Joint Performance Review (JPR)

Going to call this meeting to order. chair sees a quorum and we cannot get the Senate in order to call a meeting to order. I'd like to start with the consideration of a motion to approve the July twenty fifth twenty twenty two meeting minutes do I have a motion motion Senator Gilmore second representative Springer I believe all in favor say aye. Is haven't motion carries. we have several items on the agenda today and I want to first begin by thanking all the members for being here I know that we have as a non members here who also very interested in the issues that we have on the agenda today we have witnesses who driven from all over the state to be here to testify on both issues both the president parole issue and also the issue regarding voca funds we have representatives from various organizations crisis rape crisis centers coalition against sexual assault costs a. Many others and again we appreciate all of you being here today. If there's no objection what I'd like to do is skip to autumn agenda E. and began with the department of corrections the parole policies I haven't see any objection to that seeing no objection we're gonna move to item the. And if we could have the witnesses who are listed on the agenda that would be a secretary graves. Dexter Payne Lindsey Wallace. Sir Terry graves you're recognized if all of you what each state your name who you're here representing your position with that organization you'll be recognized to be on making your presentation good morning of Solomon graves said Terry corrections. Good morning dexter Payne director for the division of corrections good morning Lindsey Wallace chief of staff for the department of corrections. Mister Mister with your indulgence and that of the Committee we want to take our remarks and two six segments the first is I'm going to run through what what happened and the of the second piece would like to present to the committee is what we believe to be a informative discussion on the Legal reasoning and supportive case law of the actions of the department of corrections. In twenty fifteen the General Assembly through at five ninety five enacted several elements of criminal justice reform during that session one of those is that the legislature took action at that time to codify as enumerated violent offense residential burglary. And the statute that the legislature amended at that time set out that if. You had a previous conviction for a felony involving violence either in this jurisdiction or a substantially similar conviction in a note the jurors digs send whether that be out of state or tribal conviction you would be subjected to serving a hundred percent of your time that is how the department of corrections had applied that statute to offenders going back to two thousand and one when it was initially created through ACT eighteen oh five of that legislative session. Decisions were made in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen to Interpret the law differently for. Offenders who are convicted of residential burglary that differing interpretation of the law because continuing questions over the years in including at the beginning of my tenure as secretary of corrections as a result of those continued questions and differing opinions and expectations of common justice day colder's outside of the department I made the decision at the end of twenty twenty one to request a opinion of the Attorney General asking for guidance on our interpretation of the law I'd question. The Attorney General came back in the spring of twenty two with an opinion that was consistent with the interpretation of our Attorneys are chief legal counsel and chief of staff in the department and indicated that. Up to that point the Department had been improperly interpreting the law in question. with the guidance from the attorney general's office and the existing case law on point with this issue which will be address next by ms Wallace we took the action of reviewing the cases of offenders that had sentences that would be impacted through a corrected interpretation of the law. out of that review. Two hundred and ninety current inmates had their time adjusted. That adjustment did not change the underlying sentence. That adjustment simply said in stead of being eligible for parole consideration you're going to do one hundred percent of your time in the division of corrections. All those individuals were current inmates no one none of those had been released on to supervision. An additional group that we looked that were one hundred and one parolees who at the time of our receipt of the opinion were already on supervision they had been released on supervision between the effective date of the act in two thousand and fifteen forward. We review those cases took a when the board of corrections was briefed on this matter in the summer hi asked the board to authorize me to leave those individuals or supervision all one hundred of those. Offenders who are on supervision on the date we receive the opinion remained on supervision. However they were put on notice in each of them was given a written notice that they signed in the presence of their parole officer that said. In effect if I being the offender violate the conditions of my supervision I want to come back and do a hundred percent of my time. since that point eleven of those offenders so so quickly violated the conditions of their supervision and were returned to incarceration in the division of correction ninety remaining on supervision. Unfortunately after receipt of the opinion of while we were conducting our review of offenders who may be impacted by this corrected interpretation of the law there were two. offenders that were released from the Division of correction who had to be returned back to incarceration. I and Director Payne of talk about this multiple times over the last few months that is to too many. But I want to reiterate to the members because one of the things I continuously heard over the last few months is there was a mass roundup in one of the numbers I was told is that we picked up several hundred parolees off the street that's simply not true. there were only two offenders that were released both within days of our receipt of of the opinion and Once that happens again need we were great it did happen we reiterated to staff that on under no circumstances would anyone of potentially caught up in this correct interpretation be released and that did not happen again that's the quick what of the impact of this Mr again with your indulgence I'd like ms Wallace to kind of go through the legal analysis because that is well within her professional background and training and then I think at that point may be there is a Good point for us to take questions from the members. Thank you secretary graves ms Wallace you're recognized thank you Mr chairman committee members so Secretary grades touched on ACT eighteen oh five as we commonly referred to it it concerns violent felony offenses specifically enumerated violent felony offenses so it's not just any offense that you might consider violent so it was as he mentioned passed in two thousand and one and essentially what it does is if any person commits a violent felony offense enumerated violent felony offense or a felony sex offense subsequent to August thirteenth two thousand and one and they've previously been found guilty to any of those enumerated violent felony offenses or felony sex offenses then there an eligible for release on parole so taking that into consideration when ACT five ninety five in two thousand fifteen came into effect the General Assembly reclassified residential burglary it made residential burglary one of those enumerated offense so it stuck it off in the visual offender code section so it does couple of different things it can it can enhance a prison term so it can link then the amount of time if it's one of those enumerated offenses or it can apply ACT eighteen oh five non parole eligibility to it so in looking at the ACT eighteen oh five code provision and the case law following that that's kind of where we begin our analysis. So the case law following that says that parole eligibility is to be calculated in accordance with the law that in effect at the time an offense was committed so as that applies to act eighteen oh five a person is deemed to be on notice for that offense at the time that they committed so you have someone with the two thousand and twenty residential burglary if they have one from two thousand and eleven at the time that they commit that two thousand and twenty residential burglary they are deemed on notice that that application of that parole eligibility law is applicable to them. So a couple of cases that we looked at one is Agra larvae Lester and this was a Supreme Court case from two thousand eleven and it held that the relevant date for determining parole eligibility is the date of the president offense not the date of the offense for the prior convictions so in this case Mr Adelard convict committed second degree murder in two thousand and five and he had in nineteen seventy conviction for battery okay so at that point the did the vision the department of corrections at that time and calculated his parole eligibility at one hundred percent meaning he was not eligible for parole and due to application of ACT eighteen oh five so Mr Abelard peeled and the Supreme Court held that the eighty SI had properly applied parole eligibility laws I'm on on on appeal Mr angle are argued that this was a violation of the ex post facto clause and the court was not persuaded they said that it was in effect at the time that he committed that second offense and therefore was not a violation of the ex post facto clause so one of the case that we looked at very similar to actual or with kids versus Hobbs and he also challenge the parole eligibility application of ACT eighteen oh five so with Mr Pitts he similarly had a have the exact offenses but he similarly had an offense that happens post passage of act eighteen oh five and then he had a prior delineated offense that came in and caused him to serve a hundred percent of his sentence so in this case the court also cited Ekeler case and said that the law is well settled that parole eligibility is determined by the law in effect at the time the crime is committed and then something else that act will or stated in this case restated was that the determination of parole eligibility is solely within the province of the department of corrections. So both of these cases did an analysis of ex post facto laws specifically and the court said in actual are that act eighteen oh five was in effect at the time of the pellets president offenses and therefore it was applied by the department to the president offenses not the prior convictions so therefore it was not a violation of these ex post facto. Clause so there are two critical elements that are well established for expose facto laws it has to be retrospective meaning it has to go back and punish someone for something that was not in effect at the time that they were convicted. And it has to apply to event Wallace what is that sorry it must apply defense occurring before its enactment and then it must disadvantage the offender. M. as as mentioned earlier it's well established that determinations of pro eligibility eligibility are within the province of the executive branch and the department of corrections so turning more to that line of thought we looked at a nineteen ninety eight cases that was also reference an actual or decision called Morse V. state and in this case it's pretty on point to the discussion that we have going on here in there and the Morris case the department computed Morris's parole eligibility date for consecutive sentences and said that he had to serve one third of his sentence so the Department at some point later requested an attorney general's opinion and the attorney general's opinion came back and said no department you have misinterpreted parole eligibility and it should be one half meaning that he would serve more time based on this change in interpretation of the law. So the department recalculated his sentence and then Morris appealed and in this case he said that the department was barred from re calculating the parole eligibility to his detriment because it was requiring him to serve more time he argued that the director of the department of corrections is charged with knowledge of criminal law of having such knowledge and that he waved the proper calculation at the time that he miscalculated the interpretation. And so in this case the court held that the department had the right to recalculate and correct the error that it had it had done in interpreting the pro eligibility law anytime to conform to the law there was no due process error recalculating without prior notice or hearing and the court also held that the inmate did not have a vested right in a favorable but around this interpretation of the law so relevant to dis and discussion the court went on to find that when the Department re computes and aronie Asli calculated parole eligibility date for a defendant serving multiple sentences there's no ex post facto violation unless three computation was pursuant to legislation passed after the department's original sentence I'm sorry the defendant's original sentence in this case the state argued that Morris couldn't benefit from the department's misinterpretation of the law and the court agreed saying that while this recalculation was to his detriment it's now consistent with what the law was at the time that he committed the offense. So as far as making this determination of kind of wrapping all of this together we look at more recent case law in which the the court the Supreme Court has consistently said Hey the department of corrections when you get it wrong you have to go recalculate we recalculate sentences regularly we have a a very robust system in which we review application of parole eligibility laws just to make sure that we are following the laws that are in effect at the time. So once we receive the attorney general's opinion our chief legal counsel and several of our department attorneys and we got together we reviewed all the cases we took the application an act alarm hits of the very similarly situated defendants to these residential burglary offenders we took the instruction from the cases such as Rogers which says Hey department of corrections whenever you know that you get this wrong you need to go and fix this we took the Morris case where it was a very similar situation where we had an accurately interpreted case law are I'm sorry interpreted this statute and we ask for an attorney general's opinion the Attorney General's comes back and says you you interpreted the same correctly we fixed it and we have at our suggestion to Secretary graves which was that any preview any offender previously convicted of residential burglary who commits an additional enumerated fence on or after four one fifteen should not be eligible for per for parole and from that secretary graves instructed the time calculations be examine and adjusted consistent with his instruction. Mister Mister with that we'll take any questions. Okay. So I want to begin because you guys have made a a pretty thorough presentation but that's a lot to take in at one time and especially if you're not a lawyer and you're trying to sort through all this understand that while legalese in that and so you know let's kind of try to cut through animatronic helped cut through it. And and. Can I get to the upshot of what's actually happened here. So tell me if I'm correct so in two thousand one the legislature passed a law that essentially said if you have to violent convictions we had a violent conviction and then you get another one that you are not eligible for parole so long as you're sentenced as a habitual offender you'll have to serve one hundred percent of your time is that accurate you do not have to be sentenced as a habitual offender what ACT eighteen oh five did was reference the habitual offender list okay so you could be sentenced as a habitual offender but that's a charging decision from the prosecutors that things right but yes the upshot of that is is corrected so to have one of those enumerated offenses two of them then nope no parole eligibility you have to serve a hundred percent your tire and that happened in two thousand one yes okay then in two thousand fifteen. To that end M. rated list that we're talking about residential burglary was added as a violent felony offense yes that would qualify a person upon their second conviction for a violent offense to be required to serve one hundred percent of their time and that happened in twenty fifteen yes Sir through legislation all right Sir okay. And then after twenty fifteen until about very recently in twenty twenty two so approximately a seven year period. Where those folks who had to violent felony offenses and maybe particularly one for residential burglary as a as a prior. It was the department's policy that they did not have to serve one hundred percent of their time I wouldn't say it was our policy was the department's inaccurate application of the law. Okay. And so what happened is this for a period of seven years. There were people in this state. Who pled guilty to offenses. And representations were made to them by the Arkansas department of corrections that if you plead guilty to this offence this will be your parole eligibility and it was not one hundred percent would that be correct yes okay. And those folks relied on the representations that were made to them when I say those folks I mean let's be clear. Yep prosecutors who were operating under those I'm asking that everyone is a sumptuous but they were just assumptions I mean they were explicit instructions that if your sentence under this law you're not going to serve a hundred percent your time on. It in a lot of these cases so it wasn't just the defendant's but it was the prosecutors it was the defense lawyers and it was the defendant's themselves who all had this understanding that came from the Arkansas department of corrections is that accurate now and I want to be very clear the department staff in the in the now Division of correction up till this spring was providing guidance to the stakeholders that you listed. Based on a an accurate interpretation of the law I will be very clear yes that did not happen that that did happen we were incorrectly applying the law and as a result of that incorrect application. We provided guidance and consistent with the law as Mr Wallace laid out. We have a duty that when we know we made a mistake. That the court has been very clear that we have a duty to remedy that mistake and that is what we've done here. Yes thank senators and I appreciate that and I agree with that but I want the committee to understand kind of in practice how this operated for a period of seven years up until now and so. you know for the benefit of the committee members you should have in your packet as exhibit be you'll see You'll take a look at that. It says Derek Ferguson you'll take a look at that exhibit should be in your packet. And so if you'll flip to the back of that. To the very back you again you'll you'll see an email on the last page that comes from Charlene Henry I know Charlene Henry Charlene is a deputy prosecutor in Jonesborough. And in this. Our email what is a copy of an email she had emailed the department of corrections saying. Do you guys have a copy of this okay a we do not okay yeah you'll need a copy of it. But I'm going to read it. I have a defendant who pled guilty to residential burglary go ahead in two thousand. This is a prosecutor enquiring. He is going to plead to sexual assault second on Monday. Since both are considered violent felony or sex offenses does he have to serve flat time in all of his time. Under sixteen ninety three six oh nine my understanding per the prosecutor coordinator's office was eighty C. was not interpreting pre twenty fifteen residential burglaries as violent offenses for purposes of parole eligibility is this still the case now that email was sent. April twenty third twenty twenty one. So the law changed in twenty fifteen this is this conversation is occurring in twenty twenty one. And the response was from Cindy Richardson I believe was with the department of corrections would forwarded that email to a brick comings into a shall we Maroney who were with the department of corrections my understanding could you assist with the prosecutor's questions below shall we Maroney responded. And this appears to be April twenty third twenty twenty one to Charlene Henry. Good afternoon you are correct eighty C. is not considering residential burglaries and violent charge prior to four one twenty fifteen when it was added to the list Charlene says thank you then the attorney for the defendant in order to double check. Sends an email to show a moronic again to put a ploy of the department of corrections Shelley. We were forwarded your email regarding parole eligibility in reference to a person that may take a plea on sexual assault second as a vigil offender the problem is is that he has a residential burglary conviction from two thousand when it was considered a not violent felony it's my understanding that the ATC does not consider residential burglary a violent felony if the plea was prior to April one twenty fifteen if that is the case with our client be eligible for parole after serving one six that the sentence if he got all the good time and everything I understand is discretionary but I want to make sure under sixteen ninety three six oh nine be one that the residential burglary from two thousand will not trigger no parole. And I was also concerned or sixteen ninety three six fifteen H. recess parole cannot happen until someone is fifty five years old any help would be appreciated and Shelly responded. And you can see Shelley's email next this is April twenty six twenty twenty one good morning eighty C. is not considering residential burglary as a violent charge prior to four one twenty fifteen when it was added to the list if the residential burglar was prior to for one twenty fifteen and is now convicted of sexual assault your client will serve one third. Of his or her sentence less any good time earned so this is the representation will be very clear from the department of corrections. Your client will serve one third of his or her sentence last any good time earned this is contingent upon no other prior convictions for violent or sexual crimes is in five or five one two two now. It just so happened that based on those representations. Derek Ferguson entered a plate. Based on those representation understood understanding that based on those representations that his parole date. And I'm not seeing it in my packet there should be two of the users only one of these. But. There was if you looked at his per his screenshot of his inmate search as listed on the department of corrections website it previously said that his parole date. Was August I believe of twenty thirty. And then on the department's own accord you'll see on the next page the department changed his parole date to August of twenty fifty. So in other words he's going to serve an additional twenty years that he didn't bargain for when he entered that plea based on the specific representations made by the Arkansas department of corrections this would be bad if it were just an isolated case but this is not just an isolated case this happened numerous times all across the state of Arkansas two defendants who were had both been already released and who are still in prison now look I don't have a lot of sympathy I'm just now I'm I'm editorializing this point bear with me I'm the chairman second do that. I don't have a lot of sympathy for these folks. Who pleads guilty to sexual assault in these terrible crimes but if the government make specific representations to someone. That this is going to be the deal. And then goes back on their word I do have a problem with that. And that appears to be exactly what the department of corrections did And so. You know I I think I've laid out the case that I know that there other folks here who have questions and other witnesses here who can give testimony in this regard but I think that's what happened I think it happened for a period of seven years until the department reversed its policy recently in accordance with as you've mentioned the attorney general's opinion and other things but there was a period of seven years where this was happening in Arkansas all over the state and so it as Mister chairman I know I know you're itching to respond so you're recognized as well and and I don't believe at this point because and I realize y'all have a lengthy agenda. I want to reiterate to you in the committee. No one at this table no one on on our leadership team. Disputes that for a period of seven years we were aronie Asli applying parole eligibility law. Yes we did we should not have done that. I'm not missing words I'm not making excuses we should not have done that. The decision that was made was inconsistent with the case law in place at the time and was inconsistent with Legislative intent I want to be very clear about that. But it is also very clear. This is an our state Supreme Court has established this. That when the Department. Even honest. Two it's all doing your own is Lee applies parole eligibility law. Once it becomes aware of that a Roni this application it has a duty to fix that a Roni is application. That is what happened. And that is what we do. All right thank you Secretary graves looks like we have a question representative Bryant you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair thank you you stole out of the thunder for me I appreciate that so does the character is we we discussed this issue several months ago I'm one the representatives of the constituent of the of the two that were released and then pull back in incarceration after release. I have a couple questions