Senate Business Meeting

All right members if you don't mind taking your seats. Roll call the Senate business ordered to Senate Senate business meeting back to order thank you all know we've been in recess from our last meeting Senator Pitsch is also is gonna lead us in our prayer and our pledge Senator Pitsch you're recognized thank you Mr chairman please join me as we approach the lord in prayer. Heavenly father we come before you today to do the work of the people of the great state of Arkansas be among us give us council be with us in our decision making always let us remember the fourth petition of the lord's prayer your prayer where you told us to remember by will be done in your name we pray amen amen join me in the pledge of allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay members I have a leave from some members who have requested their staff give this to me so without objection for Senator Rapert is there any objection to Senator Rapert. Okay we'll say his leave is granted Senator Stubblefield as as for leave. Without objection will consider his leave granted Senator Sturch. Okay without objection is is a. Consider granted are there any other members to ask who we status for leave for any other members. Okay Senator Johnson is aye for leave for Senator Caldwell. zero is there any objection to that. Seeing none it'll be granted anyone else. Okay madam director if you would please call the roll. Ballinger. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Chesterfield. Clark. Clark Davis. DISMANG. Elliott. English. Flippo. Flowers. Flowers. Full for Garner. Gilmore. Hammer. Hendren. Hendren Hester. Hickey hello. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson. Mark Johnson. Leding. Page. Rice. Sample. Sullivan. T.. Teague Tucker. Wallace. Senator Ballinger is here also. Okay thank you madam record all right members the purpose for meetings days here presentation regarding the findings and recommendations of the Senate ethics committee related to the committee's findings and recommendations regarding violations Senate rule twenty four point one three by Senator Alan Clark we will now move to the hearing presentation testimony related to the committee's recommendation regarding Senator Clark. For doing this just a few procedural reminders for everyone. As with determined during a meeting on September sixteenth this meeting will be livestreamed there was a vote on that so we will be this meeting is live stream. also there is or there is some exhibit several provided by Senator Clark each one of you should have those I believe there in your binders I have that there in the front pocket order you're laying there on your on your desk. Another thing I want to remind members is whatever we're doing our discussions testimony speak to for whatever it may be that all comments and everything must be germane to the subject and the way that our procedures are written up because of that those are the matters which are the findings and recommendations of the ethics committee also I see that we have some gas in our galleries here today we welcome you all know thank you for being here we do it we do however ask that the you're your participation here is to watch and that there's no out first for against slapping or any other. So. Sir that's exactly what I was talking about you know that that that type of thing we will not allow so we'll give you one morning on that stand up and that will go forward. All right at this time. Senator Hickey I have a motion at the proper time Sir yes Sir it is a motion that you told me about now serves a different motion okay what is your motion sir I have a motion to recess at the call of the chair for the consideration of fellow center calling and for the fact that Senator Clark would have no legal representation for this hearing today if needed allow I can explain his father if it's the chair allows thank you I'm a rule that is a non proper motion if you want to fill it to the floor to overrule me you can do that at this time. I'll kill to the Ford I like to explain it possible. I do want to come down here to explain Sir absolutely. Your record recognize Senator Garner thank you Mr chairman I make a motion for Senator Alan Clark that we re going to recess for a call the chairs many of you know Senator Clark had a prepayment plan conflict that prohibited from being here today. He had a pre planned vacation months ago before this here never start the let the leadership know about this meeting. He was prepared and ready to finish self on September sixteenth we appear here what is attorneys and did not realize this meeting would not be taken care of at this time. But putting aside that issue and I know many of you've traveled here to cancel plans vacations and while I think it's important we give consideration to a colleague on the matter I think the second reason is much more substantive and something you consider. Avenues here today would not Senator Clark his ability to have legal representation. Senator Clark the tourney's to own which appeared here last Friday on September sixteenth at conflicts do the short truncated nature of this hearing being call. They could not appear today to legally represent Senator Clark as provided by the Senate rules and also as provided for a basic constitutional rights that is Senator have legal representation whatever he's presented from the government body while this may be an internal Senate conflict dealing with our procedures this is a government body was be issuing sanctions against an individual therefore he should have the right and the ability to have legal counsel here to protect himself this is something that Senator Tucker brought up that we have reported protections to centers while they bring yourself so. As such as attorneys could not appear here and since this was announced last Monday at past five PM that text message thread it was impossible for him to legal representation as such a truncated matter for this reason I would ask them to overrule the ruling of the chair and to allow this