following the dismissal for that case so it's been disposed. Questions our members are there any questions on I don't see one AC one B. C. one C. or C. one the any questions. Seeing none I have a motion to review. I have a motion to review and a second. And a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries. Doing on the items C. two thank you Mr chairman. Now move on to see to which is a contractors licensing board will someone from the agency please come to the table introduce yourself and present the reports Mr Crowe introduce yourself for the record. Hi my name is Greg Crowe I'm the administrator of the Arkansas contractors licensing board. Please proceed all right there's none of these the first one is a is a cook attempt to collect a civil penalty of unpaid against a Tom cruelly we have filed suit we are still attempting to tame service we're trying our best I'm not sure we'll get and we're gonna try. The second one is against a brand key we also are still ten ten times service on him but we know where he works so we anticipate being able to get service in the future. number three is against Brad COBOL we actually have filed suit got service and obtain judgment and on November seventeenth. next was again say Bruce Martin in all these I'm sorry all these are ten to collect civil penalties are unpaid every one of them we he actually file an answer we we found a motion for summary judgment in the near future. The next one is going to Milton Coleman. he we're still attempting to find him. The to serve next once again say I'll work and I can never pronounce his last name Care is lawless thank you forgive me forgive not wrong we actually served him on November the night and he filed an answer on December first so we will be Going on the road probably thought a motion for summary judgment and their future. Thanks once again say Jerry styles we are still trying to obtain service on him have not found him yet. next was again the case the carpenter we're also still attempting to find him as well. And. Keith Smith we We were he was served on eleven twenty two his time to answer is not up yet. Okay members are there any questions on C. two A. three C. two five. Any questions. Seeing under I have a motion to review. I have a motion to review and the second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carried those items are reviewed reviewed thanks for that will move on to C. three which is the public service commission will someone from the agency please come to the table introduce yourself and present the report. Good afternoon I'm Valerie boys chief administrative law judge and chief of staff for the Commissioner staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Please proceed. Are we have one item today it is the appeal of Page electric cooperative versus Arkansas Public Service Commission this was an appeal of a commission orders twenty eight and thirty three and docket number sixteen of twenty seven R. which was the commission's a rule making on Act for sixty four twenty nineteen of four parties appealed of the court of appeals opinion affirmed on all the three points there was a petition for rehearing by the commission to the court of appeals which was denied and a petition for review by a pigeon cooperative which was denied by the Supreme Court some cases final. Members are there any questions on C. three a. Any questions not to a motion review I have a motion to review of a second. I have a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries moving on to Adam C. for which is university of Arkansas system will someone from the agency please come to the table introduce yourself and present the report. I'm David current associate general counsel for the university of Arkansas system we have to matters involving the University of Arkansas pine bluff the first one is it just a report in the second one is that request for approval of a settlement the first case Lucas verses University of Arkansas pine bluff what is an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the former volleyball coach at the university of Arkansas pine bluff she left in January of this year a few weeks later Grambling state university announced her as the new head coach that university then terminated miss Lucas I believe about five months after she started and then she sued you a UAAP be apparently is not C. Grambling for wrongful discharge as she sued under a constructive discharge through discrimination which requires her to show that you have to be made her workplace and tolerable with the goal of causing her to quit in our investigation to date shows that this is indefensible lawsuit she was you know provided a bonus right before she quit giving to computers we don't think anybody I was trying to make a quit so you a P. B. does intend to fight this lawsuit and that's I can answer any questions the committee might have. Members or any questions on. See for a. Senior and I have a motion to review. I have a motion to review and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no the motion carries we want to see for B. C. for BSNL's verses University of Arkansas pine bluff you know as this committee knows as lawyers have to look at cases objectively and in this case was much different than the first case the league is case and so therefore you have to be elected to attempt to resolve this case by an early settlement if possible Arkansas Code nineteen four sixteen fourteen requires this committee's approval following D. F. and As approval which is already been granted this case is that the plaintiff served as the deputy athletics director under and the chief operations officer under a under a previous director of athletics that director was terminated and then the the new director is hired and they were personality conflicts from the inception involving this particular employee and the new athletics director. she was reassigned or job title was changed to the Bentley terminated in my estimate estimation this case cannot be resolved in a motion it would inevitably involve issues of fact in this kind of and I of the holder kind of situation and so for the other side and a chance to run up attorney's fees we have a settled this case and again we have gotten definite approval now need this committee's approval. Any any questions I can I can try to answer members are there any questions on the settlement. No questions do I have a motion to review I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye all right opposed say no. Motion carries thank you Mr chairman. You. Now we want to see five which is the University of Arkansas for medical sciences will someone from the agency please come to the table introduce yourself and present the report. Good afternoon Mr chairman I'm sherry Robinson senior associate