that that was generated over testimony is if if we were to allow this to happen for seven years tell me again what what spawned. The request for attorney general's opinion on it sure of over that time the department was presented with what I would style as one off questions are related to the sentencing of where we would be approached with use usually from stakeholders in more rule districts where everybody knows everybody and it's not uncommon to going to a grocery store or go to a gas station and see someone and you know they're criminal history will we be approach with a Hey um. I tried this case on either side and. Offender A. X. is supposed to still be incarcerated or we got a notice saying offender why is coming up for parole they're not supposed to be they're not supposed to be entitled to parole supervision so on these one off cases we would review and of we would all ultimately decide that yes we inconsistently incorrectly computed time and we would just these this time on these one off issues. What did it what was the final issue for us was in late twenty one we had a a prosecutor a deputy public prosecutor I'm sorry reach out to us as a Hey I I just got this notice I tried this case this individual should not be coming up for parole so we had a meeting we regularly sit down in the Department of myself in our division directors and it was in one of those conversations where raises the issue of a this keeps happening. It does in there's an issue here we all know this is an issue here I've seen email correspondence going back to twenty sixteen. Saying that we have an issue here how are we going to fix this we've got to address this issue once and for all. so we began our research internally and of part of my Thought process in. Requesting an a and a the AG's guidance on the interpretation of this law is that I realized we had been. What likely wrong for seven years. And fixing something after seven years is not a easy left and it should be taken in a measured and reasonable approach. and that is why I wanted to seek the guidance of the Attorney General because while I. Our terms are rightfully assume that we were incorrectly applying the law at hand here I didn't want it just to be a department of corrections pulled something out of the air disposition that is why we sought the guidance of the attorney general's office that is why we brief the board of corrections on this issue in the summer of twenty two before we took final action on these cases because this was an issue that should not have been solely in the purview of mine are division directors or our legal division. Okay. I'm gonna continue aligned to you stop me. so at any time if you realize the department had for seven years. Allow an action that was was likely not with this with the Attorney General believes is correct did you think that of the one hundred we've already released and the two hundred ninety currently incarceration was it do you feel is that within your authority to say that the clock starts and now the any of the now official vendors or or enumerated offenses. We will now get all their time served versus going back and re calculating. The current incarcerated no Sir because doing so would have been inconsistent with a case law on point with the issue we work and we were addressing okay so for the seven years and the one hundred inmates that were released due to erroneous interpretation of the law. How do we go about reconciling equal text of the law to those that basically got away with a Rhodia's interpretation of law to those that are now dramatically impact well I wouldn't say that they got away with anything because their time was also just and they were put on notice that their time was adjusted to be consistent with the law as it has been interpreted and and has it was intended to be applied the reason why those Hendren issue those Hendren that creates a separate issue which we didn't go into in our presentation which is those individuals were. Granted release by the state. And there is a and here in liberty interest that the courts have established around parole. The issue at hand with the two and this is you know as is often the case with issues of the government days make a dramatic difference for someone for certain individuals you know when we were discussing this end this issue back in the summer someone raised the example of Tax cliffs and how dollars make a matter of dollars can make a huge difference in and how the tax laws are applied in this case a matter of days happened here and because those two were released at a point where this state had been put on notice and accepted that it was incorrectly applying the law in those cases. The. Liberty interests that applied to that Hendren did not apply to those two. Okay so does my my final question to think of some more is if if we were if this look at this body here the next body were to strike. Twenty fifteen. And honoring that bill. Is that change the outcome of this issue. There are two ways that this could be address one of those is through the legislature as the policy making body coming in and amending the code and specifically setting out timelines of application and then the other would be agency judicial remedy remedy yes the at a very simplified level there could be a legislative of a remedy to address this issue okay thank you Mr. Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you Mr just one quick question what liability is a state exposed to because of the time frame that this occurred or is that something that's actively going on can you inform us water liabilities are forthcoming if any there is no one at that date and at this table who who would say is competent to answer a question about. The state's liability. Okay Mr chairman maybe later we get the right person thank you. Representative right you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman of secretary Sullivan got a place your what would you know dates are very important is that right sure dates would be very important when the laws were actually put into existence and they affect everything that goes from that date forward yes Sir but now anything that would be back mine that date would be treated differently and is that right so if if I understand your question correctly Represent rights This is VOL the law at hand. Is. Perspective in its application. Meaning. The only individuals that are impacted are those that committed their offense. On or after the effective date so an individual who had a Of violence had had only one violent felony. At the time of the. That had been imposed at the time of the effective date. Would not be impacted well what happened here is the way this statute works is. Whatever Dayton twenty fifth twenty fifteen amending and excuse me for I can't recall the effective date of at five ninety five all the top of my head right now. Offenders who had a conviction. For residential burglary on or after the effective date and then picked up a second or so a second and subsequent conviction on or after the effective date for those enumerated violent felonies is then subjected to having their parole eligibility computed at a hundred percent so this state is not going back and applying the parole eligibility to their previous conviction. The state is only applying the parole eligibility to the current and future conviction which the. Legislative branch has determined that that consideration parole eligibility for that current and future conviction should consider criminal history for these enumerated offenses. Okay okay well let me ask you this song missile is is a ADC is not considered a residential burglary as violent charge prior to for one of fifteen so what would be the difference in the sentencing for those type of people that came in after that that was again a incorrect and inconsistent application of the law. The do the ATC should have been considering. Residential burglary as violent. For any offender coming into its custody. Wow for a a new more for their for an offense also enumerated in that same list is filed. That's the way the this state treats battery first that's the way the state treats kidnapping that's the way the state treats rape or sexual assault that's the way that the state treats murder one all of which are examples of offenses that are also enumerated in that same list if you get a if you are convicted of kidnapping in twenty twenty three. And in nineteen ninety nine you were convicted of battery first. Your time is going to be computed at a hundred percent. because that's the way we have consistently applied that statute that's the way the courts expect us to apply that statute that's the way that are going to Justice partners expect us to apply the statute for whatever reason and I do not know and I'm not dodging this question I do not know the why of the decision that was made in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen by a previous leadership all I know when all anybody and the Department now involved in the in the in the analysis that led up to these actions no was that it was inconsistent with how we work computing time for every other offense enumerated in that same subsection. Thank you Michelle thank you Mr chairman. Representative Springer you're recognized. Morning thank you Mr chair of first of all I would just like to thank you secretary grace for coming forward and being. Pretty precise and honest and direct about what is taking place I commend you for doing so so thank you very much for letting us know actually what took place and I think of purpose of senator Hammer for the question that he asked with respect to what liability at this point the state have I think that's very important so Mister chair do can you check this is anyone here from the attorney general's office to that could possibly answer that question because I am curious about what of liability does the state have at this point after having wheels and a vice of what is taking place. A representative I don't believe that there's anyone here from the attorney general's office we can see if we can get on here I think that would be a good idea because I think at this point as secretary graces indicated he is admitted what is taking place with no what is that taking place so the question is how do we move forward and he's also suggested that there be legislation enacted in order to correct this as well so I don't see the need for us to continue to debate this unless we have some kind of solution to what is taking place here thank you very much yes Mister chairman if I may because I do like my job the majority of the time I did not direct there be any legislation just say there are two ways of fixing this my five year old son thank you for letting me clarify that point. Representative flowers you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and if I could please ask for the same latitude that reserve Brian asked for and that One of my constituents is one of the two who experienced being released for parole and picked up the next day. I wanted to ask US secretary graves about You mentioned earlier about the The standard for what would happen once the Department became aware and you know we and I appreciate you because we had a very lengthy conversation this summer and you were able to give us a lot of this perspective about the courts But and I know the sticking point for us as it has been today is that there was seven years where the action or the interpretation that was utilized took place At what point did the Department become aware that. This law was being erroneously a proper plied as you described the first time that I have seen documentation indicating Concerned that the the eighty SI was misapplied the law was dated in twenty sixteen. Okay. And You mentioned that there are there were calls where you all made accommodations. Of For the world prosecutors who saw someone out and might have had a concern about the application so it sounds like. There was a sort of mixed application because it sounds like. In some circumstances you might have said Hey let's go ahead and add an appease or accommodate this particular prosecutor and apply the law this way and then it might of a club in applied a different way for everybody else where that concern had not been expresses that the fair Description of how that happened before the AG's opinion no ma'am and I'd like to clarify what I was when I was what I stated in response to representative Brian the outreach that we had was from prosecutors from members of the defense ball R. in in in my tenure I am aware of instances where victims have made out reach to the Department it is in terms of the specific subset of prosecutorial and I'll reach it is easier for some prosecutors in the state to know their cases to know the people because of the sizes of the judicial districts that they Servin and the reason why I gave that example is because the. One case that finally pushed me to the point of saying okay we can't keep doing these one offs it talking to members previously one of the things that the word that was used was fair. And to me it's unfair for. The department to continue to address things on a one all in consistent basis especially when we know we feel very comfortable that the decision that was made was inconsistent with the law. to me that's that's what's not fair so. This was not done to appease anyone group. this was done because well I wasn't suggesting that limit or in fact really quickly I wasn't suggesting that it was done to appease anyone group what I would but I was pointing to when you describe one off you can't keep doing these one offs is that. When you when you got a call though where there was a concern about the application of the law there were instances where you did pick someone up to address that concern right. In previous situations not specific to this issue prior to the AG's yes in the will not even specific to the issue at hand related to residential burglary but yes ma'am in the past in order to remedy previous incorrect applications of parole eligibility law in other ways the Department has picked up individuals off the street and brought them back into custody and that is something that the be quite honest I don't like you know is. You know I just don't and that is why I miss Wallace alluded to this over the last year and a half we have built out a extremely robust time computation and parole eligibility review process that in hence our previous efforts around those areas in order to mitigate the chance of this or an unrelated issue happening in the future I we have a duty to get it right. We got it wrong in this case. And we are going to learn from this and we're going to do everything in our power both related to this particular statute but globally as it pertains to calm caught time computation and leased eligibility to mitigate the risk of us or our successors sitting at another legislative table and having to explain why we had to do another fix of this scale because that that should not be who we are as a department in that will not be who we are as a department moving moving for it well and I'll just save save this as it relates to my question As it relates to one office. And you even just said we we can't keep doing this which precipitated the inquiry to the AG's office there was still a response in the case of this law where. Some folks were treated all right the laws apply differently in some cases prior to the AG's office and I understand that you were in a position and your office was in a position where you know you you were dealing with a situation where send sixteen you you understood that there may have been or that you were misinterpreting the law but it continued and I think that all of us have to be concerned about The the. The legal ramifications. That is our our all three hundred it's almost four hundred people in a position to sue individually given that you know the the defense attorneys the prosecutors and the defendants themselves were operating under what was written and in the spirit of the law promised so that's a concern and and that's that that being the case can we and I want to ask you because I know you don't have it today. but could you get to the committee and as well as myself because I'm not on J. P. R. The economics some data giving us an idea of what the economic impact is. Of for those sentences now being changed as a result because I understand that some of the cases might be an additional two years where as we see with the example given us was twenty years so it would I think it would help us understand what the remedy the legislative remedy could be if we have that information as well as from your legal team what. We might encounter legally as a result of the remedy that that was made by by your office I do have a quick question in the comment. That. You mentioned that one of the possible ways that that this could be addresses legislatively. If there was a legislative measure. to address this so that those who had Operated on the previous interpretation. who are now impacted if that could be reversed and we moved for with the law from this section let's say we have that kind of law. What would your position be as secretary would you have no comment would you be in support of a B. against that of the position of my office would be that of the incoming administration. So would be based on the law or what's just fair or right you would just it would be based on what. The politics of it will no ma'am the executive branch agencies as every member is aware of we're speaking on behalf of the bill whether it's in support and opposition or an official position of no position is done in concert with the administration and they would be improper for me to FOR tale of what the position of an incoming administration with me on this issue. So that the current administration direct in anyway your decision to to to to take the action you took at this point of the current administration has been brief throughout this process as has been as has been the board of correction which constitutionally has general oversight over our state corrections system and the board of corrections when this matter was formally reviewed at their July meeting xpress NO opposition to the actions we have taken to that point or to the actions we were proposing that we take with their approval from that point forward. Thank you. my comments would be this and this is for the benefit of my colleagues The gentleman who I came to know and became aware about the situation was an inmate who had a drug problem he did not piece in pine bluff right now but did not come from pine bluff and he got in trouble he made a decision based upon the information that was given to him by his attorney at the time to make a plea agreement. Based on the information that was given him and his attorney told me and she's told me this if you keep your head down and do what you're supposed to do stay out of trouble that you will be eligible for parole you can go home to your family. obviously being in prison he was no longer on trucks and he did exactly that I actually met him while he was on work release at a car wash working in the still working. And. What is and I met him before he went up for parole. I saw after he went up for parole and the reason I got involved in this is because he went home and was picked up the very next day he did everything he was supposed to do and he's one of those that's impacted by having to stay another year and a half maybe two. I think we have to number one be clear that this is not only an issue of. Perhaps erroneous application but also an issue around Legislative intent the bill that changed residential burglary back in twenty fifteen was a bill actually meant to address prison overcrowding. And I think also if we're going to look at a reasonable approach and look at actually remedying this we have to be mindful too of how premature. Action based upon a nonbinding legal opinion verses a court decision. Just months prior to a legislative session was not perhaps the most reasonable approach since now the state might be thrown into a situation where we have to defend ourselves in lawsuits and whether the case law office or not and and then just the impact to families. So while many of us may not. Feel of. He or consider the in some of the inmates for some of the crimes that they committed. We need to consider justice. And we need to consider what is fair and most importantly our system works because we have attorneys on both sides of these cases. approach. Their profession with a level of credibility that's necessary. Not only the defense attorneys but the prosecutors. And I don't know how much it helps them. Two. Interpret the law as a state no matter who's doing it as a state for seven years. And then. Change everything so that almost four hundred people are impacted one way or another Without consideration to cost without consideration to what that means for those attorneys and their ability to move forward and have their word means something when entering into these plea agreements thank you so much Mister chairman for the latitude I appreciate you very much. Thank you representative flowers Senator Hickey you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman of secretary Sullivan I appreciate your coming here I also appreciate your stance as a the way you handled the the question regarding legislation because you know there's and there's another group is affected here's the victims and possible future victims you know that what I understand the delicate situation. Just my simple question do you have and we picked up everyone that's been affected. No Sir okay and are we doing that or if you said that I apologize but also what what are what are we doing as it relates to this and how what how are you hi I'm going to go forward in July of fourteen when we brief the board or not our appliques tion of Our corrective actions to apply the law as it was intended at there were a hundred and one of vendors on girls supervision at that time and one of the action items that I presented to the board at that time was to authorize our community correction division to leave those individuals on supervision and not to pursue revocation of parole unless there were violations of their supervision. because there were there are there are some liberty issues there that weren't present in the other two situations that unfortunately happened. Of those one hundred and one that were on supervision as of July fourteenth eleven of those have been revoked since that time but they were not revoked because of There are parole eligibility date they were rolled because they were found by the parole board to have violated the conditions of their sin supervision so ninety remain on supervision as of Friday I understand I understand what you're saying in the again the delicate situation or in but are you still not applying that incorrectly with the law I mean because it appears to me that you applied the other aronie Asli you already said the Supreme Court is looked at it it appears like to me then as heart of situation you're in and you're still not complying with the law so the underlying issue that we've had to face with the what is the parole eligibility date for these offenders. Those offenders that were on supervision had their data just and they received their wall called into their or parole officers office and met with them and we're serve written notice that their date had been adjusted so we complied with the instructions of the court in agam are in Rogers and it sent in Morse by adjusting their dates the separate issue that we had to face and that we were unable to find a will remedy to address is the inherent liberty interest that those offenders enjoyed that situationally we're not enjoyed by those of the two. Thank you I appreciate that so. And I'm going off what representative Gazaway said I've I've not actually read it all up somewhat remember yes. So it's a hundred percent time served. Correct whatever they have to. So whenever they're on parole do you consider that time served yes Sir. And that's the way we've always apply that. In. In this specific situation yes there have been situations in the past where or for instance I can remember there was uh issue several years ago where the department was applying too much meritorious good time to inmates and by law meritorious good time is only supposed to reduce the sentence by half that clock kept ticking and we went well past and in certain situations so we picked several of those impacted individuals up off of supervision unfortunately Senator there was no clear way for us to in this kind of goes back to the issue of what does the law say in when our lawyer said down and review the elements specific to this situation. There was no case law on point either at the state or federal level that set out how we in this situation could return those one hundred and one offenders back to the Division of correction solely because. The department at the time of their release was incorrectly applying the law. I'll just stop there thank you Sir. Representive love you're recognized. Thank you chairman In looking just at this dinner Ferguson K. so as I'm trying to make sure that I have everything correct as I'm looking at the emails. In and then I looked it was against the exhibit we have where we have is. His ADC picture whatever in his parole date is twenty fifty August fourth twenty fifteen. Now based on what they were in finalized. Based on and this is from your staff member is that is that correct. Yes on the the guidance that they received would he would his parole date actually be twenty fifty. Yes Sir I mean I know I'm just saying based on the the advice to you is given versus what kinda actually had to be applied. It should have been however the advice that His counsel received along with the the DPA and that case was inconsistent with the law. That inconsistent application of the law. Led to the defense attorney and to the DPA being told that he would have been eligible after serving X. Y. and Z.. as well as