motion to allow Senator Clark to come back at a time in the future with both him when he has to have a personal conflict nor are any and he can have legal representation. Okay so. Is there anyone that wants to speak for. The motion. Against the motion. All right of center Dismang first and then Senator Solomon you're being a. I mean I appreciate the word Senator Garner in fact I would argue that Senator Clark made the point over and over and over again last meeting that he was not prepared and did not have time for their. Now I think all of us wanted to be quick in our responsibility to come back here today. All of us. Have made sacrifices to be here today most everybody in this room has a job. We were taking away from our vacation we are actually leaving our place of employment to come down here to take care of our business as a member of the Senate. Not Senator Clark probably knows that more than anyone in fact I mean I've been a part of senator Clark wanting to actually subpoena people to come and speak before that he was not compelled to be able to have come in speak before a committee. I would just argue everybody in this room has sacrificed their time especially if you're on the ethics committee. And to be honest I mean I I believe that is a respected this body that Senator Clark would come today I canceled a vacation a week ago or whenever we last met we were she was going to down that Friday would not do it. I've missed work multiple days now for this particular event. And at no fault of my own but I do feel like it was my responsibility to be here and in a minimum if you could have found it to be is so with that I speak against this motion he made a decision and a conscious one not participate today. Okay Senator Dismang spoke against the motion does anybody wanna speak for the motion. Senator Ballinger your next because or four and then notice okay Senator Ballinger. Senator Ballinger speaking for the motion. Thank you Mr. We all got a text saying would we be available on I did I know I talked a whole lot of other people got a text asking me but I'd be available either yesterday or today. You know we didn't get a text Senator Clark. Now maybe he got it didn't get a text because they knew because they knew he was going to be gone he sent an email saying that he was going to be all they knew is going to be gone I mean like look. If we're going to do this and what we're going to sit here and there's no way that we can pretend that we're having given a modicum of justice a modicum of due process and we go forward when he can't be here and and not only him but his attorneys can't be here so even if he got a claim in the Middle those vacation and flew back and spend a day and a half here with us he can have his attorney to represent him. This is not justice this is not this is not fair this is not due process not all. We take questions other questions Senator Garner you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman Senator Ballinger attorney you've been around a lot of civil cases understand criminal law is it very common practice for attorneys when they have conflicts or for party have called please give motion to continue with the reschedule as it happens routinely more than not hearing to reschedule weeks out once out of answer legal system yeah all the time I mean it it happens all the time that's what we have to do is you have to try to schedule get everybody together it's not easy and you may make sacrifices figure out a way to do it takes a little bit of work and usually it you know it doesn't happen by one person making the decision. Senate is mine you're recognized just to follow up on that question so you're telling me. That a technician is a valid response for a continuation yeah absolutely yeah that's what we if the if there is something we got scheduled without one party's involvement in it and they had a they had a. Click the vacation that we can continue and it didn't get continue to be good the case for a much different circumstances and aware of well you may press for long I don't know. Senate center Sullivan you're recognized. The court of law or. It's committee this is all political we know this is. Again Senator Clark it appears to me have control. From the beginning. And he is to working a lot on the giant the. Telling people that are pre judge the situation and then refusing to answer the question he said all the full time control and. A prayer for. With two hundred. At the minute with law have left for a job families to be here multiple times somebody told me this morning that we had the Committee well over one hours each in. What's that and you're telling me that we need to do this because it goes on vacation I I I get it it's not because he's on vacation it's because it's council can't be here has counsel and and you know we were aware of that he's got a right to counsel even our rules the well if the rules apply here he has a right to counsel and you know it's easy we we could just scheduled it you know the one person who's who is absolutely necessary to this process it is Senator Clark and his counsel and we can schedule for next week and will yes Sir. right counsel throughout the proceedings. I don't know I'm not sure but I think we need to do for them I don't know. Thank you. Senator Mark Johnson you have a question Senator Clarke Tucker we next mark Johnson you're you're recognized Senator Ballinger. To follow up on Senator Solomon questions ask if he had a right to counsel he did not know of this potential sanction until the issue related to the complaint against a senator Flowers which we unanimously with one abstention with one abstention actually voted that it was. This may. So he wasn't in jeopardy of anything until that time is that not correct that's correct and I didn't even think about that is that the whole point I mean last time is that he never actually had not to put on his defense for the for again since sanctions the process did never given that opportunity through that so the Senate even had counsel present in these