general counsel for the university of Arkansas system here regarding makes Fadden verses Watson L. all. Plaintiff's is less on make that brings a lawsuit on behalf of her brother's estate making claims against officers of the UAMS police department for excessive force wrongful death deaths use me further to comply with the ADA and failure to comply with the emergency medical treatment and labor act this occurred following an encounter on the UAMS campus in a stolen truck we're in the very early stages of this case responsive pleadings have been filed denying the allegations is of excessive force as well as the other alleged violations but discovery has not yet begun on the case I will do my best to answer any questions. Members I have any questions. Seeing none I have a motion I have a motion to review and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries thank you Mr chairman moving on to. Section D.. Mr Kerr if you would come to the table in addition self and will begin the claims review portion of the agenda. Good afternoon I'm like a Tucker on the Attorney specialist with the claims commission. Thank you for being here today so mistakes can please give us a brief description of the one a. This is claim number two two zero seven five nine Carl Zeiss Meditec incorporated versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration claimant requested an outdated requested re issuance of an outdated worn in the amount of twenty three thousand six hundred and thirteen dollars payable from the FNA the warmest allowed standing and no duplicate has been issued a claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Mr occurred is a claims commission have anything to add. Yes Sir but I'm happy I'm happy to answer any questions members there any questions on D. one a. Any questions seeing none I have a motion. I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries the one et has been approved moving on to item D. one B. missteps can please give us a plea read description. Clement request re issuance of an outdated worn in the amount of twenty six thousand eight hundred four dollars and sixty three cents payable from the FNM the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker does commission have anything that yes Sir I'm happy to answer any questions any questions from the committee. C. nine I have a motion to approve. And is that a second and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no. Motion carries Adam D. one C. missteps can please proceed. This is claim number two three zero zero six two Carl Zeiss Meditec incorporated versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration climate request re issuance of an outdated worn in the amount of twenty thousand five hundred fifty dollars payable from the FNA the ward is still outstanding no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker claim to mission have anything further to add yes Sir but I'm happy to answer any questions any questions the committee. Seeing none I have a motion to approve and a second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO motion carries Adam D. one the best asking please per give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero zero nine five Optiv security versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration Clement requested re issuance of an outdated warning the amount of forty thousand two hundred twenty four dollars payable from the FNA Warren is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review placement on an appropriation bill mistaken as a claims commission anything further to add yes but I'm happy to answer any questions members we have any questions on the one the. Seeing no questions I have a motion to approve a motion to approve and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries moving on to D. one E. missteps can please give us a description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero two four two rectors and visitors of the university of Virginia and Paul Chris sale versus the Arkansas department of finance administration your claimant requested re issuance of an outdated worn in the amount of two million ninety two thousand eight hundred twenty dollars and ninety six cents able from the FNA the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued a claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Just occurred as the commission anything that servant happy to answer any questions any questions from the committee. Senator rash you are recognized we all know thank you lost my different things happen how do you. Eddie protect. Two million dollars. Payment is this electronically done is this my old how is it done you know I'm not certain I I'm actually feeling in today there was part the director had a medical emergency there is there is there is safeguards that the regional one if it comes in the mail or something you're not going to be duplicated I'm sure I'm sure thank you yes. Any other questions from the committee. Seeing none I have a motion do pass second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO. Motion carries that item D. one S. miss desk and please give a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero three five seven Edward Jones versus the Arkansas department of transportation Arkansas highway retirement claim requested re issuance of an outdated worn in the amount of seventeen thousand nine hundred sixty two dollars and six cents able from the department of transportation the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker is commission have anything to add yes Sir but I'm happy to answer any questions there is there any questions on D. one at. Seeing none I have a motion to approve I have a motion to approve and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries moving on to D. one G. missed asking please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero four five zero Crawford Sebastian County development council versus the Arkansas department of environmental quality claimant requested payment for unpaid bill in the amount of ninety eight thousand three hundred eighty two dollars and forty five cents eighty each you answered admitting liability the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker is a commission anything further that yes Sir and happy to answer any questions are there any questions. Questions from the committee now got a motion to approve and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries moving on Adam D. one H. missed us completes give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero three five three NW a builders LLC versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration claimant requests re issuance of an outdated warning the amount of twenty six thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars and eighty three cents able from the FNA the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate an issue the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Members there any quote pope Mr Kurdy anything further to add yes I'm happy to answer any questions. Members there any questions on the one H.. Seeing none I have a motion do pass and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries out of the one this desk and please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero one six one surely elder versus the Arkansas department of Human Services climate filed this claim against DHS for salary do in an unspecified amount DHS answered admitting liability in the amount of sixteen thousand five hundred forty two dollars and eighty five cents limited not respond and the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and the amount recommended by DHS. Are there any questions from the committee. Seeing none I have a motion do. To approve and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries moving on to D. I. J. Mr asking please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two three zero five seven two Matthew Miller versus the ark in verse of Arkansas for medical sciences claimant filed this claim for underpaid salary against you M. S. and the amount of twenty two thousand two hundred and thirty six dollars and thirty six cents USMS answered admitting liability in full the claims commission allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Members I'm sorry when I started a seed I said the ad J. but is the one J. that was the description of the one J. mis Tucker do you have anything further to add I'm happy to answer any questions members any questions from the committee. Seeing none I have a motion to approve. And a second. Second all those in favor say aye. Posay NO motion is approved our we're gonna move on to Adam D. to miss desk and please give us a brief description of the claim due to a. This is claim number two zero zero two nine three Jessica Middleton verses the Department of transformation and shared services in her complaint claimant a state employee sought damages from the state based upon denial of coverage for medical procedure claimant allege that the procedure was necessary to correct deficits in the Croce's caused by the administration of medically necessary injections the claims commission found the Department of transformation and shared services liable no matter and awarded claimant seventeen thousand five hundred sixty six dollars and eighty cents which was comprised of five hundred twenty one dollars and eighty two cents and prejudgment interest fifteen thousand dollars in attorney's fees and two thousand forty four dollars and ninety eight cents and costs the parties have both appealed but the appeals are limited solely to the award of fifteen thousand dollars in attorney's fees. This Tucker does the commission have anything further to add yes Sir I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions on this. Seeing none I have a motion to approve. A motion to to award this claim is a question motion toward this claim so moved. And a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion to award the claim is approved Adam D. three missed asking please give us a brief description of the claim. This is the three a and its claim number two two one one two four Michael McCauley versus the Arkansas department of transportation or transportation claiming alleged that his vehicle was damaged after hitting a pothole on a state highway near Carlisle Arkansas at night are not moved to dismiss the claim arguing the claimant fail to show that are not had prior knowledge of the possible and yet fail to respond within a reasonable amount of time to repair it Clement responded arguing that the pothole caused damage to tires that his travel was disrupted and that the potholes could not be seen late at night the claims commission dismissed the claim without prejudice finding that the existence of a pothole alone was insufficient to establish liability absent evidence that are not had prior knowledge of the pothole and filter repaired and reasonable amount of time claiming appeals. Miss Tucker you have anything further to add yes Sir I'm happy to answer any questions members are there any questions on this claim. Senator Rice you are recognized. I would just offer we have these regularly my condolences people have trouble when you get out of bed in the morning we all have things happen not I had three rams on cars I switched and any more trouble but You know you notifiable Pato. they've got a system that they get out there and per reasonable time but you can't. You can't do that if you don't know about it they I don't know anyway to fix these this see how they get as far as they do on these claims but I cannot support it. Any any further questions or comments from the Committee. Seeing none I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission. A motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries Adam D. three be missed as completes give us a description of the claim this is claim number two two one one three nine read as Miley versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant filed her original negligence claim on December twentieth two thousand eighteen seeking fifteen thousand dollars in damages related to a November thirtieth two thousand eighteen one car accident in which her vehicle was damaged the claims commission granted our dots motion to dismiss on may twenty eighth two thousand nineteen and denied claimant's motion for reconsideration on October twenty ninth two thousand nineteen. On March thirty first two thousand twenty two claimant filed this claim related to the same November thirtieth two thousand eighteen accident and submitted additional documents are not moved to dismiss arguing that the instant claim was time barred by the three year statute of limitations the claims commission granted our dots motion to dismiss claimant appeals. Mr pretty anything further to add seven happy to answer any questions members we have any questions on D. three B.. Seen under I have a motion to rule affirm the ruling of the claims commission. And a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries Adam D. three C. missteps can please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two two zero seven two seven Journal Howard versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant sought four thousand one hundred fifty two dollars from are not let alleging that her vehicle was damaged on I. four thirty southbound when a pickup truck ran over a large piece of plywood that subsequently flew and damaged her vehicle are not denied liability and moved to dismiss the case arguing the claimant did not allege any