set out in the Moore's case that ms Wallace briefed the committee on at the beginning of of our testimony. Even if the Department Heironeous Lee applies parole eligibility laws the department has a obligation to fix it's a Roni is application of the parole eligibility loss and in this case it pushed his day twenty years on average it's been about nine and a half years when you look at the offenders as well as a whole the amount of time that they were that they had their time adjusted so we are just this time we we gave him more time or we get a no no okay from the actual time yes I guess this is what I will do this what I'm asking Secretary grades what would the date be. By following what was stated in the emails. With his parole date the twenty fifth no it would have been twenty thirty but none all in Holland just justice is on so. If we're talking about his parole date being twenty fifty but he was advised by your staff to be twenty thirty how could we have corrected that action so of the. Date at hand at twenty fifty is what we refer to as is Max flat day is this date I thank you no offender impacted of by our correcting our application of the law received any more time on their sentences. No one received any more time on their sentences what changed is for two hundred and ninety of them. They were their time was adjusted so the entirety of their sentence would be served in the Division of correction but no one receive more time. Whatever time that was imposed by that court at sentencing. Is the amount of time that they're serving they just do not have the opportunity to go before the parole board and potentially be transferred to community supervision to serve out a portion of that time. Okay. And I guess this is my final question to. If his date would have been twenty thirty based on the N. vies meant that he got from your staff. Once his date twenty fifty. Because twenty fifty is the amount of time that is the entirety of his sentence twenty fifty is is discharge date twenty thirty was the date that was incorrectly applied to his case based on a application of the law that had been conveyed to staff at that time. Mister chair outcome I hear what you're saying I'm thoroughly confused because I don't know how the state can actually advise somebody on. I'm I'm very I'm I'm confused I'm not to be confused I'm just baffled I and and I just this one early on representative of love the advice that was given in this case. And in other cases I do not dispute that it happened. It happened because staff and the employee referenced here is not an attorney she's will experience she's a long tenured employee but she's not an attorney and she was providing the analysis that was provided to her but the analysis that was provided to our as as set on the front end is inconsistent with case law several decades of case law in fact some of which was in place at the time the analysis was given to staff the Secretary grains here's what I'm saying is that if we provided that analysis that we provided that assessment whatever we provided. In date entered into an agreement. Based on that. It It is no. I don't see where we can say all right well now we're gonna just back to twenty fifty the the I mean the Supreme Court has addressed this point in multiple cases and they have said continuously that when the department is made aware of an erroneous application of parole eligibility law when it is put on notice is the phrasing they use of the department has a duty to correct its previous aronie is application of the law my last thing is is you're staffing giving anymore Vice. Intelligence that does your staff give any any further advice yes then to what they give in these emails I would I would following I'm sorry with the bill you all gave advice I guess this person shall only. We have advice are they giving any further advice yes however one of the things we have changed I alluded to some of the efforts taken over the last year and I have related to calm time computation and release eligibility one of the things we have done a strength in the support of our record staff from our legal division we have physically we located a staff attorney to the same office as our centralized record staff because one of the things that it was a area of concern for me and and and for the record paying all our leadership our and our board is that we have over the years created a system where staff was operating in a vacuum and staff without legal training was operating within a vacuum issues of of. Interpretation of the law. Should be made by lawyers and that is something that we realize that we need to enhance so one thing we've done alluded to that hopefully will mitigate the risk of this happening again is call locating a staff attorney with all our of the record staff so there's more of a regular dialogue between our administrative staff and our legal division around issues relating to the interpretation of the law okay all right thank you Mr. The representative love okay I have a few more questions. Secretary graves can you tell us how many people exactly we're affected by this erroneous interpretation of the law and I'd like to categories of people number one the number of people who were released. Who had to be rounded up and brought back in. Then the number of people Senator Hickey alluded to who were let out and who are still on supervision. And then the number of people in custody who like Derek Ferguson fought their parole eligibility date was going to be twenty thirty. You know make decisions based on the idea based on the representations that were made to them by the department of corrections as to what they're parole eligibility date was going to be. Who's pro eligibility night is now much later. So take care Ferguson for instance means a pretty bad day when you wake up and realize that you thought you're going to be eligible to be out twenty thirty and now it happens to be twenty fifty. that's a pretty bad day so how many people fit into each one of those categories sure our first category is to. number that were released and so so quietly pick back up. Of the second category is as of July the fourteenth one hundred and one were on supervision having been released to supervision prior to our receipt of the opinion and formal action to correct our application of the law of that one hundred and one as of Friday ninety remained on supervision eleven having been revoked for violations of their parole and then the third category is two hundred and ninety I there due to a second or subsequent offense that happened in the State of Arkansas or have or a substantially similar second or subsequent offense that happen in a no there jurisdiction or tribal court. And those are folks here still incarcerated yes Sir okay so it looks like. we're talking about close to four hundred folks. Among all groups if you have got the right yeah three hundred and. Ninety three. so I think the concern that I have and you know let me be clear I think there are two perspectives here. number one the as Senator Hickey kind of alluded to. there's a real concern that these folks were supposed to be doing one hundred percent of their sentence that was the law. And there were a hundred and one people who should have been serving one hundred percent of their time set repeat violent offenders who were let out of prison because the department of corrections wasn't following the law yes Sir. That's a problem it is. The other perspective is. That. You have people like Derek Ferguson and. You know I'm sure hundreds of other folks who who may still be incarcerated. Who made a decision. At the time that they entered a plea. That they were going to enter that plea to a certain number of years. Relying upon the specific representations that were made to them by the department of corrections. And you know that would be like if the if the FAA said well we know the law is that you're supposed to file your tax return on April fifteenth. And if you don't follow it by then there's going to be a penalty but you know what you can follow it this year on August first and there won't be a penalty and so people wait until August first and they filed a tax return on August first. And then guess what the FAA says you all the penalty. Let me see the problem with that I mean if we did that. People would. We would lose their minds and that's it that's exactly what we've done to people who relied upon the specific representations that were made to them to their detriment they did it and Service Wallace through contract laws familiar with the concept of detrimental reliance these people relied to their detriment on specific representations made by the department of corrections and now they're told you know well I thought I was going to get out in in twenty twenty five but now I don't get out till twenty fifty well maybe I wouldn't have made that deal had I known at the time. That you all were going to change the rules on me after I made the deal. And so there's two perspectives here neither one of them are comforting and and look I'm not I'm not trying to be smart I have the utmost respect for you Sullivan and I think you know that and and everyone of the department of corrections miss Wallace. Mister Mister pain I think you guys know that but this is this is very concerning at and can you address those perspectives I don't. Disagree with either of those perspectives NO one in the leadership team disagrees with either of those perspectives I don't of based on the conversations that took place when this issue was discussed with the board of corrections I think I can safely say that the board does not disagree with those sentiments. But in a day the issue that tied the hands of the department as we were looking at how do we remedy our previous incorrect application of the law is that the Supreme Court has very clearly said. Department even if you do action of your own aronie Isley apply parole eligibility law you have a duty to fix it. I. And I'm as a matter of course. Believe that. The courts and the legislature when they speak that sets out the framework in which the executive branch should operate within that's what we have a system of checks and balances among coequal branches of government. We don't get to pick and choose what makes us feel good. We have what we choose is what is consistent with the law. And that is what we have done here. What I said in response to a representative Bryant I have said of internally within the department I've said to my board there are if the coequal branches of government want to remedy what we've done there are ways they can do that. Where we are today is that we were preserved we were put on notice to use the phrasing that the Supreme Court is used in their opinion of an erroneous application of parole eligibility law. And once we were put on notice then consistent with the guidance in decades of case law we have a duty to remedy that are only as application of all. And I appreciate that and and I know that you have and you're just trying to comply with the law at this point and I think it's incumbent upon us to figure out what the solution is going forward you know even though what you've done may be technically correct under the law you know there's still a question is it fair I mean it may be it may be the legal thing to do but is it the right thing to do you know with respect to these defendants also you know try to keep in mind the victims and you know the other the other perspective this is a very difficult situation so I certainly appreciate that I do have one more question who was the director of the department of corrections in twenty fifteen when these decisions were being made. Of when you go. And how long was she the director of the department of corrections of from January of fifteen through July of nineteen when she became secretary of corrections. And at that point did Director pain then Debbie direct pain began to became director of what is now the Division of correction okay at the end correct me if I'm wrong but Wendy Kelly was a lawyer was she not she is. I. And you guys have legal staff over there. attorneys on staff miss Wallace and others. Right we do. And so you know I I it it's hard for me to understand why. Why the department of corrections pursued a policy that was very clearly an incorrect interpretation the law that the head of the department of corrections at the time was an attorney you've got staff attorneys You know how do you arrive at such an incorrect interpretation the law was this a. Did you just not have enough beds in this was a way to not have to keep folks to me what was what was the issue I can't speak to that server I'd in twenty fifteen I was still at the parole board as their administrator I didn't leave the parole board until the spring of twenty sixteen. Okay thank you. A representative Scott you're recognized. Thank you. Okay thank you Mr chair I just have a few questions thank you Sullivan and miss Wallace and dexter for meeting with us this summer. About this issue it's been really bothering me since we met about it at I think the first thing that I want to say is Hi was a little bothered that the department of corrections then notify us that this kind of taking place because I was notified by by a family member that they thought that this was gonna impact so I didn't know anything that was going on and because this has impacted so many of our constituents I kind of feel like some kind of communication should a came to legislators on kind of what was going on and I do have a good relationship with the I can talk to at any point about things that are going on I was kind of blindsided when you know the mother reached out to me about this specific issue the other thing is the eleven inmates that. Have been picked back up is there any way that you can let the community know what those instances where and how much lead time each of those inmates are now going to do yes and I don't have that with me but I actually did have our state health pool for direct pain in on Friday what those violations of supervision worse so we have those on hand that we can find that request around okay. And my last question because my colleagues have have satellite today. For seven years we have been accurately interpreted the law and it has impacted four hundred possibly our Kansans families and inmates we can't just say that we're sorry. We can't just say that a mistake has been made. Like them this is a big issue. And the amount of flat time. I mean. I know that there just might not be up to you if that makes sense you have to interpret the law and I guess the Supreme Court ruling was twenty eleven that's how we're going off prior to. What made you get this opinion from Leslie on the twenty fourth is that correct or am I. Would it would help if one makes on case law that we reviewed related to that issue actually dates back to ranging from nineteen ninety eight through January February of this year okay. the last thing that I'm worried about is the morale and the safety of the correctional officers if we don't have any measures that these inmates are working towards the hostile environment that it creates to meet in the prison system as well and that's the issue that we haven't really discussed so is that something that you think could be a issue or am I just imagining. That as well there were I at this very table I think spoken one our concerns as a matter of policy with broad based application of a one hundred percent loss there are. Cases where public safety requires that individuals be removed from society for the duration of their natural life I'll never argue that point of my concern is the chief executive of this department has been and continues to be that we cannot separate application of one hundred percent laws from conversations about capacity I am Heartened by the fact that it appears that there is a increased understanding and acceptance that those two issues cannot be separated moving forward that if the that if we do take measures to increase sentences we also have to take measures to increase capacity of so long as we continue to have those conversations about increasing capacity that go along with increasing penalty we're able to maintain a system that is not just say for our inmates coming into our custody but as you correctly said is safe for the forty three hundred men and women that come to work every day within the Division of correction. Thank you. Senator garner you're recognized thank you Mr chairman each inmate who agree to the terms during their sentencing knew and understood that it was possible that even when they were eligible for beforehand they may have to serve the full length of their sentences in that correct yes parole was only discretionary for discretionary so when this came up in twenty thirty or older either way it was possible and likely in some scenarios they would have been having to serve a full term anyway is that correct it is possible possible that the pro ward would have denied their release yes Sir okay so. Second for my question is it seems like to me that you openly and. Repeatedly said you all made in major mistake once initially happened. But now you're in a position of either following the law as you see that we set out or not and if you do not follow the law seems to be is for spring court cases are saying I read into about from your analysis is that if the legislature passes local and you find out that is incorrect you're obligated under Neath the Supreme Court decisions and in my opinion fairness VOL at law as much as possible as I get analysis of what your find yourself in position today yes Sir. Am I oversimplifying this. That if this legislative body wanted to fix this we could the next general session and change the law that would allow for this. Injustice or this mistake to be corrected seems like there could be an easy legislative approach in a couple months from these legislators come back to change the law to make it fair not fair would that be a good look good assessment or is there something I'm missing and that there's this is this issue could be addressed lead legislatively yes Sir that seems like an easy answer thank you. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. Thank you for being here. There's there's this is a no win situation for everybody involved it really is but I want to ask about the victims when these people were released and they didn't really qualify for the parole were the victims notified I'm assuming they were notified that they had been released if there if there were victims registered in our system for notification notification would have gone out yes ma'am okay and of those victims do you have any idea how many of those reached out with concern No member we can find that out I'd appreciate it thank you. Representative flowers you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. In the last few minutes Senator graves you. Had mentioned that the in response to I can't remember who's question. That staff who were not attorneys we're giving advice but you also said that they were incorrectly advised and I believe that the chairman. Talked about the the the level of legal expertise at the department so I just I wanted to clarify. That those who were responding to emails and implementing the law as it's been implemented in the Department. Of. They were advised as to how the department was operating in and interpreting the law correct yes and also the on the front end the actions that led up to this were based on a incorrect application of the law of where we have strengthened our controls around this issue is that instead of what unfortunately. This happened an opinion is given and then the issue was not raised or the issue is not analyzed again for peered of years or ever. So the impact is compounded we have a revolving system where we're we're testing and reviewing cases both on the front end and on the back in on a monthly basis to mitigate the risk of this happening again because One individual who looked at something and with their background Comes up to it comes with one opinion but you have other individuals who have different backgrounds one of the benefit of our operational realignment has been that you know we are sentencing experts are at the table with our operational folks with the litigation folks and as as you will know legal expertise is really limited to that area of expertise I'm not gonna if I got a text issue I'm not going to go to a contract attorney. and issues related to sentencing law being able to bring bills sentencing experts into the department has been a huge win for us because they've been able to clarify things at a executive level for myself or division directors but also allow us to provide more robust training to our administrative staff day today are entering time also create a mechanism as I stated we're reviewing on a monthly case monthly basis issues related to time computation and released eligibility to mitigate the risk of issues like this happening again because they should not happen to representative Gazaway is analysis a short time ago you should not have happened thank you I appreciate that how how much earlier I asked and I didn't get I should have asked how long it would take I appreciate that you'll provide us with more detailed information about the impacted inmate. how long will it take for you to provide us with the information that you're able to clean regarding state liability as well as economic impact so the issue of financial impact We will have our data team go in an update the average length of stay in inclusive of those on super supervision should they be revoked and then apply our of computation cost per day that does something no we should be able to turn around I would think within a week's time issues related to liability I think would be best directed to the Attorney General as they as that office would be the one that would be trying in the. In the Case on our behalf in court we're not the ones who would ultimately make that decision as to what is the risk of liability that would be a decision made by the general and his or her staff since they're not here today would you please reach out to your whoever is assigned to your department so that they can either connect with the Mister chair or the bureau directly or through you sure we will we will refer that question to them thank you so much one final thing. if. I think that. We heard the simplicity of this and that. There is an opportunity for us to do something and that's I think why it's important for us to gather as much data as possible Earlier though we talked about Consistency. And I'm saying this is not as a dating at all but more as a concern about communication and preventing in the future. Of us not working together to resolve these issues in a way that that is reasonable and provides remedy that will not detrimentally affect the state or families or victims in these and other cases and so we heard about in your presentation the twenty eleven a Supreme Court decision and then you shared with us that around twenty sixteen there was an expressed departmental concerns and in between then and recently you know you have these one off situations where you had to address concerns as they as they happened and and then after seven years You know there was this move to get a an opinion from the AG wind you had already been aware that there was a misinterpretation back in twenty sixteen so this occurred over the course of you know to the span of two directors or secretaries And then just short of a legislative session when that is one of the remedies where we could have addressed this without having to deal with the possibility of state liability I guess. I'm wondering can there or has there been any discussion about what the stream of conversation can and should be in these kinds of cases so that we can avoid you know being here again in another scenario so sort of the same way you're addressing controls internally can or do you think there should be some method of communication especially where there is a possibility of legislative remedy and we see that all the time we see that we get calls from agency saying Hey we have a housekeeping issue or we need the law change to address this so we can avoid a lawsuit I mean we've I've been doing this for almost eight years and there's not been a session where we don't have those kinds of laws from numerous agencies so I'm wondering what failed here that that didn't happen in this case and and for whatever reason can we put some controls in place so that in the future than happen again thank you. So taking that imparts a. If there is no. Basis for the department. To choose when it follows the law as it existed at that time and as I have said continuously through a testimony this morning the issue at hand is due to a incorrect and inconsistent application of the law. And as has been well established by the state Supreme Court when once the department is put on notice of an erroneous application it has a duty to fix it. And that is what we've done. I think it would have been improper for us to continue to be wrong once we were effectively put on notice that yes your assumption is correct you were all in terms of Legislative communication one of the things that I have. Prided myself worn and prided this department on during my now almost two and a half years as secretary of corrections is we have been Very intentional about maintaining open lines of communication with legislative leaders legislative members I think they're it if there is a legislator who has reached out to the department over the last two and a half years and not gotten a response with this the response they wanted or not I'd like to know about it because I need to address that but what we do make it a priority to work with legislators in both chambers in all parties because as I have. Continuously told our leadership and our staff all one hundred and thirty five members matter no matter how they will all where they from what matters is they represent Arkansas and that is who we serve. so regarding this