if it's a matter of this file that is complete follow up with chairman yes Sir Senator Ballinger is potentially deny Senator Clark his Fifth Amendment and possibly other constitutional rights I mean this thing is if he has a right of that is is being foretold or taken away by a by a governmental body the answer is yes do you recall when Sir Clark and I were were brought up on ethics charges last two months ago perhaps that the the final action that happened on this floor there was a motion to refer to prosecuting attorney I do recall those that put someone in jeopardy of potential criminal prosecution and extend their constitutional rights to the. Yes my case for sure thank you senator thank you Mr. Thank you senator you're recognized Senator Irvin you'll be next. Thank you Mister senator and my course amat in the course of my practice course of experience continuances for hearings and my experience that's typically when the parties are gonna be it in front of a judge with the lawyers only arguing a motion and when you actually come to a trial where you have twelve jurors in law that a judge is much much less lenient and much more strict us the time and continuance is which of course twelve is less than the thirty four we have here and I'm just curious if that's been your experiences you know that person right but if they never contacted you as the attorney to in order to schedule that and that lapse was discovered they would grant the continuance. Thank. Senator Irvin. Thank you are you familiar with the language and twenty four point one three of our rural. So in that language. At Senator Clark. Does have knowledge of the language and twenty four point one three correct at this point the treatments. So in that it says if the Senate votes to solve a responded at any at the code violation the membership may levy against the claimant one or more of the penalties as described in rule twenty four point one one is it determines that the accusations were spurious or frivolous yeah and that's to me from what is an immediate vote as soon as the Senate votes to on the first issue at hand it's an immediate vote yes. What we have done and Senator Clark was very aware of five when he was actually brought back into the Senate ethics committee into an executive session after we rendered our decision he had the opportunity then and was asked twice during the hearing aids if you would like to withdraw his claim he did he did not take that opportunity when he was offered that twice. He said no I'm not going to withdraw this complaint no I'm not going to withdraw this complaint he knew full well. That this section twenty four point three what in the world. And he did not take not everyone opportunity not to opportunities but even a third opportunity. Which he was in the process from the members of the ethics committee. He did not. One two and three. Those opportunities that we afforded him. So he was very familiar with what we're doing here today and what was it. And where we are in this process he could have avoided it. He chose not to those are his actions. You can respond is well what is there a question is that. Okay so that he was familiar with the language and twenty four point one three I answer that thank you okay Senator Garner you wish to be recognized. Okay anybody all right Senator Ballinger left the will the Senator Ballinger actually is supposed is spoken for the motion to overrule the chair is everyone wants to speak against it Senator bart Hester is going to speak against the motion. Its members speak against this motion you know earlier this week or last week Senator Hickey communicated to lease mean I believe all of us that Hey I've called this meeting for next Tuesday if we if this body doesn't think it's appropriate eighteen members reach out to me and I will move the meeting to a different day. He said that I will defer to the body on this do you know how many out of thirty five reached out to him and asked to move. For. Unless that's changed since last night four out of thirty five asking move so I think the body has a clear consensus that we want to have this meeting today to get this matter over with thank. A center Senator Hester speak against the motion anyone else wants anyone would speak for. Okay so this time we'll take a vote to let me but let me be clear here yes it's for the override of the chair if you vote no that is degree with the ruling of the chair. So all those in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no. The nose has clearly. So okay with that we will proceed own. At this time Senator Hammer if you're gonna be recognized we will need to do your oath again so if you don't mind coming down will will administer that this point. If you want to start if you would please state your name and your position as it relates to these proceedings. State senator Kim Hammer chair of ethics committee Senate ethics committee okay and if you're doing fuel place man raise your right hand do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god I do okay okay Senator Hammer you may proceed with your hair with your presentation you have up to one hour to present these the Senate ethics committee's findings. Thank you Mr members if you want to turn to tab one other thing that I needed to ask you not being at the last meeting do you need do you want any Senate ethics committee members with you because I think we were going to allow that assesses you'd asked me that before I would like to I would just like to defer to have the option that if asked the question outside of being placed under oath for testimony purposes to be able to consult the couple the committee members to make sure I give clear concise answers okay share would like to have them here I'll defer to the chair that's fine it's just if they are going to speak that we will need to administer the oath to them so if you're just going to have one back for consultation purposes that'll be fine but if they are going to addressed the body in any way shape profession we will need that to. You know to be