negligence or wrongdoing on its part claimant did not respond to the motion claims commission entered an order dismissing the claim without prejudice the commission found that even if there was a piece of plywood on the road climate did not allege any facts to establish of the plywood had been in the roadway for an extended period of time or that an employee of R. naught or vehicle owned by R. naught was responsible for the plywood being in the roadway claiming appeals. Mr occurred in the further that answer but I'm happy to answer any questions members or any questions on D. three C.. Seeing none I have a motion to room affirm the ruling of the claims commission and a second all those in favor say aye. say no motion carries Adam D. three D. miss that's completes give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number one nine zero zero two for corporate law firm PLLC versus the University of Arkansas at little rock claimant sought fifteen thousand dollars in attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section twenty five nineteen one oh seventy one from UALR allegedly arising out of the circuit court for a lawsuit in which the parties negotiated a settlement agreement in its order the circuit court express no view on whether climate should recover attorneys fees under FOIA but stated the resolution of that issue lies with the claims commission UALR answer denying liability for attorneys fees specifically you LR denied that claim is client substantially prevailed in the underlying for a litigation Clement replied stating that the foil lawsuit would not have been settled but for UALR substantial compliance with the outstanding FOIA request on December third two thousand eighteen you will are moved for summary judgment arguing the claimant's client had not substantially prevailed the underlying lawsuit and had not obtained such a ruling from the circuit court Clement responded arguing that his client had substantially prevailed upon you LR's disclosure of information sought in the for a lawsuit respondent replied reasserting its position that summary judgment was appropriate the claims commission than than held this claim in abeyance to allow claimant time to seek further findings from the circuit court after seeking findings from the circuit court claimant sent a letter to the claims commission stating that the circuit court refused to address the issues and denied the motion seeking further findings without opinion following a hearing on April twenty first two thousand twenty one the claims commission denied and dismissed the claim. Clement then filed a motion for reconsideration stating that it never sought a ruling from the circuit court on whether it was a prevailing party in the underlying foil litigation in its motion claimant advised that it had since filed a motion with the circuit court for substantive ruling on whether it was the prevailing party the circuit court entered an order denying claimant's motioned for determination of prevailing party as improper and untimely claimant appealed the circuit court's ruling the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling denying claims motion subsequently the claims commission entered an order denying claims motion for reconsideration claim an appeals. Miss Tucker anything further to add from the commission yes I'm happy to answer any questions. any any members have any questions or want to hear from either side in this. I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission I have a motion to rule from the ruling of the claims commission I have a second. And a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Adam. Four B.. Adam D. four B.. Members Adam D. for a one was stricken from the agenda for the claimant's request to allow her time to obtain counsel I don't D. for B. one is an appeal of the decision of the claims commission that was submitted outside the time frames prescribed under Arkansas code annotated nineteen dash ten dash two eleven a you'll find a copy that statute statute in your Manila folder. with the language highlighted in yellow although the commission received this appeal after the statutorily prescribed time the commission is of the opinion that it was required by law to transmit the appeal to us this section which is highlighted in pink a copy of your folder provides that the commission must notify the General Assembly when a notice of appeal is filed with the commission having fulfilled its obligation to notify the claim subcommittee it is now up to the subcommittee to determine which action we will take with regard to this island. Okay members after all that if you go back to D. for we do have the option I have a motion to not consider the claim. No that motion carries. We're moving on the five. Okay. Manager or moving on to to D. five if there's no objection I will entertain a motion the batch Adams D. five a through D. five F. with the exceptions of the five C. and date so when a batch all of them with the exceptions of CND will hear those individually. So. I have a motion for that in a second all those in favor say aye. se NO. So the first thing here we will hear items D. five with the all of items the fight with the exception of seeing the. Hi now those items have been batched I have a motion to affirm the decisions of the items D. five all of the five with the exception of see in the. So moved and second all those in favor say aye opposed say no. Motion carries Adam D. five C.. I must ask in please give us a brief description of the claim the five C.. This is claim number two two zero two nine five Bobby Robertson versus the Arkansas division of correction claim of Bobby Robertson sought eighteen thousand dollars in damages from the Arkansas division of correction claimant alleged constitutional violations relating to A. B. C.'s sorry claimant alleged constitutional violations relating to ATC allegedly keeping claimant and punitive segregation after his assigned term ended ATC moved to dismiss the claim arguing that matters related to housing and constitutional claims or outside the jurisdiction of the claims commission the claims commission agreed with ATC and dismiss the claim noting that such a claim could be brought in a court of general jurisdiction the Commission subsequently denied claimant's motion for reconsideration finding that the motion did not set forth any new or additional evidence not previously available claiming appeals. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized as a question for department. Somebody from the department of corrections available. Please just state your name for the record yes Sir Thomas burns general counsel for the Arkansas division correction center Wardlaw you're recognized representative on or will be soon. Wardlaw. The I'm I'm agreeing with the claims commission here first off but I do have a question who determines and who oversees if you guys do stick somebody in that punitive segregation for fifteen extra days where where would be the right remedy for this. Number number one they they would have to file a grievance and eight emergency grievance to be immediately immediately heard but when they say the representative segregation they are in a separate unit. Eight but they have zero privileges so most clothing second way from they can have a common sense things like that so when they are out of it sometimes is not a bad available so they'll still be in there but then again all the privileges back. So it's not like they're. Stuck in punitive furniture thirty days are beyond their whatever time they're doing but if they if they do feel that they can do emergency grievance it goes directly to the warden and and substitute so at that point did he served as days and he was there with this privileges back he could have filed that grievance at that point correct yes Sir okay that does all as everyone knows how to work you may want to stay retirement. Kate represent Wardlaw do I have a motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission on D. five C.. I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Right opposed say no motion carries moving on to D. five D. missed asking please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two one zero eight six seven Bobby law junior versus the Arkansas division of correction claimant sought five thousand dollars in damages from ABC eleven alleged that three individual ATC employees violated ATC's policies by not searching inmates when coming in from outside which allowed another inmate to bring a break from outside and use it as a weapon to hit claimant in the head and face area causing a laceration and bleeding in his supporting documents claimant claimed that the ATC employees violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and eighth amendment constitutional rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment ATC denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim arguing that the claims commission did not have jurisdiction to hear claims concerning alleged alleged constitutional violations and the claimant's remedy was against the individuals through nineteen eighty three federal action the Commission granted ATC's motion to dismiss finding that the crux of claimant's claim was the alleged constitutional and federal law violations. The commission held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear these claims because such claims could be brought in a court of general jurisdiction the Commission subsequently denied claimant's motion for reconsideration finding that it did not support any new or additional evidence not previously available claiming appeals. Resent Wardlaw you're recognized for a question. Are all the rage thank you Mr. Well again I agree with the claims mission. But how does a guy get a brick through. I mean that seems. A large to put in cavities or somewhere else. I agree but We we say brick a lot of times it is genetically said maybe a piece of concrete or rock or a lock something to that to that effect you would get it says brick I know I know okay representative says break I I see that a lot to. But we do we do all we can stretch when we go out to come in shaking down as much as as much as we can. I just sing Census. Right Mr I'll make a motion whenever you're ready. Any any further questions. Seeing none sent a representative Wardlaw as a motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission on D. five D. I have a second all those in favor say aye. Motion carries we wanted D. six members agenda item D. six is a claim presented by the treasurer of the State of Arkansas code annotated nineteen dash five dash six a one easy which the claims commission is transmitted for inclusion in the appropriation bill will someone from the treasurer's office please come to the table introduce yourself and present the claim. Police station name. Morning Mr chairman members committee my name is teacher file or legal counsel for the treasury you get the microphone. Right to acquire the services manager with the state treasury. You're recognized all right of the this is kind of odd the OB the probably the on the committee and history to do one of these because these only come around during that they can deal census from the federal government in normally they're taking care of in the year after the decennial census but because of COVID the the federal bureau the handles that has been shut down so this will be the only time in history this will be handled two years almost three years after defeating Census one of the functions of the treasury handles is turning back Municipal Aid funds to cities and counties calico rock. It's all cities have the right to appeal the consensus and the numbers and the borders are drawn around them after those senses come out calico rock exercise that right they went appeal process that the federal bureau that does the Census reports went back and decided the calico rock is correct the borders been drawn incorrectly which changed the the numbers for population for calico rock so when that occurs it triggers a number of things with the treasury DFA from our standpoint we have to do is we have to go back and determine the amount of moneys that would have been paid to calico rock have the census been correct in the interim period and the statute that governs this is our code annotated nineteen five six oh one subs sub II in that statute simply requires that once we determine what that amount is we have to come before this body and have it approved for for that appropriations that's why we're here today. Represent Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman of when you do that do you have take money away from an adjacent senses group. I believe that's correct and and miss Garrett can speak that to the technical side of it but my understanding is that there's essentially an entire pie of money that would go to a group within a county and it's divided up based on population so because calico rock was under counted. Then all the other cities in that same area got a piece of the pie that should on calico rock and so that's what this is essentially taken over correction that will take that money back you're not actually asking for a refund is my understanding in in future disbursements the adjustments are made where that correction occurs. Any other questions from the committee. I need a motion to approve the inclusion of this claim on the appropriation bill. I have a motion to do that and second all those in favor say aye. say no motion carries is there any other business. Seeing none we are adjourned.