issue I think it is it is. Not it shouldn't be question you know did we reach out I think it's when because I think every member who has ever reached out to me or to a member of our leadership with questions about this has gotten their questions answered whether it was in person meetings as members that indicated that I've had with them over the past few months whether it's telephone conversations whether it's emails whether it's text messages I can remember one conversation where I was walk walking into a restaurant and had a conversation shin about this issue before having dinner one night so we have been opened we have been transparent both with our board with the administration internally with our offender populations direct pain to his credit provided written notice of this to the inmate population once we analyzed it and determine what the scope of impact would be to his credit direct director Brad shall provide it. With notice to impacted offenders on community soup supervision us as to what the impact of this would be and what they are subjected to should they be returned back to incarceration this is a situation that hopefully will not happen again. we're doing everything we can reasonably identify internally to mitigate the risk of this happening again and we have heard and will continue to hear and take note of the feedback from this branch as to what we need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again because we have spent a lot of time tall king about the impact on these four hundred dollars so offenders and their families but what we have not discussed and what is as important to me is the impact this has on the trust in the department of corrections. And the girl and that's that's right that's right let me say this that's why I asked that question and I think. I wanted to be clear that I was not in any way suggesting that you and your team are not responsive I think I think too early on we had a lengthy meeting back here one day and you guys provided us with all the information and answered all our questions. That's not an issue I'm I'm suggesting that you know it's it's been stated that this is almost an impossible situation there are victims in this and they're always victims in this in our whole system there's always a victim whether it's a victim of violent crime property or what have you in any situation we have a parole system there's always a victim in that situation I think what we're talking about here are our issues around the word and the bond of the agency as it relates to the attorneys as well as the defendant's slash inmates and then I'm speaking specifically to how preventive measures could have been taken if we work on these issues together because at no time that I am aware of were legislators brought into the fold in a conversation about remedy or even Legislative intent on or even being made aware Hey this is about to happen you know you may get some phone calls but even aside from that. There we have worked together in the past when it comes to legislative remedy on issues. And it's not in the end so this doesn't have anything either to do with the expectation to continue you know misapplied the law it happened for seven years. It happened for seven years so I'm not suggesting Hey let's continue to skirt if we know that it's wrong but if there is a misinterpretation which I think many of us were not aware of that there was even a misinterpretation when it became you all became aware of it and started talking about it back in twenty sixteen I'm saying at some point there could have and should have been conversations with legislators to help fix the problem in a way that we can create more problems with families and and and lawyers and defendants or inmates talking about saying foul play I just I think that you know that there was an opportunity for us to help the department so that there wasn't a question on anyone's part. That's all I'm saying and I and I and we can talk off line I just think that there can and should be a better flow of communication on issues like this. On the front end so we can work together to fix it that's all thank you. The representative flowers with the last question I've got representative Springer we've got a lot of stuff on the agenda we're going to have to. Keep this train movements so represent Springer you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair yes I've been patiently waiting I wanted to make sure that the record is clear with respect to my position on this issue I have a very grave concerns about what is transpired over the past seven years I think I've alluded to that by indicating that there is some light in my opinion there is liability on the part of the state as to what has transpired so I want the record to reflect that so there won't be any miss under standing about my position so you all do have some things that definitely need to be addressed and with that said list a chair a we're going to hear from of. The other two individuals that are listed on the program here today from the public defender's office and then Mr Slade your term yes all right thank you. All right secretary paying miss Wallace Mr Secretary graves Mr Pang miss Wallace we appreciate you guys thank you for your testimony. And at this time will have Mr perish and. David Slade here. Okay he had to leave and be until all right. Thank you Mr chairman Greg perish with the Arkansas public defender commission. if if I may Mister chairman I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can you're recognized thank you Sir. Let me first say. The the work of miss Maloney and that records department the Arkansas department corrections is unbelievable. Of from the standpoint of public defenders myself included. Every so often we have a very difficult situation with the client where. The amount of time before parole eligibility becomes an issue. And for your own is the advice that client then we're looking at an ineffective assistance of counsel claim at some later point commonly referred to as a rule thirty seven. in our in our statutes we have a real good in Arkansas that we follow depending upon. The level of the offense committed. Will depend upon whether the so your first time offender you will serve a third minus good time half minus good time I think we still have a couple of said we wish to have a lot of seventy percent crimes we have one eighty percent crime and then you're looking at a hundred percent crime. And obviously one of the first questions are client asks us is when will I be eligible for parole. To some the best comment answer we can give is this is the level of your fence the law says you should serve for instance level six one third minus good time but you have to earn your good time that's up to you. So. Of. There is a real we have to try to step on that as much as we can. Well I'm not here to complain about the train to law to thousand fifteen it is what it is and we abide by and with our clients but we have to advise them. So I became involved in this issue a couple of years ago when we had a client down and national she had a prior felony conviction for burglary in two thousand and twelve obviously the common question was. Is this a one hundred percent crime. Or as a level seven is this one half minus good time before she is eligible for parole. And so not only myself and not I took it upon myself I did not represent her but I had many communications with her. Two writes the or email the records department at eighty city and say can you tell me the application of how this will be entered into the system for served time on her for this if she pleads guilty again to residential burglary. I provided the chair a copy of the email that I received back indicating of one half minus good time. Her attorney likewise emailed the attorney for the department of corrections that is in the email. The attorney for the department of corrections forwarded that to Mr Maroney for response. And likewise received the same answer I did and the department of corrections had this inmates for criminal history from portion served time before. That's the problem for us because when she was taken into the ADC. they're entered into the system and they get a time computation card. They all get one. And. Time computation card indicates that she took a twenty year sentence as a non official offender on residential burglary that is the Max. It's a B. felony so it's five to twenty. Two hundred and forty months or national time computation card indicated that her P. E.. Prologues bility T. E. transfer eligibility date would occur after serving one half of her sentence. And we know that if she earned her credit she wants to be a Class one that amount could be reduced by another half of that half for in essence one fourth. So she is looking at. She mines or self serving five years on the twenty year sentence that's what I would advise for that's what I did about. She is the initial time computation card in the in. Earlier this year she has the ability to call me all in tears because she's now got a new time computation card. The sales. And this is what we're really talking about is she cannot earn good time credit against that twenty year sentence that's the bottom line we're talking about their. So it's now day for day. So she went for an additional her time computation now indicates she's only scheduled to be released after serving the full twenty year sentence. And that's the only case I've gotten involved in although we have had many meetings in the criminal defense bar national with prosecutors. I don't believe that anyone in when she entered her plea down there and I have the sentencing order. No one no one expected she would be twenty years No of because there's no reason for to play to the Max. Center for trial was larger decide. and that's the issue someone asked earlier the calls to the state. And the Mr Slater I've only met during these senses came up personally I do not know and heavily for a court appearance he does have a family couple family members here from someone the says impacted. The question was earlier the calls to the state and I can just referred to his notes. And he cites the Arkansas advisory committee to the U. S. commission on civil rights. From two thousand twenty indicates the cost to house an inmate for one year twenty four thousand dollars. I'm presuming that's correct I don't know I haven't read it. But if that's the case then when we're talking about miss Davis's case fifteen times twenty four thousand dollars because that's the amount of time this now on her per her release card her name is Christina Davis. Litigation lies the question come about. I think there are three pending actions right now. To try to correct sentences. I do know that there is a lot of talk about expected to come as a full class action on this. There are. Numerous There are several that Mr sleigh would tell you about United States Supreme Court decisions on this issue as well. So. With that said again let's challenge law of what we now do with anybody that we have. Who is looking at a violent offense. It puts us in a very awkward position because now we're all notice as of April of this year so we have to tell everybody just going to concerts on percent. ideally what would happen is I'd like to see happen is if the department has the discretion to leave these ninety people out. Then if we could convince the department or legislation that just the people that this impacted. The player before the AG's opinion. They did not get what they bargained for anybody after that the attorney should be telling him to another person. And so for a plan they pled getting under president. My only concern or the people before the AG's opinion. I'll be glad to take any questions. Mr piercing no questions appreciate your testimony today I do we have anyone else I know the reference there were some individuals here who were affected is there anyone else or. I want to give testimony or share your experience that was pretty specifically affected by this Sir welcome to come forward thank you Mr. Thank you. Mr chairman Sir Sir if you would yes state your name for the committee and who you're here representing or if you're here on behalf of someone and then you'll be recognized to present remarks thank you my name is Max Hatfield I'm here representing Jeffrey David wood. Inmate number one four zero one four six. Of I'd like to thank the committee for that me talk Mr Bryant for inviting me I like to give thanks to god for answered prayers for this the impact of some of you don't even realize I understand everybody situation. I have a whole thing presented ready to go and apply gonna scratch mostly because most of you answered or ask questions of where we're at I did send that email out when I found this out my wife called me I'm I'm a teacher at so does your high school I've been teaching for twenty seven years. Of. I see my kids make a lot of bad mistakes and you know we we we take care we do what we gotta do but a wife because this summer school is she looks at my son's T. E. date every day is date was to July twenty twenty three she looks every day her heart is broken. You know David is no angel. Most of his stuff is a lot of the in the penitentiary is drugs when using drugs he became Superman would still that's what he did these pains price and I'm all for him pay this price. His release date was July of twenty twenty three. We get phone calls and no. Prior let us know re thank T. dates June of twenty forty two. I know I look young but I'll be eighty four years old on that date. We we will never see it. I said I sent emails to every legislator every congressman every senator everybody we have us an email. I have one for Mister Bryant. Senate he's an agreement has somebody in the same situation we exchanged messages I got one from miss English. And she said I'm sure that this does not make you happy but it is the law Richey for the message from Mr graves. Say what he said today that I did make a mistake we made a mistake. but you know how we're duty bound to hold in most amount of time set out in law. A last minute talks my son has been in an out of prison for a while he knows the game. You make a plea bargain your budget is guilty or time to go home. That's all part of it if he did like to your bargain he would I'm not guilty by time fight and take your trial take your chances. But to be told that this is what's going to happen. In office and one day a week ago you know. You have to service to twenty years buddy sorry about that hated we we we we made a mistake. That's that's hard to swallow. You know send the comments from Mr Solomon his group and I understand the pressure they are under thank you for going through. Obligation. I heard use that word several times were obligated to hold to the law. What about the obligation that these lawyers prosecuting attorneys defense attorneys and judges signed off on paperwork saying this is what you're going to get what about that obligation. What happens with that this sorry I hate it for you. Application the law heard that when light we got to the application. Senate to like to me that they also pick and choose who they wanted the ninety that you referenced or still why are they still out. We're gonna hold two hundred something million we picked up to. Why would I picked up the other night. A show like we're saying okay we'll meet working let's all go but y'all we're gonna pick it up and we all got a state. It doesn't seem fair to me. Mr chairman your analogy of the tax thing is. Spot on is this like I go by car I pay five thousand dollars for the active back next month because now it is seven ten value of the five thousand more dollars spent. It's not fair. I'm not asking. For David. To get any leniency on what he did he did what he did he was sentenced this time that's all we're asking is that he do the time that he was given. But the add twenty more years. On him. As something that was a mistake. We didn't purpose right. No communication with legislator that's just I'm undecided we please determined right. I agree with the last two minutes you know from may twenty fourth twenty twenty two that's where to start. And the rest of the people that made deals and do whatever they did should be able to put that is what should happen. It just breaks my heart not only for my son stepson but for others to. I don't everyone forget the victims that whatever you didn't whoever he did it to that's why he's where he's at as paying the price for. But that's part of it. But he did not sign on for what he had been sold now for them just to change the date out of nowhere it's just crazy. A again I don't understand how ninety is still free and two hundred summer still incarcerated that doesn't make sense to me. I apologize for rambling like I said I have all the stuff written out everything but after listing the different people I think I think everybody's on the same vote that this was a mistake it needs to be fixed it's not fair. You know whether they're prisoners or whether they're walking down the street down here people are people and it's not fair to do people that way. You know it's like you come to work and going well we told you will pay fifty thousand dollars a year but when we decided thirty thousand probably a little bit better. You know how long you stay at that job you know unfortunately my step son does not have a choice. Is there. Right now he's here to twenty forty two so I'm asking committee police have legislation look at this and rectify what for Mr Solomon's words I will read this. This is for the food to miss English. Forty basis from Solomon graves center attached to the refresh I referenced opinions are Division of crashes in the process of adjusting senses of impacted inmates to only that should have been imposed at the time of intake. This is an unfortunate situation for many inmates their families however we are duty bound heard that several times a day duty bound to hold inmates for the amount of time so that law this situation that means correcting approves the incorrect application of law dating back to twenty fifteen twenty sixty seven years. Yes still we have ninety. But this does not apply to why those ninety. That does not make sense to me. I appreciate your time and I thank you very much for let me talk. Of you know social for me because it affects my. Mistrust at seven eleven memo I've been married for twenty nine years C.. Is devastated one time she's looking at you know. Twenty more years when we were looking for him getting out in July of twenty three we are planned things we've already got a car bought for we are have things set up for me to go. He reset so I beg of the committee that you take care of this and rectify what is currently. We made a mistake and usually when you make mistakes disposed to fix. And not just say well I'm sorry I'm sorry no sorry there's always count for much again I thank you for that may have this time I appreciate the time and I hope that. You know I'll be able to be kept in touch of what's going on what's happening in the situation because I made phone call after phone call could get no answers I do appreciate appreciate miss English of Mister Bryant of several others at the member email me back with for thirteen of all our. Legislators and senators but I hope that we can fix this problem thank you very much. Thank you ms Hatfield per share your testimony. There anyone else in the audience who came to speak on this issue today. All right seeing none Williams okay seeing none we're gonna move on to the next item on the agenda which is the voca grants and I will say before we move on. it looks like it's about noon. I'm happy to pull the committee to see if they want to break for lunch if we want to charge right through. If I got a strong opinions about them. Keep going keep going. I'm seeing a lot of head nods on keep going so we're just gonna charge right on through. With that being said looking at the agenda looks like. The first witnesses that we have on this issue our Monty Ballard. Stallard Year. Michelle Klein and what I'd like to do is have some of your come up at the same time so money Ballard Michelle Klein to ring to Edmiston I believe is on zoom. All right if you would all come forward please. Is a. Debbie stay here. Okay Doris Smith. Okay. That's good rich. Pennie burns. Okay thank you. This. Is there representative here from casa. All right thank you. You can come forward to if you like. Okay the bridge of you would start to my right of each of you would state your name who you're here representing and that after we do that you'll be recognized presenter testimony. Michelle Klein Arkansas coalition against sexual assault associate director. Money Ballard. Arkansas coalition against sexual assault it executive director. Tracy poppy course costs of north Arkansas executive director. We have one buzzer miss miss Edmiston can you hear us. All right thank you very much so according to the agenda we're here to discuss specifically. The voca grants which are victims of crime act grant which is money that comes from the federal government to the state that's administered by the department of finance administration to various groups who serve victims of crime all across the state and that takes the form of a several different organizations whether that's rape crisis centers or the sexual assault center Kosta I think or prosecutors offices with a victim witness coordinators violence against women shelters and all other sorts of organizations across the state received voca funding to provide services for victims that funding is administered by the department of finance administration has been brought to my attention that specifically a cop or a constituent of mine contacted me. Who works for one of those organizations who talked about the drastic decrease in finding that his organization was going to receive in this year and maybe in some coming years I think it's important for the committee to know before we get started that this funding the voca funding has decreased dramatically all across the country this isn't just an Arkansas problem and you I try to do a little research into why is has there been this decrease in funding and from what I can understand it simply because there's not as much binding fee money that's being paid into the fund and so they've had to cut Now with that being said. there's there's been some issue between Department finance administration whose administering that money and these organizations that provide direct services on the amount of funding that they get and also if there was a plan by the department to make application for American rescue plan money or do anything to help bridge the gap in the decrease in funding that's occurred since the money has kind of dried up that comes from the federal government and so that's part of what we want to explore today. I know that there are some other issues I think with regard to DFA following the law and working with the advisory group that by law it's supposed to make recommendations to the department about these grant awards and whether that's being whether that law is being followed and so I expect that we'll discuss that and other specific issues regarding the family violence prevention services activist saw and a rare American rescue plan money that's been received specifically for that program and so we want to explore that as well. along with some other issues and so I hope that kind of sets the the framework that were operating from and so these are all from my constituents who reached out to me that was the first person who reached out to me about this issue but I've also heard from these other organizations are present here today who have also been affected by this decrease in funding. And so they're here to present their testimony I should add one more thing that recently and I don't have the exact date Congress passed what they call the voca fix act which is going to put additional money back into the fund to to fund these services basically as they've been funded historically but that doesn't take effect at least for another year or two and so there's this intervening period of time which we're in now where these direct service providers have had their budgets cut dramatically and so they're here to talk about that in the process and then we wanna hear from D. F. and nine as far as what they've done in regard to ensuring that these victim services continue without interruption or read a relatively interrupted so as Ballard you're recognized. Thank you representative Gazaway I feel it would be a good idea if we passed both good rich to come join us and she is the director of the coalition against domestic violence germs Goodrich. I think to start I would just like to explain who we are I'm the director of the Arkansas coalition against sexual assault it's a statewide coalition of individuals and organizations working together to eliminate sexual violence and to advocate for sexual assault victims their rights and their services. I because it provides cohesion vision and resources to members while working to change public attitudes and beliefs surrounding sexual violence issues a concept offers professional training and technical assistance to all victims service agencies that provide assistance or respond to victims of sexual violence and human trafficking this would you like to. Hi my name is Beth courage in the executive director for the Arkansas coalition against domestic violence in a similar vein Tollette the coalition against sexual assault does we do the same work for folks who are experiencing domestic violence we have thirty member domestic violence shelters that serve all seventy five counties in Arkansas so we serve very similar role with the domestic violence programs we advocate for those programs and we help make sure that they have what they need to provide everyone in Arkansas who's experiencing domestic violence with everything they need to be safe. So to explain a little bit about how coalitions our funded we basically are funded through the violence against women