administered so. Okay let's just go with the way it is. Hold on just a moment Senate. Okay. Rob if you can hear set there were having will somebody has told us that they're having trouble hearing from the podium so there's a way to turn it back up we would appreciate it. You could indicate does if you're able to do that. Sounds like he said yes. If the see if that's better for the member Senator Hammer if you just to test. Test one to test one two three four test. If you go a little higher rob. Tell me whenever you're there. Test one to test one two three four test test test. Good members I'm getting a thumbs up to rob that ought to be good sorry Senator Hammer you may proceed thank you. This is not ethics complaint this is what is allowed in twenty four point one three first of all. So I wanna make that clarity so as we go through this we will have that distinction members if you'd like to turn to exhibit the inner tab they'll be some references to items that we found there so it might make it easier for you to look at that if you go and find your place there. Having found that senator flowers did not violate the Senate code of ethics the Senate ethics committee made additional findings and recommendations regarding Senator Alan Clark the claimant and brings those to the Senate for its consideration under rule twenty four point one three as follows finding of fact. The Senate ethics committee found the following facts based on the exhibits and testimony presented to us Senators Clark Senator Clark allegations of ethics violations against Stephanie flowers Senator Stephanie flowers were Spurrier's privileged and retaliatory. A permit timeline of the dance of senator Clark actions and public statements leading up to the filing of his petition against senator flowers which demonstrates his retaliatory intent is as follows. On June twenty second twenty twenty two the Senate ethics committee began its hearing process on a petition filed against Senator Clark and during the committee deliberations on that day Senator Clark submitted and FO I a request to the bureau of legislative research for all supplemental sign in sheet submitted by members of the General Assembly for the past ten years. On June twenty seventh of twenty twenty two the ethics sub committee adopted findings that Senator Clark had violated the Senate code of ethics and recommended penalties be imposed against him to the full Senate. On June thirtieth twenty twenty two. Senator Clark made a Facebook post that includes the statement working in Little Rock with my best old ex friends say people you thought you knew well but turns out you really hated you can find that exhibit the tab six if you'd like to look at it. On July third of twenty twenty two an article appeared in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette regarding the ethics committee's recommendations concerning Senator Clark Is Senator Clark was quoted as saying when it comes to mark Johnson I will burn the house down we'll talk about all these things that could be ethics charges and some people will get real uncomfortable Sir Clark went on it in that article state that he plans to be a little meaner in the Senate you can look at exhibit the seven to find that. On July twenty first twenty twenty two the Senate held its business meeting during which it found Senator Clark to be in violation of the cynics code of ethics and imposed penalties up against him. On July twenty second. A twenty twenty two Senator Clark attended a Republican Party of Arkansas then and was photographed wearing a scarlet letter D. around his neck you can find that under exhibit the eight. On July twenty nine twenty twenty two Senator flowers was informed that Senator Clark had submitted it FOR I request RT Senator flowers Judiciary Committee attendance during the twenty twenty one regular session to the bureau. On August ninth and if you want to turn to tab he'd nine. You'll find what I'm about to reference. On August ninth of twenty twenty two Senator Clark made a lengthy lengthy post on his Facebook page entitled secrets to giant killing in which he made several threatening statements I read just a few do you the battle is real and there will be losers life's battles are littered with the bodies of the dead would be giant killers the giant did not get his reputation without about account. Top and pick up some ammunition is when the giant threatens you you must answer. Another section from this posted quotes if the giant says he's going to kill you very calmly let him know that he is one that is going to die. Look for the right moment to attack attack. I do not I do have one correction on this one the report states this post was made on August sixteenth but that was the day it was reported Senator Clark station book post is dated August ninth. On August eighteenth Senator Clark filed his ethics violation petition against senator Clark. The committee found the senators Clark the Senator Clark retaliatory intent in filing his petition against senator flowers was further evidenced by the fact that senator flowers was not the only senator to have a Roni officially receive per diem and mileage during the twenty twenty one regular session while participating the is them in fact one Senator Clark testified that he was aware prior to filing his petition against senator flowers that another Senator had also receive per diem and mileage payments on the days he dissipated B. as soon. Secondly Senator Clark was aware that the other Senator live more than fifty miles from the state capitol making him an eligible for per diem and mileage reimbursement at a rate higher than senator flowers third Senator Clark never asked Senate staffer information related to the other senators attendance during the twenty twenty one regular session for the senator Clark never asked Senate staffer information regarding amounts paid to the other senators on days he participated the assume fifth yet despite never having made these inquire res Senator Clark when asked by the committee why he did not and did