act there's a set aside of funds from that money that go to all of the states and territories to allow them to have domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions in their state it's very important that this happens at the top that we are able to represent our members to stand in the gap for our members who of are affected by decisions that are made in other agencies and to advocate for our membership I believe best Best role is the same in that it's our responsibility and that was given to us and directed up to be funded through the violence against women act I did send to a document that kind of explains all of that Beth would you like to give the description of what the voca funds are for and what they do sure the voca funds are finding that is taken from federal fines and fees for people who commit crimes this money is set aside to fund emergency service programs and other programs to help victims of crime throughout the country every single state has local funds that come down from the federal government every state is required to have a state administrator who financially administrates administers those funds as well as collaborate with their domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions the reason this collaboration pieces essential is because the administration of these funds is very specific to how emergency services are offered so you have a fiduciary agent with ministers the money and then you have direct service representation and our state has a advisory board made up of representation from all the folks most of the folks who receive these funds folks from the prosecutor coordinator's office domestic violence sexual assault disability rights children services we are all present on that board to help influence the way that money is administered the way that money is distributed it's a complicated process but with everyone working together the money gets distributed in a way that's financially responsible as well as meets the actual needs of the programs as you're probably well aware of most victims service agencies don't have enough money to operate on their own without these reporting grants that come from the government so that connective piece of collaboration is really important to keep the doors open some people never have to worry about. At this and tell a friend or family member is the victim of crime and so the world that we have as the advisory body to work with the DNA administrators is really very important and is critical to making sure that money is distributed in a financially responsible way that actually meets the needs of survivors invoke up we're talking specifically there are three four there are four types of funding that comes to our state if any broker which is victims of crime act as the one that has had the largest cuts recently there's also been so which is family violence prevention money there's been some additional that some money that has come through as well that I think will be talked about later their sexual assault services and prevention money in their stop committee I can't remember the acronym for stop. It's also part of all of the violence against women act. Services training officers and prosecution thank you so all of these funds work together to find the people that we talked about in this meeting right they all come through DFA some of them have specific roles that are different generically speaking their administered under the same set of rules there are state DFA so we're going to hear you have in your hand out what those findings are that you can look at. Right. the the other funding will be talking about today will be the family violence prevention services act. American rescue act funding this is a special service set aside that came from the federal government through the American rescue plan there are charts that are available in your handout that show the amount of money that came to the state the for domestic violence we sure received a little bit over one million dollars and for sexual assault re read received about one million seven hundred and fifty thousand this is special money it has special of rules that apply to it the. Recipients of this money and spend it all at once they can spend a little at a time it must all be spent by September thirtieth of twenty twenty five. there has been some confusion about this money because it was not the DV money was not released until a few weeks ago and the sexual assault money we just received a grant award and were given seven hundred and fifty thousand of those dollars from the Social salt Fund to of so grant to our membership organizations and so they're still money we don't know where it is there's another one million dollars somewhere in this money was was set out and set aside for domestic violence in for sexual assault because the voter cut the vocal Fund was not meeting the needs of the rape crisis centers and shelters in the state of Arkansas it's it's an emergency fund with some of the drastic cuts that our organizations experience not only last year but again this. This year this money is really important because it can be used to keep people employed a lot of these organizations had to let people go and what we have seen From the past couple of years of forced sexual violence is basically a sixty six percent increase in victims seeking out these services through the right crisis centers Beth I'm not sure what your number solar. Numbers here the first year the voca cut resulted in about forty percent across the board issues a continuation group year and some programs received as much as an additional thirty percent cut so you're looking at a seventy percent reduction in funding over the last two years and that very slightly in the second year right. DO you want about the law. And two seconds let me stop you before you or really go any further. Because I want to try to. it kind of narrow the focus here because we can talk all day about lots of the stuff that we need to kind of get down to. What what we're here to focus on so voca funding. my understanding is is that there was a letter sent from DFA. That explained that there was going to be a decrease in the amount of funding that all these Boca recipients get essentially across the board is that right. You have to turn your Mike on someone that is correct okay when did that happen. Last year there was a finding the great your begins October one goes to September thirtieth okay last year they got forty percent letter all right and so there should be a letter in the. should be a copy of that letter in the exhibits that are part of everyone's hand out. Let's see here. He looked. You may be looking for a letter that was sent out this year that gave more rules about how the funding could be spent and that was for additional cuts to that funding. Okay all right I'm struggling to find it but it's called funding plan. I see a letter from the department of finance administration dated twenty eighteen. That's not it. Early so the information I have but so there is a there's a letter that was sent out this year from department of finance administration is that correct that is correct a sensually what does that letter say this letter talks about additional rules that are going to be promulgated to cut the funds an additional thirty five percent so they talk about ways that they're going to limit the spending of the money from this I'm grantees that includes removing all executive directors an administrative staff from some grant budgets by removing those positions they would only find positions that provide direct services they're gonna train traveling training hourly rates to actual rates paid insurance rates and placeholder line items from budgets from sub grantees these are all additional roles that are not federal rules that come with this money these are additional roles placed IDF in a in the distribution of this money the reason that this is problematic if you're wondering why some of this might be problematic in smaller victim service programs it is not uncommon for an executive director to be providing direct services to victims for example if you're in a small emergency shelter you may have a staff of only five or seven people five six seven people your required as a route as a requirement of these funds to be open twenty four hours a day seven days a week and providing services what happens is that if someone is sick for shift and executive director has to come in and cover it sometimes there's a not not enough local support to find a whole separate staff person so the executive director themselves is a shift in direct service provision this is allowable invoke a finding federally the reason that happens here is because there's simply not enough money in victim still have to be served imposing this kind of rule on top of that is damaging to those programs and in fact can cause the risk of some of them having to close and so we have received at. The domestic violence coalition quite a few complaints about this additionally traditionally speaking this has been allowable in the funding that is come from the FNA so some programs are allowed to do it at a higher level some programs are not allowed to do it all in the site this document but the rule is not consistent for everyone in the rule changes we understand that there is less money no one is unclear about the fact that there is less money but when you make an agreement with the some grantee we're going to give you this amount of money it makes sense to me as someone who's run a shelter for that the folks in charge of that shelter their board and leadership would determine internally where that money would go according to the project that they wrote. Right and so can you give us some kind of idea I mean it looks like I do I do have the letter that there were cuts to funding cuts to sub grant organizations by thirty five percent in the last funding cycle so historically what has funding look like to your organization's compared to what it looks like now to give us a an example historically if you're go if you're to go three years ago from this point in time most of the programs that are funded had seventy percent more funding than they do today so part of the reason is that as long term it wasn't that high but there was a collection of funds at TF man I've I'm to work if you have any so I don't know how that happened but that a lot of funds they had to distribute because they had not distributed them over the years and if you don't spend them down they have to be sent back to the federal government okay this permit so from a dollar amount standpoint what does that look like. three years ago our state it was three four years ago our state received around thirty three million dollars for foca it has decreased substantially over the last few years because of the problems with collecting fees and fines at the federal level and that's what the focus fix was legislated for and it was It is working as of yesterday there was over a billion dollars in that fine now that's been collected they're saying that it could take two to three years for the funds to get back to the level that we could see those funds replenished for all the states and territories the current level is between nine and thirteen million from thirty million. Before so the server all the programs. That are funded through voca. Three years ago there was thirty million dollars from the federal government to fund those programs today there's nine million dollars to fund those program that's correct okay so there had to be cuts to all of these sub grantee organizations there was no choice that's correct all right. And it looks like for for twenty twenty three twenty twenty to twenty twenty three they're talking about a thirty five percent cut is that additional. Cut. It's additional from last year the nine million is current okay I said so it's gone down from the thirty million over three years to the nine million that's correct okay. So. So understanding that DFA has impose these additional rules that's correct and one of those rules for instance is that you're. Can't find an executive director position and and part of what they say about that the way I understand it is that that's because executive director positions may. May kind of guide the organization that may develop broad policy about how the organization should operate they may said for example they may set up in an office on the top floor of a building and not really do anything but but what I hear you say you tell me if I'm wrong the reality in Arkansas is that's not how an executive director position works the executive director positions in the vast majority of these organizations provides direct services to victims is involved in the day to day operations of the facilities they meet with the victims that come into the Centers and they do a host of other things that are not forbidden by the voca guidelines is that correct that's correct all right can you elaborate on that and all. And it's like I said a minute ago you know they're providing crisis services they're providing a shift there covering a shift at the agency they're answering the hotline they're the only advocate present during that running so they're doing crisis counseling safety planning transportation I'm all sorts of things like that directly in front of the terms they're doing direct services when there is no one else on site who is qualified to do that work so part of their shift might be doing administrative things like filling out a report but they're actually on site to be the only person working with victims at that time that's how it works and domestic violence shelters right so in right crisis centers you have generally the same set up it's that they're not a twenty four seven in office service they have off they have advocates that are on call during the night you still some of the paid staff is back up phone call so many times I know of executive directors that are called in to go to the hospital with the victim who is in need of a rape kit you also I also know programs are rape crisis programs have been reduced so much and lost so many advocates due to the cuts many of the directors are performing all the duties of a of an advocate and then coming in on weekends and trying to catch up on the administrative duties because they're so over run with the sixty six percent increase in victims coming for services that they can't do the administrative work during their regular hours they're working you know eight to five every day of the week and they're inundated with people that need services and direction to resources advocacy for court cases and they they can't. Get all of their work done that they need to do ministry to place so it's it's been very hard many of our directors have sleepless nights they're up all night to go to work the next day for their day job because they've been on call the night before. So you know those are some of the problems that we see with this rule you actually have those directors doing direct services that they're not allowed to be paid for that time. Six okay and so there is some concern and I I just and I apologize the committee but I'm trying to direct this so we can get down to the important issues and move this along. so there is some concern about this recommendation is come from D. F. and a that you should essentially eliminate the executive director positions is that correct. That's correct because because primarily the executive director is the one who is running the organization is the. is the lead person who's is there at the facilities or or providing services that's not uncommon at all for the executor rector to be doing that and if you eliminate the executive director you essentially eliminated the organization with that be fair to say yes okay and so that's not really an option if a lot of these organizations want to continue to go forward is that fair that's fair and so. The question is if you were at thirty million. And there may be an argument that you didn't that we didn't need thirty million to thirty million was too much let's just assume that that's true. At nine million is not nearly enough which is where we are today so the question is what are you aware of that department of finance administration has done to help bridge the gap between the nine million where you are and whatever figure it is where you need to be to continue to operate relatively uninterrupted what have they done that you're aware of. I'm not specifically aware of anything that are local D. F. and a has done I do know that there were additional federal dollars that came down that we talked about earlier we as an advisory board asked if any to potentially apply for some of the our vote relief funding to help bridge that gap because we know that other states are doing that as well to cope with the same loss we have not been given any information about whether or not an application was filed we were told that they were going to and we compiled information and sent it to them to make that process easier we do not know about that at all at this time okay nope that's problematic for a couple reasons number one. Bath but you are the chair woman. Of an advisory committee that is very important in this process is that correct that is correct okay. What advisory committee is that is the advisory body to the victim justice and assistance grants that come to the department of finance administration okay and so for the committee members if you look in your packet. The exhibit looks like agenda item D. eight. If you'll follow along Arkansas Code twenty five one one oh seven. Are you familiar with that miss Goodrich yes okay and what does that code section that provision of Arkansas law what does that do. It requires that the state administrator for the federal funding to work with the advisory body to make decisions regarding funding for the these funds in the state of Arkansas okay and so the administering body in this and in this case is department of finance administration that's correct you are the chairwoman of the advisory committee that is correct has the department of finance administration worked with you as they are required to do per the statute with regard to the grants in this process I do not believe that they have okay so I want you to go back over the last two or three years and talk about your experience as chairperson of the advisory committee and what that has looked like with the Department okay so just historically speaking with the department of finance and administration we had a brief period of time I became chair only just a couple of years ago and so we had an administrator at that time who work collaboratively with the administrative body the advisory body they would schedule meetings we would plan out ahead of time when the request for proposals would come out we would have a part of that process we would review proposals we would go through all of these things together and then we would each go back to the groups that we represent and share the information and we would work collaboratively if they were looking to promulgate an additional rule we would talk about it and say this is how it would impact programs and then we could we could tweak how that would work that process went like that since twenty seventeen when we had a state federal site visit for the VIPS of finding and they came in and recommended that that's the process that should be followed at that time they allowed us to train the staff it DFA about how the programs work so when they're administering these funds monthly with all of them we could give meaningful feedback about how that impacted programs and what ways that that money could work better with everyone. So in the last couple of years we've had a different administrator at the FNA I don't know you'll have to ask them about that process we were not told as an advisory body in any sort of formal fashion that administrative change had happened I heard about it and I reached out and said Hey what's going on we had a meeting so I scheduled a meeting of the advisory body to talk about what the process would look like going forward hopeful that we would be able to continue the great relationship that we have developed and that was working since that time there has not been good communication communication has been a key problem with the DF and the staff and the advisory body some people some programs get some bits of information other people get completely different information there hasn't been uniform collaboration when we have met as an advisory body I've had to call and ask for the meeting and then we will ask questions like how much money are we getting as a state from the federal government and we're not ever given clear answer we're often told we don't know we don't know yet we might know next time we're never given a clear piece of information I have asked multiple times who are the personal you know exactly how much money is in there who are the personnel who see that number I still don't know who that personnel is I've never been given that answer we have asked for all kinds of information that we've never been given the year they made the forty percent cut last year as an advisory body we found out about that when they emailed some grantees and told them they were making a forty percent reduction the advisory body did not have advance warning of that before it happened so we called a meeting to ask about it and then through that back and forth we asked if we were going to be allowed to review applications which is one of the activities that we are legislated to be a part of this act and so. Going forward from that time any information we've gotten from them has been very little it's been unclear we've asked for information multiple times at this point I feel as though our advisory body has absolutely no there is no reason to listen to this advisory body we will meet will make recommendations and nothing will change and things are being told to certain programs that are not told to other programs we have a communication information problem. I see and so I'm looking at the statute twenty five one one of seventy. Looks like this was a. Past N. ninety nine amended in two thousand one. And this statute requires that. The state administrative agency in this case department of finance administration shall. Establish a proposal activity calendar one hundred and eighty days prior to the start of the upcoming funding year are you aware of if that they do that. Now they do not. Okay establish procedures and dates for review of subgraph funding applications for each funding cycle and they shall provide copies of subgraph locations for review to the chairperson. Of each relevant advisory body have you been provided with those. I've never been provided with that before I had to ask for it. Six. Okay. Establish consistent with federal law sub grant application forms. They do serve grant forms for the sub grantees Kerr. Well there's a lot here and I could I could keep going over all of them But the this is probably one of the more important parts this looks like subsection to the state administrative agency in this case would be department finance ministration shall meet with the relevant advisory bodies no later than thirty days. Prior to the scheduled date of mailing of application forms for the purpose of providing an opportunity for review of the content of the application form state ministry of agency shall provide drafts of all necessary sub grant application forms to the chairperson of the relevant advisory boards prior to such a meeting has that been done not in this current cycle. Okay. Shall meet with the relevant advisory bodies no later than thirty days prior to the scheduled date of mailing application forms you not had a meeting with them no the only meetings that we have had the meetings that I called when I was like where are we at with this process and then I schedule a meeting and invite them to it is them. But they're the ones who are supposed to be administering this that's correct and and I think this is an important point to clarify here so. Department finance administration is the Department Venice ministration. They don't really know anything about what you do on a daily basis is that correct that's correct and so there are a couple different statutes here and that's why this advisory body was created to begin with is that right that isn't so that you could help the department of finance and administration know where and how this money should be spent. That's not happening. Right now okay and that's a problem all right. You know we can continue to go through that statute are you aware that whether they are complying nearly at all with twenty five one one oh seven. They are not you have the opportunity to review that prior to today. Yes. I I think that they do things from time to time so that on paper it can look like they complied with it so when we have a meeting they'll want you know an agenda for the meeting that we had but I don't think in the spirit of it there complying at all. Okay and then there's twenty five one one eleven. Can you can someone describe that That statute. Yes this was the enabling legislation for the board of advisory board. Which states that. The Agency designated by the governor shall not distribute any of these findings without prior opportunity. For the board to review. Okay and so that's a. Looks like subsection D. of that statute the state agency does made by the government to be DFA under this section shall not disperse victims of victims of crime act funds without providing an opportunity for review of an advice concerning grant processes and grant funding by the grant advisory board. Has that happened. It does not happen this year because it is a continuation great year so they didn't release a new application when it happened last year it did not happen and as advice as an advisory body we said Hey you're supposed to allow us the opportunity to review that that grant was supposed to start October one we were not given access to those applications until August of last year I had to ask specifically for those applications so that we could review them then once we did review them I don't I don't know what happened with our review or recommendations. Okay. Ninety. So all of us on the advisory board did receive access to applications that we could review I know that there was a application that I felt was should not be funded out all that was funded what was that it was to provide a yoga instructor for a shelter agency who would come in about one time a week. DO yoga with the survivors which has been shown to be very healing it's really it's a great model it said then that shelter should be doing my concern was the amount of money that the of organization requested I also knew that the yoga instructor was also the owner of the non profit no more employees and it was for somewhere around sixty thousand dollars and when I set a new of right crosses programs that have yoga instructors volunteer to come in and do that for the victims center and the shelter or an right crisis centers during a group meeting that is how I felt about that proposal that we were century paying someone over a thousand dollars a week to do yoga but my my suggestion that not funding that was not. I mean they funded it so. To me that was those are the things that we look at when we review that's locations let me see if I can sum this up basically as the advisory body you did have an opportunity to review some applications one of the applications that you saw in the last review period was one to pay a yoga instructor. To appear at a facility. Sixty thousand dollars for the year. And and from a from a preservation or best use of resources standpoint. From a your term of the. A priority standpoint you're saying that as the advisory body you guys would not have recommended to find that. That's correct did you guys recommend to find that I don't know if there were other people that reviewed on that application of thing every every application should have been reviewed at least twice but I recommended it to not be found okay and you're telling me you're telling me that it was funded yes okay do you know what facility this yoga instruction was happening at. I can't remember at this time Can we find out sure get the I know DFA is here maybe they can get us some documentation about this the yoga program that receives sixty thousand dollars. What we'll get some assurances on that do we know how many times they held a yoga class I don't have that in because as you said if it's sixty thousand dollars may help held the class every week that's a thousand dollars a week for yoga yeah I'm sure the application said it was one day a week. One day I would just pay back on that and say that my my concern with all of that is more about. Word the recommendations of the advisory body even noted and I think the reason this example simply comes up is because when we asked for and were finally given access to the applications there was no other guidance he was here you take these ten you take these ten use your best judgment whatever but I don't know that there was no follow up to our review did what were our recommendations that day took what were our recommendations that they did not adhere to we don't know that we were not communicated if that happened at all we really felt like from the other lack of communication problems that we were just doing it so that it could be said that it was done and it was not even taking into consideration when funding decisions were made okay I'm still looking at twenty five one one eleven. Is there anything in particular that you guys would like to point out in that statute that. Maybe is not being done that should be being done. Yes I'd also like to point out that the India finance also after the review and recommendations of the grant vice report is to promulgate rules and regulations Consistent with federal law setting forth the policies and procedures for the administration and disbursement of the funds that we're talking about I think that if we had we have not had those promulgated to my knowledge I had some folks look for that and could not find that. Okay. So I guess part of the part of the concern would be if they exist someone please bring them forward because you guys don't even know of their existence correct. Is that correct. There have been times in the past we were we were working very well as a board and we did draw up Some new policy and procedure that would be followed in the distribution of those grants but we believe that those rules were never promulgated when we looked detect deep dives into where those documents would be that did not exist. Okay. And so it it sounds like to me that. DFA has essentially usurped the role of the advisory board and has has taken all of this upon themselves and that you guys is the advisory board have just tried to insert yourself rightfully so per the law into this process and have not been have not been welcomed at all is that correct that would be a correct assessment and you guys are really the boots on the ground you guys are the people out here providing direct services to victims you know best what the priority should be and how the money should be spent where it should be spent and your inputs not being taken into consideration is that fair that's fair all right. And so. I'm. Then we move to the advisory board reviews grants of for all different types of funds I have you know the voca funds which we talked about. violence against women funds That the VIPS of funds that you've talked about family violence prevention services act finds stop. ACT funds and many others so let's talk specifically because this is on the agenda about the VIPS a. Funds and the VIPS a a RP money so I know money you have some familiarity with this what can you tell us about that. Well I'm involved on a lot of national calls where this has been discussed before it was amount of pot of money set aside for this we what we have links to national organizations that worked really closely in Congress to educate them and help them understand that the pandemic had affected victim services the services by exacerbating the numbers of victims that were coming forward we were saying it happened and rolling and our service providers not being able to keep up with the increase and so this pot of money was set aside to kind of fill that gap although it cannot fill that gap it's not a lot of money to distribute throughout the state but it was meant to fill the gap it was meant to meet the needs they calculated how many shelters were in the United States and set apart money for that they calculated how many right crisis centers were in the United States and base their calculations on that This state had access to the domestic violence portion of this money last October October it was not released until a few weeks ago and is has been given to shelters I think at the rate of thirty three thousand dollars award to each of them which comes out to almost a million dollars the sexual assault many. That from the same art the fund was considerably more than domestic violence as they were saying the numbers of sexual violence victims increase more drastically and right crisis centers also help to serve victims of human trafficking so they have more victims coming forward and so that was calculated out in our state was given. One point seven five one point seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars approximately for sexual assault programs we. That money was to be allocated by February of this past year I made a call to to Debbie this K. we email back and forth trying to set up a meeting we did finally meet later in the spring when we met I was told that the sexual assault coalition we get five hundred thousand dollars to distribute to our membership which comes out to about sixty five thousand dollars for each trait Kerr says center over the period of they could spend it in one day or they could use and draw it out until September of twenty twenty five that's the way I set up my application process for those of subgrade tease. I did ask where the other part of that money was going and I was then told that it was going to be some of that would be good given to the child advocacy centers this was worrisome to me with all of the national of discussions I had been on I knew that that money was earmarked for adult sexual assault they did not want the child advocacy centers to get that money not because we don't believe in helping children we definitely believe in helping children but that money was set aside specifically for adult sexual assault because they're historically under funded. I was later when I advised Debbie that the child advocacy centers could not get that money I was told that we would get seven hundred and fifty thousand to serve grant and then I ask where the other million dollars was going and I have not gotten an answer to that to the state. Okay. So the point is there was a million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars that was allocated for adult rate. Crisis centers that's correct. And you're telling me that the disbursement to those crisis centers was seven hundred fifty thousand. Yes when when did when did the F. and they get the money. They had they were able to access that money as of February of twenty twenty two okay when did you get the seven hundred and fifty thousand we just received our award a couple weeks ago. Okay. Where is the other million. We don't know I do I feel like I have an idea where it is but I don't feel like I should speculate. Well I'm gonna ask you to speculate. Okay. so because of previous acts of. The department of finance and administration inter governmental services I am suspicious that when Beth began asking where the domestic violence are money was they distributed that it should have been distributed a year ago so it was just distributed to me I find it strange that there's a million dollars that is not accounted for with the sexual assault appropriation we only have seven hundred and fifty thousand of those dollars to distribute there are only two organizations in our state that are not members of a casa so my concern is where did days of the date supplement the DV money because they had already spent on something else and with the sass money the sexual assault services money was that supplement supplementing given to the shelters and if not. There are only two other rape crisis programs in this state are they getting to split. A million dollars between themselves because that's not fair to the other rape crisis centers or getting essentially sixty five thousand dollars for three years. I see the point is we we just we don't know we don't know. But we're going to find out okay. All right you mention about IGS. And I think there's been some discussion about the analysts that you guys deal with through IGS can you describe how that works what's your interaction is with these analysts and what your experience has been you know with regard to working with these analysts over the years. I'm not sure but it might be a good place to start with during the on the monitor. Thank you I I we each other as iron brings analyst Who approves our budget Senate approves our monthly reimbursement invoices I can tell you that you know of course assessments in their centre over. I'm sorry interrupt you but can you speak up it's really hard for us to hear you in the committee room. I sure can I'm sorry is this better can you hear me now that's a little bit but tried to speak up even more if you can thank you. Okay based the lady what I would basically say is that we are assigned grants analysts to to work with us on our our grants it depends on who you you know we the there's a lot of turnover in that part I wish I does not necessarily with the ones we control but what I will tell you is that it would different analyst you get told different things there you and other different programs and this is been going on for a very long time you know with regard to yes each time you go to a training you senator Ellis changes what was an appropriate before is no longer appropriate so there's no consistent messages or messaging with with the analysts I've been told numerous times that you know they are not that I am not this quote I'm not going to pay that this is not something that Arkansas is in the business of paying your board needs to be out there raising all of your money you know it and I get that in my board does raise money you know but not more also the volunteer board and who have their own lives and jobs as well and I just don't think there's a lot of training simply because there is answers and sometimes you just get an answer. That that that it seems like it's just pulled out of the top of your hat he also use their may be able to speak a little bit more of this I know she's had a lot more analysts over the last two years that I've had. It appears I'm frozen I can see that on the screen I apologize Petty burns is here. Miss burns what you make your way to the table. Burns if you would state your name who you represent. Nope not on. Any burns I am the chief executive officer of crisis intervention center which is a victim advocacy shelter in the Fort Smith area that covers fifteen counties. Okay so we were talking about grant analysts and the experience that you've had over the years working with them in some issues so I'd like you to detail that and then anything else that you have to offer based on what you've heard here already today. Yes thank you and thank you all for taking the time to be here today and listen to those of us that are in the middle of it in services on the ground which this is about twenty four years of me in the human service world and from the educational level to the training level to the admin a direct service level in the administration level I am the third largest operation in this state and I will tell you more than fifty percent of my time is related to direct services because we have no other choice there's only three adult sexual assault service clinics outside of a hospital setting left in the state of Arkansas and I am one of those so not only are we dealing with these issues but we're also dealing with the crime victims reparations issues and a lack of funding there so and they they are a little bit related through local funding but I'm on my fourth analyst since October of last year when one retired so I've had three since then when I had my budget consultation for this continue what's supposed to be a continuation year which again I have a lot of experience in grants voca is is less than thirty five percent of my overall budget and I'm very fortunate that I have not had to make a the cuts the issue that I did have to make last year but I am and one of those agencies that's in about the sixty to sixty two percent range overall last year we had we were the only agency in the state and the domestic violence sexual assault role that had a DHS licensed childcare center on site for secondary victims of trauma and that program was completely cut last year because of the budget cuts there was no other way to cut two hundred and eighty thousand dollars out of a budget that didn't impact an entire program and again I know that is not deemed an asphalt their decisions that have to be made on the board level at all of these agencies that are not directly related to policies at the FNA but some of the policies on across the board cuts across the state when some agencies aren't doing. In the same work that others are larger agencies are going to get more money we serve a higher populated area and we serve more victims just strictly based on the geographical locations that we're at and this year in August when I had my consultation the first that was the first face to face time and it was the resume that that myself and my chief financial officer had had with D. F. NA about our current budget that started October one and her first sentence was can you tell me a little bit about what you do so I better understand your services. So my grant package had never even been read by my analyst that's very disturbing for the fiduciary agency. To what regulatory. just to set regulatory standards over us and our budgets but they have to ask us what we do. that that was very bothersome to me as the executive officer that that goes back and report straight to the board of directors and and I hope that if all that comes out of this is that when we are given our excuse for funding that there's if there is another state separate state manual involved in that that that is provided to us on the front end and not the back end because it is hard to make. Budgetary line items match the expectations of someone who doesn't necessarily know what you're doing head of time. And of the five things I believe it was that went out in the email before they started budget consultations I am not vocal funded it also I do not have a dog in that fight I I manage about fifteen separate grants which is necessary for the services that we provide but the only people involved in my vocal funding our shelter advocates hotline advocates child care representative and the mental health specialist and case managers that are also court advocates and and license for medical accompaniment so they are one hundred percent of the time direct service representatives for the victims of these crimes and this secondary victims of these crimes which is a big piece of the proposal as well and to be told that sometimes that's not a direct service secondary victims are affected just as much as primary victims especially when they are children or parents of young adults are disabled adults that live in the same home so for an analyst to not understand that I I hope that some more training can come of that the other thing that happens when we were asked about budgets is I think there was some miscommunication from the line that said actual budgets were only gonna pay actual cost not hourly rates so we year ago we wrote this grant we ride it for two years so if you're going to build in a fifty cents or a dollar cost of living raise your advocates you have to build that in on the front end of your grant so the first year you may be paying sixteen dollars an hour knowing that you're to you're hoping to pay sixteen fifty to give them a raise. So this year what they did is said you can you can't give your advocates arrays were only going to allow in that line item that was approved for last year only the money that you paid this year. So at overall as decreasing the line at the the bottom dollar I understand that but the FNA has should have no ready to Larry control over what my board of directors or my office can say is an allowable salary for people in my area that is that is not their role so what happens then is if the when I propose a case manager to be one hundred percent funded so bear portions of Fike and and all the liabilities and health and the maximum allowable health insurance all of those things are built into that. As fiduciary responsibility if they don't allow that percentage of race then I have to go back and adjust all of those percentages because now they're not one hundred percent focus funded so every single one of those items that would have been paid a hundred percent then or now only paid ninety seven percent. I have to do the mathematical mathematics on everyone of those employees everyone of the time on that grant plus whatever other funding sources supplementing that of the three percent. You can do it when you have to do it but again it's not they should not have the regulatory control over to say why are you paying that amount for your salary that's my board's decision not if in its decision if it relates specific to the grant and what's allowable in the grant is is all that should be in there we're also told we cannot do budget revisions in the first quarter or the fourth quarter. So I left to about fifty thousand dollars on the table this last year because I had someone take maternity leave that decided to not come back we held that position open because of family medical leave standards and so when it's a high paying position like a mental health therapist position it could be making more than other people in the building you could potentially leave a lot of money on the table there's nothing in vocal regulations federally that says you cannot do a budget revision at those time periods that is strictly the state of Arkansas saying that and when I say state of Arkansas I mean the fiduciary agent here being the Department finance administration so that is money through all agencies that are then left on the table that go back to the state that have to go back to the fed which is disturbing because it it is meant to be used for victims service immediate victim services in the state of Arkansas. and then many of us who've been doing this work many years no to leave line items on the table for budget revisions like a maintenance and operations line a training line and we might put one or two dollars in there at the beginning but in a continuation year you cannot add a line item you can only adjust moneys from one line to another so if I have a position that I've decided could be a different pay scale the second year or a person leaves or we have a specific need to rise in our area we could move those monies to another line item that was open for this continuation year they did not allow any line items that they did like that so anything that had a calendar editor two dollars in it for to make allowable budget revisions and throughout the year they took that completely away. So now if I have an employee leave and I open that position for twenty five to thirty days I do job interviews for two weeks and then hire someone two weeks later I've now potentially left eight to ten weeks of salary on the table that I have no way to put it to so it's detrimental to the agency and to being able to provide the specific victim services to the agency and. Every grant analysts that I have has had a different opinion on that to this point. Thank you. Okay so what I'd like to do before we moved to DFA. It's kind of boil this down to have and that I and I'm gonna come to you But boil this down to the five or six things that we need to continue to look at so a penny of sound like to me. That you're concerned of it we were you have lots of concerns but one the grant analysts and the the lack of training the lack of knowledge on the grant analysts part about what it is that you do which would be necessary in order for them to evaluate your applications is that correct it is correct and I believe that's already laid out legislation as a role of the advisory board and and that's the importance of that board being involved in these decisions okay so number one so that needs to improve it sounded like I heard you say that there's there's inconsistencies that you get from these grant analysts or from DFA about what's acceptable for you and what's acceptable for others is that correct yes that's correct okay so we want to look at you know why these inconsistencies exist. on what some. Subgraph Sir are told and what others are. Then there as far as the regulations I heard you say that. R. someone say if there are. Regulations that DFA has a book of regulations about how they're going to operate this which it seems to be inconsistent based on what they tell you from time to time if there are regulations you guys need to have a. The process would be much smoother and I truly believe we may not be here in front of you discussing this today if we had access to what that policy is if there is one okay so pop access to policies. Okay and then. what kind of kind of go down the line here miss good rich so basically what I heard you say is that the advisory board what is the name of the advisory board. It is simply the victim justice assistance advisory board. And that board needs to be included more than it needs to the if I need to honor that boards Statutory. Responsibilities that is correct we would like them to follow the guidelines for communication and cooperation with the board as outlined in the law and to allow us the opportunity to train the staff that they have so they can correctly administer the funds to the victim programs and allow us to have input on how the rules that they are going to promulgate will affect boots on the ground programs. And that you guys fulfill your statutory role in making recommendations in making recommendations for funding applications that's correct. Okay is there anything else miss good rich I believe those things alone would solve most of the problems all right miss Ballard you talked about the the missing VIPS some money yes the one million dollars. I feel like it's critical for for us to have access to those funding so we can increase the amount of awards where flowing through to the right prices centers especially since there are only two that are not in our membership that way it could be we would know exactly where that money was going and then it's fair a fair distribution and also there is supposed to be meaningful involvement with the sexual assault coalition in the decisions made on that funding. Can. M. S. Klein. You have anything to add to what's already been said. Suggested. Okay did anybody else have anything. Okay so the and then a plan. What is the plan to bridge the gap until the voca fics Act. Kicks in is that fair. Okay. All right now I want to ask one last question. And then you guys will be a free together will have the affair well actually I would have to questions but at that there was so much to get through there and I appreciate the committee kind of indulging me because I feel like if I didn't directed that it we could be here all day so I'm just trying to keep us on track. Do you guys if you felt threatened at all. By being here today ensuring these concerns. Yes I yes there is a historic. Pattern of when you speak out against it you're always worried that your funding will be impacted and I do know that victim service programs that are struggling on the on the ground across the state when