not also file a petition against the other Senator stated that he felt the alleged violation by Senator flowers were the quote most egregious and quote because of the dollar amount further Senator Clark did not find out the dollar amount that senator flowers aronie Asli received until August twenty fourth six days after he filed his complaint. Finally Senator Clark had multiple opportunities to withdraw his petition against senator flowers and did not do so as follows Senator Clark received a copy of senator flowers response to his petition on August twenty fifth the day before the first meeting of the ethics committee regarding his petition. Her response contained a statement that she had communicated with staff when she realized the payments had been direct deposited into your account and a question as to whether she was eligible for them and she was assured by staff that the payments were correct. Testimony of the staff for their supports senator flowers statement. On August twenty fifth Senator Clark was also aware of the repayments that have been made to send it to the senator by Senator to the Senate by senator flowers these three payments were as follows deductions due week for regular session reimbursement for the amount paid for mileage two thousand seven hundred fourteen dollars on August eleventh twenty twenty two and two hundred sixteen dollars and sixty cents on August twenty second of twenty twenty two. During the committee hearings Senator Clark heard both miss solution is Cornwell testified that the payments to Senator flowers were the result of clerical error on their part and that senator flowers bore no responsibility. Senator Clark was asked twice by the committee members whether he would like to withdraw his petition and both times he refused. Finally Senator Hickey testified to the committee that Senator Clark had told him that he had drafted ethics violations against an additional thirty to thirty two senators. Committee announces. The Committee check all of this into consideration and found the center Clark's retaliatory intent was underlying all of his actions and decisions decision making into this matter. The intent to retaliate against the Senate and the members of the Senate ethics committee shows that the allegations made against senator flowers were not done in earnest but rather wished her issue in nature meaning that they were not what they were purported to be a valid ethics petition filed from concern for Senators behavior but rather the first step and Senators Clark's stated intention to burn the house down. The Committee further expressed its grave concern for the ability of a senator to file this type of frivolous petition against the senator serving only his own personal agenda retaliation rather than the stated purpose of our code of ethics and causing in the process the excessive waste of Senate and staff time and resources. Senator Clark sent tensions have been made clear to the committee. The facts that I set out for you today regarding his many retaliatory public statements and actions his failure to file a petition against and even or even investigate another senior situated Senator his decision to file a complaint with incomplete information and his refusal to withdraw his petition in face of evidence that all of this was a clerical was clerical in nature show the Senator Clark had the intent to retaliate against senators and senator flowers. He was aware the senator flowers situation was not unique. But chose not to file a petition against the other senator and in fact did not even request any information regarding the other Senator showing that senator flowers as a member of the ethics committee that had made the recommendation against Senator Clark was targeted by him in his pledge to burn the house down. Senator Hickey testified the Senator Clark had told him he already had ethics charges drafted involving thirty to thirty two additional senators further demonstrating Senator Clark should tension to continue to use the ethics process to carry out his retaliation against the Senate. When presented with all the facts and evidence before the committee the clearly demonstrated that clerical errors not on ethical conduct were at the root of the issue he was complaining of Senator Clark refused not once but twice to withdraws petition against senator flowers. The ethics committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence related to both senator flowers and Senator Clark the Committee considered this evidence with an open mind without passion or prejudice toward the end of the committee's proceeding the Committee asked senator Clark to appear once more before the committee with no other witnesses present for the sole purpose of giving Senator Clark a fair opportunity to explain his actions and the intent behind them the Committee went above and beyond to conduct a thorough and fair investigation of senator Clark scum plane. Senator Clark clear demonstrated retaliatory intent in filing this petition against senator flowers more than rises to the level of the spears and frivolous petition warrant teen a decision by the Senate to impose penalties against him. I would ask that the Senate adopt the recommendation of the Senate ethics committee with regard to Senator Clark and we'll have a motion or motions at the appropriate time. The committee recommends a finding by the Senate. The Senator Clark tuition against Stephanie flowers was furious and frivolous in violation of Senate rule twenty four thirteen Mister chair I'll yield to questions from the senators and have a motion following my closing statement okay just just one thing staff indicated to me that you're is you're not gonna call any witnesses but would you would state that for the record that your dispatcher to call any witnesses I did not submit a list of witnesses to be called it's my intent not to call any witnesses okay and thirty questions Senator Solomon I sing you raise your hand first. Yes this might be a question for staff also with. Senator Hammer. When the