they called me is their coalition representative to talk about what's happening or problems with their analyst they always are afraid that they're going to lose their funding or that their findings going to be reduced and subsequent grant year because they have spoken out to retaliation is a is a real concern of yours it is abscess for sharing these. Problems that you you guys have kind of experienced yes yes okay miss Ballard do you have anything to add to that. I would just say that. Historically when certain victim service agencies that do direct services have spoken out applications have been lost misplaced they don't they didn't receive them and so for our membership to call us to tell us what is going on there they're really depending on us to do our first and foremost job to stand in the gap an advocate for them and that is what we're here doing today we collected We collected of what is my word I'm looking. information from the victim service agencies that were showing the inconsistencies in the way that the money was being distributed there were some complaints that date there director would not be able to be paid and so we took it upon ourselves to stand in the gap for those agencies and we're here we're here to represent them so that they don't have to be fearful. And ultimately your overarching concern I know. Our victims victims of domestic violence sexual assault rape. Are Mr person you have something up on top of being the CEO of my direct service agency I'm also a board member for both of these coalitions an executive committee member for both of them and we do of the all the rape crisis centers and domestic violence service agencies across the state we do communicate with each other outside of the coalition and I'm going to say probably eighty five to ninety percent of the agencies I have worked directly with outside of my normal job duties to try to help them alleviate their stress and their concerns about actually having to halt some of the services that they provide but many of them if not all of them work are very thankful that I'm willing to do this as a direct service agency knowing what the impact could be because if my services are impacted those victims are just going to go to one of these other agencies for those services and then it's going to be an overflow to them so we do have to be unified in what we do and I feel like that it just needs to be said that my opinions while light first and foremost speak for my agency I do feel like that I am professionally qualified enough to speak for the coalition as well both coalitions that do represent the hundreds of other agencies okay thank you very much and so let me just say before you leave if there is a hint and I mean even a hint of retaliation against any of you. By the department of finance administration because you had the nerve to come here today and expressed these concerns let me know and let these other committee members know we do that. Okay thank you. You're free to go. And we've got I believe the department of finance administration. I'm Doris Smith I'm the administrator of the office of intergovernmental Services. Four doors thank you for being here today. I'm David Bowles K. from grants manager for the victim just. Assistance grants. Okay thank you. So you guys have heard some of the concerns of an express today You know I think probably a good place to start would be. with the statutes and the role of the advisory board. my understanding is that sounds like some of that may not have been followed through with you guys seventy comments on that. We do so as it relates to the statue we do correlate with the advisory board everything that we coordinate with them is posted online on a web page the meetings the meeting agenda information about our of peas application is all that information is posted and submitted to them with the time line as as according to the statute. Those items are again posted on the website in and we have agenda meetings from where we've had discussions with them natural leading that process is that a warrants are issued by the only in so there is a continuation here in the mail and so during the year of application is probably where we get the most interaction with the advisory body the RFP process is pretty much the same it doesn't it doesn't change you know from from year to year because we're doing the same programs are doing the same work process in addition to that we have a online grants administration system is a grants management system online that the advisory by participating in a we can provide copies of the communication or they're all. Environment in review applications all of them are given a passcode final to the grants management system to review every application what we were told in the past is that it was two men applications for them to review it so they requested to review all a subset of applications that related to their particular discipline because of that request our office is designated applications based on the discipline of the all device about a member and those applications were moved into the queue to be reviews so that's why they are review and maybe less than a holder most certainly welcome to review the whole we invited them to review the whole but do tutor all the straits on time they requested to review what was relevant to their discipline is so we accommodated that I would like to I'm sorry what was the next question that we have some information in front of you that I think would help to quantify some of the discussions that were held earlier. Well it there's so many issues that we I'll just let you kind of move on to what you think is next okay so you have a packet in front of you and I want to clarify something because this is this is important to the discussion here the first the document that you have have tailspin a baby different colors a different you know decides on a but there's just have to indicate what pays the attachments are but. One of the things I do want to bring to the committee's attention is that in in twenty twenty one of course the grants have been decreasing over the year since twenty eighteen it was that I have thirty million dollars and this increases since the and we have communicate that with the advisory board they've been aware of that so that's not you know new knees but as a result of that we have over time we have a a process by which we spend our grant monies fires SO in in doing that we have allocated monies to speak in anyway so I wanted a regular attention to page two of that. Memo that you have in front of you as the space is Page three so flip to page three just a quick historical picture of the finding that was coming in. So as you stated to an eighteen with a hot with the highest year and several warrants granted ordeal wars to go out to the organization so you can see what it level was in twenty nineteen. With the money went out more than double what we normally get out so. In the years following that most we cannot sustain that level of spending. L. I'm not real sure why twenty nineteen so much was was given out because. There we have minded that expires every grant every site like if the end of every grant cycle there is money that's going to expire so what we do is we spend those money within a grant cycle do not expire we all have more mileage to rollover we have other minus rolled over to the next grant cycle but with that we spent approximately eighteen million dollars in funding it would have been expired body in a grant cycle but it was been an additional eighteen million but just to look at the funding level that we've been putting out on the street it is clear to see that there is no way to avoid cuts I mean and with the decrease in a vocal finances NO way to avoid that so we have had the discussion with the advisory board only going to cause for Connie but one thing I want to clarify. Yes that were requested in twenty twenty one we're cuts to what they applied for it wasn't to the existing budget so far the sessions that were funded at a level that same chart if you look at that chart in twenty. Twenty the level of funding when I could or was twenty seven point five million. The level of funding that went out the door twenty twenty one was twenty five point six million that's that's about a seven percent cut. When we requested that they could forty percent the applications that came into us with twenty twenty one request requested thirty four million dollars in Boca Fund. And we have a nine million dollar grant plus the moneys that was rolling over prior year so that there was no way that we have any level of funding to meet thirty four million dollars worth request. The letter went out is. The first. I believe it is the second the third tab you have so if you flip to discount the tailspin third tab that is the letter that went out in twenty twenty one. In the last sentence. In the last sentence of the first paragraph. All we talk about how they will funds would not support their proposals at the requested levels. And. Reporters so they are finally requests were a little bit that way over thirty four million dollars and so the request in the third paragraph concerning third paragraph you see whether request is to reduce the budget from the application so the forty percent cut that we're discussing has to do with what was requested to be funded we did not cut eggs existing finding like existing services in place by four percent we ask them to cut their requested budget of forty percent in the end they are all defined in that was submitted in. Provided the actual cuts to what was funded total around seven percent. So that was a clarification that I wanted to bring to bear. Mail. Because the finding in vocal remains at a lower level than what we've seen in the past and because it yields. There's no way to find. The level of programming with just one years grant I mean there's there's no way to do that so that that has to be some monies in bank accounts deal with a new grant comes in so it would allow us to at least meet most that it to me and hopefully as so because of that for the current year we ask that they looked at a budget and time and where they can make additional cuts and what it does that matter is also provided to you as a member for. Thank you. it doesn't reinstate a proceeding that but what it does is it it doesn't make some areas where they need to look for areas to cut it so I just wanna make it clear that we're not just out cut in budget we didn't cut existing programs what we asked was a cut to what you're requesting as a budget. In twenty twenty one and then in the current year we requested that they do that I look through that budget is see where they can cut some of there are requested funding so that would be enough money to support them in the following year. So that's the nexus of the concerns regarding the financial board and I wanted to lay out not posted in case someone has some questions. I see some lights are on a these questions for DFA or these questions that exist okay. Our representative Springer I have you first All right represented by you're recognized. I'm on okay now I'm on thank you so much earlier miss Ballard mentioned about one million dollars no one seems to know where it is that's quite a bit of money can you explain that to me. So with the the finally came through with that this fast it is the fifth so American rescue plan funds that were set aside specifically for sexual assault service. DFA was required by. The family violence prevention services. Staff to submit a plan to them for review and approval. Which is what we did our plan included. Some granting seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the Arkansas coalition against sexual assault which miss Ballard is the executive director of seven granting three hundred thousand dollars to a culturally specific sexual assault program. And we have a administering seven hundred thousand dollars to one sexual assault programs statewide that may not be members of a consuls coalition. You're recognized. Henderson Hendren Mister chairman but it would be helpful to the committee if you could send us that information send it to staff I would be interested in seeing it even though I'm not on the committee. I agree that if yep we can get some some documentation in writing to show me where those funds. Have been cap to wear those funds or have been to disbursed or if they've been dispersed to whom they've been dispersed when when they were disbursed. we'd like to see all of that. This time a million dollars has been dispersed the seven hundred and fifty thousand to a casa and the three hundred thousand. We will absolutely get you that information okay do you know who the three hundred thousand was dispersed to. Women's council on African American affairs. And is that authorized by the sexual assault grant program. It is not authorized by the family violence. Yes okay family violence prevention service steps okay that that's authorized organization. All right and so then the remains seven hundred thousand you're saying that has not been dispersed that is correct where is that money. The pharmacist the a in the federal bank account we draw down mine is as it is our administered or as it is did I ask the request coming in for disbursement photos fines or steel in the federal account okay can you guys just give us some documentation on that provide that to our staff absolutely. Think I do want to bring to your attention I noticed this you know start me to have a lot of information to go through but I want to make sure we hit on a high point so funding was released to to the organizations that were you at the table and if you look on. Page three I believe I'm sorry of the county Page. Actually Page four were under the header or for funding requests so. All right well as distribute in October of twenty twenty one two for the organizations were represented to he represented here women children first with the one point seven million dollars okay I also received a six point two million dollars over three years okay hang on a sec so what when did this happen yes happen in October twenty twenty one so this was the last year around the same time that we were seeking for requested budgets to okay so I'm just making some notes October twenty twenty one who received what. I'm sorry October twenty twenty one women and children first all received an allocation and I don't I'm sorry I'm I repeat I have the numbers here but I don't have the exact dates of when it occurred because that was due to our per student committee but when the children first received all one point is one million seven hundred fifty four thousand one hundred seven dollars for one year. Arkansas coalition against sexual assault across on. Receive six million two hundred ninety thousand dollars over three years. Arkansas coalition against domestic violence receive eight million two hundred eighty thousand over three years. In Ozark rape crisis with approved for three hundred seven four thousand eight hundred and ninety six dollars over three years. Okay Can you give me some dates and and some documentation of when that money was actually disbursed of those organizations yes and then you know I I'm kind of getting some messages something about. That That our program was for human trafficking do have some of any any idea about that. We had obtained a because we didn't have the information easy. Did it with the two year application process everybody submit an application was seeking funding within the application process they submit in their in other finding that they are anticipating getting for that year well because we had not seen it in their application we requested from the opera steering committee a copy of an application for in ages that would be receiving my attitude a vocal grant we got these four applications from the steering committee what we determine what we went through the applications because as a federal prohibition against a supplanting in that you cannot use of a duplication you cannot use federal dollars for. Of a project or services that you're also paying fault for from a different service so dish there cannot be duplication but we did go through the applications and determined that based on the finding of vocal provided through across so there was a duplication of services With the war that we had issue to them October one twenty twenty one and also based on on the domestic Arkansas coalition against domestic violence there was at least a partial duplication of services compared to those activities that would be fine if from their war from the FAA the other two organizations had projects funded by based on application to stoop committed projects need to be very different from what they will find it under the vocal so neat in present in a duplication issues so we didn't notify money Ballinger in all. Beth good rich in the determination was that the two organizations who Were the times have to take it to services they were actually able to eliminate those services from their sub award from vocal so they did have to adjust award to eliminate those services that were found to be duplicated. We will provide as much detail as we. Okay and all that some of it is discussing a packet but will get with the steering committee and get a copy of the application also provide any detail that the committee request. Okay I and I'll just be honest I'm having a hard time following this so I'm gonna have to follow up offline to figure out kind of exactly what's happened here so that was money in two thousand one but it was for several grant years is what you're saying correct two thousand twenty one October twenty twenty one two thousand twenty one grams FOR several grant years You know I was told some of that was was specifically to be dedicated for human trafficking I understand you guys may look at that to say see if there's a duplication of services between what that money is to serve for what others to serve for that's going to take time to sort out that you guys can get us the documentation on that. Yes okay As. Okay all right representative Springer you're recognized get it your button if you don't mind. There you go. Thank you Mr chair a good afternoon and I appreciate the opportunity to finally get a chance fans ask questions of I would like for you all to respond to some of the concerns that I took notes on some of the things Institute brought to the attention of the the the ladies that were here earlier and thank you all for being here even the people from the different organization appreciate you all being here I think with the work that you're doing this great is fantastic but I just want us to make sure that we come to some type of consensus as to what's actually taking place so I would like for you I don't know if you responded to and I would just like to hear your response to the concerns that were voiced with respect to the grant analysts not having knowledge of what they're doing their lack of training their lack of knowledge the inconsistency from the the DFA analyst of did you did you order all that so I think those there's a need for us to be on the same page to understand actually was taking place and then there was some concerns about the advisory board not being included in of the process involved guidelines I don't know if you'll have a copy of the law that Mr chair presented with respect to what it's supposed to be taking place are you all familiar with that law I yes that's my first question yes and you are you saying that you do comply with that we we heard today that you all did not you have not well let me say that from the perspective of. Compliance with the law is including the advisory body in what I'm DFAT is reviewing and determining I know that that is going on them truthfully there's does because we are not back annual grant cycle like there's not a whole lot of variation in how we do request for proposals but we do post proposal within that one hundred eighty today crime and it is in the in that statute we also hold on meetings with the Advisory body to give input on any outcome in phone as as a matter of fact the meeting was held in March of twenty twenty one that discuss depending collected a vocal grant so we get ahead of it we do notify down we holds meetings with them is not always within our control to just make a law we we make them the information on this is possible for example vocal cut last year to grant was nine million dollars and so that the understanding that we have from our federal awarding agency was in as a as reason as I think federal where was that there will be cuts but they only had estimates at that time so they estimated Arkansas was the team what we see ten point two million dollars well we have meet we held a meeting with the advisory body I think in March and at that time we were floating around the information based on just the second was that part that meeting in person I was advised him that you all have an it sometimes you lose communication when you meet and certain places so the I guess my specific question was was actually in person so that you all could have dialogue it was zoom meeting where you all were able to communicate with each other so I write is it was the most for me is having virtual since COVID pretty much unless we have to be on site in in you know at some of the most for me does have been virtual so yes that meeting was virtual it was bad so that the information was communicated about the vocal packages to understand counted the logistics of it as we communicate the information it just says the coalition director said we don't allow them to talk with the members you know quite honestly we we do communicate it back out to the recipient by email so truthfully it could be that the emails that we sent out of it if it hasn't been share the information that we communicate with the advisory body has not been shared from. On the leaders of the advisory body you know in some cases it could be that the recipient may not receive that information until you know a little later we process mentioned grant so so and I just want to clarify that that process is only one dynamic so it is always going all the advisory body is always invited to participate in application review they have their own sign on in the system they can review every application or only to applications that they designate but in order to administer the applications we have to know which ones they want to review so they all want to review to ones that are relevant to less a sexual assault we will take all of the applications of sexual assault and move them to the queue for the person's gonna review sexual all those dynamics is just in how the process goes we operate on their communication they operate on our communication so to that end yes we have met the requirements I think we do it in a great spirit of the law I don't really agree to we're not to an indisputable all but I do think there is some some gaps because a part of us does can't rely on that advisory body to being communicate with their counterparts in their members about what they have learned it so maybe a little bit of a gap there as far as staff training there is a gap I mean we we have turned over I'm pretty sure a lot of agencies do what we have staff coming in here in the middle of a grant cycle you have to get as much of the process Ian so would it S. the learning process and it has a huge process so what with new respect and we she relegates them to certain functions but the process takes a while the grant cycles a year long cycle so they can't learn in a month or they can't learn in a couple months so submitted the trains are information that a share a lot of it can be found online because we both I'll just I'll by trainees online but as far as internal train was that it does take them along with to learn if their new or grants. So that is a part of why I do think some Some efficiencies could be helped with some you know appropriate training but we we do trying it's just takes is a cycle and so it is not like immediate training Allen Davis picked it up or down a bit because I think she can do that exhalation much better than I can. The grants management training it's is. It takes about a year from. The date. A staff person comes the. Until they complete a cycle you come in. At any point. A grants management and you go forward and you're learning all of these things and it's about a year later when you get to that point again. Of. The FAA IGS has had. Staff turnover in the last three years we were impacted by COVID like everybody else. People change jobs in state government. Regularly because they're looking for more pay. So I spend a significant amount of time training to stay. And. Until today I have not heard. From the advisory body just how. Horrible it was for them. So this news. Mr chairman I guess this one last question Sir your are there a grant is their grant funding available at this time in order to provide grants to these organizations that are here today so that they could have some additional funding to implement the programs that they have at this point is there money available in any fund grant fund account anywhere with that not that we administer. I'm not aware of other funding source. The the key I think that is getting a little overlap is that of course the FAA ministers those funds that we're charged with administering and I heard the communication on that you know it was requested of us to seek arpa finding but also finally has a whole separate application process is not administered through you know ideas we're part of the if I you know I communicate with my superiors about the the request but that's not a you know it's not a direct center part of the finding it did ideas and ministers today here we did like that again we did learn from them that somebody saves and had received funding and were awarded you know multi year funding so we are aware that they did receive some funding and you know to that extent that is probably is about as much as we can do I mean we can't bridge one source to find it with another source of funding are you in they are area we services we can't just take stop money and apply it to the vocal we can't take just take that someone in a I have to focus but we do try to accommodate where it yields a on opportunity for an applicant to benefit from a different program that meets the requirements of the program every federal program has its own requirements so it's not a a direct feed so a lot of that is addressed in a package that you have before you and hopefully you have time to look at it does a couple items that I do take issue with that I do want to dress and I think it is easily address what statement is that we retaliate against Service is complying. I'll introduce to the committee that we have an electronic grants management system. Everyone who submit a grant application submits it in that system there is no way for us to lose an application or misplace an application that is why we implemented that system because we want to have an audit trail of when applications are received who it went to who reviewed it including it faster by if the application has every audit item to show who receipt who sent it who received a wet days who reviewed it when it was a problem all of those are part of that same system an advisory board has access to that same system so I don't like Davis C. N. S. this is the first time that I heard that because and we've heard that because that is not the case we have a electronic system that accomplishes all of that the one was an item that say is on. That That what we what the reading with finding reductions again. When we have a system where about applications are received the they are reviewed internally all of them are bad DFA's that they are review as. Determined by the advisory board who can determine how many yeah they want to review if they want to review I'm all that would be perfect. And then if you're awarded in that same system so in that same system that tracks what was a platform what was review what was determined as approved then it is set and locked in in that sense than what they are allocated that money goes to a whole allocation process whereby those entities of the entity. That process doesn't change during the year because those grants are read awarded so there's no reasonable mechanism by which we would go in and reduce funding in the system that tracks those funding we allocated school federal award we draw down moneys on a federal warrant and the we reconcile everything that occurs within a federal warrant and reported to the federal awarding agency so all of our compliance elements there I mean. DFA receive an audit from the office of inspector general only twenty on these vocal from. We passed that audit clean as a matter of fact BFA receive all accolades in that of the national meeting about the audit results from our side so I'm aware of items missing thanks not being funded or any issues with that part of a grant I do not have to have been complacent about finding availability what's that and that's really out of our control and again I do want to remind committed it there was not a forty percent cut to existing budgets there was a forty percent cut to request the applications and. Difference because that might have not been received had not been issued and that was not thirty four million dollars in a packed war so. What we had to do was request that they cut their request of one percent and that is what has occurred so this year really that the actual reduction total about seven percent overall I guess it a chart you have before you Page three shows how much was so great in twenty twenty how much was I ran in twenty twenty one and then with the twenty twenty to a warrant because of the finding balance this that exists that is depleted we are asking them to look at a budget and find other ways to cut. So I I just want to make out a clear and and be able to give an opportunity to explain just how to process works is not a simple process but at same time as the consistent profit. All right miss Smith I want to you said a lot and I want to chime in there real quickly because there's one thing as you said that I thought was very telling you said with regard to the advisory board that they're invited to attend and but essentially that they can attend if they want to. And I think that's very telling about your attitude or or or DFA's attitude toward this process your the statute requires that they be involved in the process you shall you shall. And it's not enough to say well you can come if you want or you're invited to participate no you shall do the responsibility is on you the responsibility is not on them. And if the statute says you shall. Then you have to do it it's not well you're invited and you can come if you want to and that is a point of contention that needs to improve and saw I want to make that note. So that that's number one. The second thing is I mean did I hear correctly that you've not made application for additional A. R. P. funds to support these organizations we have not made it we made a request to the definite director which you know is. We know that communication with him was to request are providing but we have not made an official application for funding my there are pros your committee I believe you have a separate application process that the applicant of has to request funding but. From our end we must have made a written request for a the mine is that is needed to To supplement the vocal find it okay hang on just this this is not complicated. Have you submitted. An application. As department of finance and administration. For A. R. P. funds to bridge the gap. In the. Short coming of the funding. To bridge the gap have you done that. To say yes or no we do not submit an application to your. So okay so the answer is not. We did not submit an application to the student committee we did submit a request. Okay. Is the request formal in writing yes okay can you provide us a copy of that yes. Okay what is the distinction between a request an application. When you say application from our word as an official process in a note at the opposite your committee has an official process so we do not go online through their oral into and you an official application from the FAA to the FAA are to to defaced your committee is what I was clarified but we did make an official request in writing by email. I do want to clarify something on were invited nail what I said earlier was that we invite them to Review all applications to in they have to participate in reviewing applicants we assigned each one of them a user ID allow in access and that is the invitation that I was referring to I wasn't referring to a meeting or a discussion I said we invited them to it Review all applications we actually asked them to review all of the applications but we were told that they wouldn't have time to review applications for all however many two hundred and something applicants that were submitted that they would have preferred they would prefer to visit to review applications particular to the discipline which we accommodated and so I just want to clarify for the record at the invitation that I referred to was as far as access in the system to be able to review applications that was submitted for funding. Okay thank you for that clarification I appreciate that representative Cavenaugh you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. I'm going to talk about fund balance because I've been looking at budget books for. Weeks now. And that's been one of my things I've been asking about your fund balance what do you do with your fund balance what do you do with your fund balance are you saying in your vote go right now there are no carryover fund balances that you've depleted that there okay of fund balances we if we estimate will be able to warn about eighteen million dollars that's more than what we get in on federal local ward the only way that we have been able to accommodate the level of funding that you okay I'm okay I don't need that I just I'm let me ask the question so you currently have funding in excess funding your vote we have carry over rights okay and that happens because you don't award everything that you're given the federal funds and it just builds up little by little by little correct okay. Why do you not a ward everything that you're given because if we did that in the in the year that we got nine nine point seven million dollars and we had existing twenty seven million dollars worth of all programming. That would be a finding cleo and in the in all my twenty year tenure with DFA ideas which is where I've been the whole time I've been here network or other agency we've always allocated funding in a manner that we can support it the goal was to be able to support at least one and a half years worth of funding going forward and all the way to do that is to carry over okay so since we've had such a drastic cut in the funding from the Fayette. Any but you still have carryover that you're going to be able to do eighteen million or something where is that going to put your fund balance because what your projected for twenty three is going to be less than that and so that's exactly the conversation we're having to find the anticipated and we don't know exactly what the award is going to be until a four twenty twenty three we don't notice until next year but that's in a war was thirteen million dollars were unless we have something in let me correct something earlier Kerio is what we have not award what we have not seen it but it appointed it is included from what was stated earlier if there are parts of budgets that are not being that money does not get turmeric to defeat it you care for that's part of the care or yes it does allow for a little bit of a budget to host or to support those same organization into next year so to your question about what's going to happen next year we don't exactly know why I don't if this photo grant for twenty twenty three is. Ten to twelve million dollars we have a we will have to probably decrease again unless a lot of money has just turned back on use or less other moneys coming in we won't be able to support eighteen million dollars worth of okay. At that one thing I do want to ask about as they were talking about this sixty thousand dollar contract for a younger person. Do y'all have any knowledge of that contract. There was an applicant that. Miss Ballard expressed dislike for an express that this applicant had a younger person and. That's been over a year ago. Well over a year ago I can't remember if that applicant was fund it if it was funded if that piece was funded as well. Well there were two things that really kind of bothered me about that you know the contract and I would like you all to see if you can find some information about for me one thing was that we were Fund in yoga when we have much greater need just to be honest but then the other part was that the person providing the yoga. Was actually maybe had some ties. To something else so when you're doing these grant applications what happened due diligence do you do to make sure that we don't have somebody paying themselves some money. We review their budgets we review if there are current applicant of sub recipient we often go back and review their audits. We look at all services provided current services proposed. Provided an proposed service. If something is just. Adequate. I would like to know who that organization was so I can take a look at the application to see exactly what was fund. Yeah I would too so we can find out that information Mister chair and be great thank you I I completely agree representative Cavenaugh anything that has to do with funding. A yoga program when we have all types of serious needs. Not that that could be beneficial but there are serious of rape rape victim's sexual assault victims needs that need to be met and we're paying sixty thousand dollars for somebody to conduct a yoga class once a week that's what's been testified to I want to find out if that's true I don't know if it's trying trying to know myself well we're about the representative Gazaway and the committee members I stand in the gap for all crime victims in this state as the as the grants manager. Four of the victims of crime act the violence against women act the family violence prevention services that they all are for the terms of crime sexual assault domestic violence as well as the sexual assault in our performance. I stand in the gap. For every one of them it is my job as a state employee as a federal grants manager to ensure that services are available to victims state wide regardless of their victimization. Regardless of where they are in this state. That's my job I do it and do it fairly well. Unfortunately here. Unfortunately the advisory body and our office. There are times where we don't see I that. We're not always on the same page. That's unfortunate. But no laws are broken. I do agree that we don't well as I feel compelled to say this. It took a spanking early in the day. And that's problematic. We have here we had money administer these funds according to federal regulations. And we are always in compliance. I said on the national board of violence against women administrators. I've I've many years ago I was asked to mentor Boca administrators nationwide and I still do. So I want to just add a little bit of all contexts within it also in our present this to the committee because it with everything that you ask for but to be clear from the perspective of how we have engaged with the advisory body we have made every action to involve the advisory body with every you know role that they are required to have and through that engagement has to be a give and take but sometimes what it turns into is kind of a power struggle and we're kind of you know charge are told that we're not doing this ride and that we're not but everything that we do is in compliance with federal regulations so we most certainly have have that proof for sure but in addition to that we do have a role in making sure that these funds are administered responsibly yes we could give our if the dollar in net bank account all at once and that's what happens when in nineteen within our this battle was referring to twenty nineteen B. in a year where they were find it at a higher level I wasn't here in that year but that high level funded depleted what we have to carry forward so here we sit with a depleted fund balance in a in a depleted grants over all to the extent that we're having to stretch to try to find funding and make sure that all of these budgets can be up support it but I do think he reiterated the point that we can achieve something I just don't thank you yes accurate at all I no it's not no we didn't budget forty percent we cut applications by forty percent after requested budgets so we services that were existing by forty percent we thirty four million dollars for the application request compared to approximately twenty five or so million dollars available for finding out what's going to work so we Rick we requested that. They cut the application budget but it was presented here today that we cut services. Services in in the actual cut to define you know we're out on the street west less than ten percent that's responsible management that allows for finding worker the next year we try to force even twenty five million dollars worth of funding into a nine million dollar award imagine the walls of the programs out there that would have to deal with that because there is no way that we can. For as that kind of funding through the applications and the needs that are being demanded so I don't want to make that clear and I think that is most of what it is is it now because from the sounds of the discussion earlier we're just cutting budgets you know we're cutting services we are not including advisory body we do including but they have to be willing to participate so for the record again when I say we invite them to apply we can't you know forced them to participate but once they communicate that they're not going to be able to review all applications or whatever it is the seals. I mean that's as much as we can trial is so that we have a you know if that's to do role that we have to make sure they are included on make sure that they are involved of the statute we have done that but. You can see that the connection is somewhat off I think that perhaps there is you know just this power struggle about who's controlling the money but truthfully I less we managed and administered a finding responsibility we wouldn't even have twins in the R. eighteen million dollars to award this year. So I I just want to reiterate that for a record and I know to work today because the and she works weekends sometime her staff work overtime so we just we're not here just Pat ourselves on the back book we are are tasked with a monumental job in you know I'm just thankful his job sometime because we get a complaint we get accolades but truthfully it distills the best work week we know because we still have money to administer it we spend all in twenty nineteen and I believe that this ballot stated that. The okay the process was that they requested more funding will by given out way more finding that we that we would normally give out we put our reserve balance. It is we now we don't have a reserve. So we're operated from what we have left so. For all of the committee's request we can provide it responds I invite you to go out and visit the website the policies are posted on a website. This call separate administration that is posted on the website there are meetings our resources all that is posted on the website so the information that was shared with you earlier about what we don't do and how we threaten people we cut grants. No one of us in the FAA in IGS has done any of those things. Representative ro. But Europe Sir yes Sir thank you Mr chairman you know ladies. This was reported here on page four. That it actually change from thirty point six million in two thousand eighteen to nine point seven nine four seventy two million twenty one. That's an emergency. Now I don't know who. I've heard. Different thanks during this meeting. But you're affecting the lives here. Of Arkansas coalition against sexual assault and rape victims I don't believe we said a lot about those folks. But you know when that kind of something happens ma'am we all just need to work together. Need to work together and make sure that if there's a shortfall in funding is to just we'll talk about it you know or something like that out there. Let's just get together and come into a room like this in the the proper committee and say look we're gonna be twenty million dollars short on something and we need to come back and and ask the general funds to help us with that and I wish I could do that. Yes Sir and I agree and I think the R. process it again is just too far today I do want to dress and I one hundred percent agree so we we did make a request like I said I I want I have to doesn't make a difference between a word application because application in our we're all means something totally different from maybe the way it was use so we didn't put in a formal application but did make a request would it make it known that the funding shortage was there The date and the fact that the funding shortage is there are I want to say that and I don't know to answer me I don't I don't know of other fines so is that going to bridge that gap in a shorter period of time but. And again we were talking about in twenty twenty one that gap was seven percent that technically get out was less than ten percent wasn't forty percent now no forty percent more is what they requested but it wasn't what they already had existing so it was a seven percent reduction so I again if I state that redundantly is is far purpose because that was the net effect of it but truthfully commented to the table to try to see what other options are available and that's what we that's where we need to be and so that's where we need to focus thank you very much. Representative Springer your question ma'am Europe thank you Mister chair I just wanna know will how much was the request that was weight to the steering committee how much did you all make a request we had that amount okay it on twenty twenty one I the requested amount was about thirteen million or so because we can see like I said we can't just fine for the current year we we also know that you know if the great continue to decrease in our demands remain at that level that you could all you know we we could need more so we actually stayed around thirteen million I believe in the email so that's for the this is the fiscal year this this this president that we're presently in is that right. Well I don't quite know how that did I'm I let me to force the steering committee is set that up Our per finding is truly separate is so. They're the fiscal year that we are are you twenty one one was the year where that would cut up it was a seven percent cut so that thirteen million was supposed to cover twenty twenty one and this current year. But I again I that is a request to a fine source that we we request that we don't have any control over that but today he is somebody if it is that did receive funding they receive funding in that same time per year October twenty twenty one for all. For millions of dollars also so I hope I'm asking a question I'm trying to the chair would you help us out and well maybe may confuse things yes of course what the Arkema the the argument goes through the steering committee which then comes through the compare the pair committee and Dale C. so it may be more beneficial if it's okay with a committee of our staff would just research research that back and see what actually came through or both okay what was approved through peer and full A. L. C. and then we can make sure that those funds have been. All dispersed out to the to the entities thank you yes ma'am. Representative Cavenaugh you have a question yes thank you Mr chair yeah on the Arkansas and John have anything to do with that all you have to do is make a request and then it gets given the opportunity get to the executive branch the executive branch will then bring it before the committee I just wanna make sure we understand they're two different funds and you'll have no control over I can make a request and then it's done but I wanted to say so when someone is doing because right now we're having a reduction of funding so if an organization makes a request at their full budget. Do you not have the authority at that time to go and say I might ask for two million dollars but you come back to me as I can't funds to it to but I can give you one are you able to do that or do you have to fund based on their ask. That's what we do you so actually this is exactly what we do okay so they can submit their full budgets and then you could say based on the funding that we have if you're full budget is two million and we can only fund you you know I million of it but they can submit their whole budget correct okay thank you. All right that appears to be all the questions that we have miss Smith. It was placed mismas que thank you both for being here I I know it's this is tough I I really before you leave I want to say I I agree I was get a little frustrated I think it's because I've been set in the same chair for about five hours but I want to say I want to echo a representative right sentiment which is you know we should all work together on this I don't think that there's anything that can't be solved but it's going to take everybody working together and you know let's just try to improve upon that going forward okay thank you so much for being here okay representative Gazaway can I ask are real quick for you to go back over to things that we to Committee. Okay. Okay staff said that they have a list and they will send it to you. Thank you. Can we share that with everybody. Responses to the questions the responses yes the responses to be shared yes. All right thank you guys so much that's going to conclude this issue we did have one more agenda item on. On the agenda the agenda item F. an overview of ballot issue for marijuana legalization initiative senator Hammer had requested this be added to the agenda. Kind of late in the process and I don't see him here is there anyone here to speak on this issue. Okay is there anyone here to speak on the issue of. ballot issue for. This is the one person here. David catches on the agenda don't see data no day but I don't see David. So put myself in the lands then I'm not signed up to speak Mr Miller Mr Armstrong. Your your Mr Armstrong you're recognized. So I'm not signed up can you. No. Don't act like you forgot how this works I got it thank you Mr chairman members of the committee though I'm not I'm actually signed up to speak I was here mainly in response to comments that may be if the will be made today by Mr calotes but I'm Eddie Armstrong former member of this body and current chairman of the responsible growth Arkansas ballot question committee we have spent the last year and a half working tirelessly to make certain that we bring forth the citizen led initiatives to amend the state's constitution but with that without over speaking because I know how these can be and how long you all have been there with respect for your time if there any questions you have for us I'm here to address those and if not I'll get out of the way and then the four domestic cats who was indeed supposed to be here today on the opposite side of this opportunity. So I got your lucky day no questions so. Excellent our intent and goal is just to be as transparent as we possibly can so I invite each of you members if you have any questions specifically to your districts your constituents and you want to clear up any matters that may be in the public right now please do not hesitate to reach out to me thank you Mr chairman thank you very much and with that this is a motion to adjourn. See a motion Senator Hickey. Represent what No representative Springer second this motion is adjourned thank you very much.