committee and I was on that committee and a friend of senator Clark somebody at. The Committee was getting ready gavel back in. And when that opportunity came together back in all the evidence had been presented is that correct that is correct and so when all the evidence is in did Senator Clark vote for the motion to exonerate senator flowers. My recollection is when the chamber voted that he voted to Gen John rate it was for yeah I was privileged essentially and all the same he voted for that. So when. Can statute vote he did he did vote to exonerate or. Yes I believe I believe that we will verify. Well I make my point when you can go beyond okay. Motion that we did which was a twenty four point oh three was. Senator Clark was listed as a yea. He voted for her to be exonerated yes okay so when whatever that we walk in. We walked into that meeting in your get ready gavels back in. Senator Clark could walk up to you and said I choose to withdraw my complaint is that true. Could you have done that well I'd like to speak to process the process would allowed for that to happen whether okay and maybe the staff can answer this but if he had withdrawn at that time what all this is stopped immediately if he says I withdraw the complaint does it stop. You're talking about for whenever we came in for the meeting on the floor no Sir I'm talking about when we're in committee okay that Hammer to get ready gavels back in and it Senator Clark all the evidence has been presented and senator Clark could have withdrawn before we read our findings on senator flowers and had he withdrawn the then this this whole process would have stopped right then and with no penalty am I right. That that that's my understanding if staff would like to speak to their both nodding your head that is that is the procedure that was okay so not only were there to opportunities there was a third opportunity as at close that he could have stopped this and in fact at that time he should have known she was innocent because a few days later the voter is. And chose not to do so. With that is that correct that's my recollection thank you. Senator Garner do you have a question yes Sir I have multiple questions I don't know how you want to handle it would be just proceeding on the next question if you don't mind is let's do one at a time and then we'll just ask me for continuous and we'll keep going absolutely Senator hammer the committee found the center for the plane to get senator flowers correctly as verified Spurrier reckless without merit is that a good summary which shall file. Yes. Question. Was the four thousand dollars that was returned to the taxpayers by Senator flowers in my cell. Was that a meritless was experience was that was was that recklessness that's not germane to the findings of this committee it absolutely is your your chairman it's multiple times report he listed the amount that was paid factors multiple facts within report of that money being paid back by Senator Clark I can point to the actual part of the committee report if you want to my understanding is that that but but you said that you were asked with restated thank you said if that was frivolous experience is that correct correct I'm asking that was not part of it so I'm more I'm going to do whether or not senator flowers was on that part so if you reward the questions to just ask about the four thousand I think that would be correct because it is in within the findings and recommendations is the result of center parcs complaint that the four thousand dollars paid back to the taxpayers also Ferguson without merit share I need to ask your question before I answer the question yes Sir no where has this committee identified publicly that the senator questioned the report is the senator the just identified that he is the one that did it I just wanna make sure that I am clear and I wanna make sure the record reflect that the ethics committee no member of the ethics committee has identified publicly that the other Senator in question in the report is actually senator garner by his own admission just then. Okay and that that would be true you do you agree with that Senator Garner that I have not listed you absolutely allocations set between nine okay media reports come out in five minutes. Where the surgeon says other Senator and we now know what you based on what you said. Correct okay do you have another question was that question answer your are could be restated please yes our state. The coalition for complaints. The results for the taxpayer of Arkansas was repaid nearly four thousand dollars twenty seven hundred dollars on August eleventh two hundred seventeen dollars on August twenty second and two nine nine hundred six dollars on September first I'm asking if the results of the complaint the taxpayer's being paid back is also frivolous and without merit. I'll be honest I really don't know that I understand your question but the definition of spurious that we used was not being in not being what it purports to be false or fake frivolous is having no sound basis as in fact or law the decision we made aligned with those definitions as we understood it okay. So no are you are you that's what those not go back and forth are you let me know when you're finished Senator Hammer and then Senator Garner all come back to you Mr may I ask I just wanna make sure I'm answering correctly so could I have of the two that I had here before from the Committee be Senator Solomon Senator Clarke Tucker come up and yes let me consult with completion thank you and here's the thing I've said that if they were consult consulting I think the best thing for us to do is go ahead and do the sworn testimony at this time if you two gentlemen don't mind because I could see that there may be questions of you and there's if you want step forward answers in order to do it that way. All right. I think since we did Senator Hammer bisa. Okay if you would if you to state your name and your position as it relates to this matter senator Dan Sullivan okay good face means standing and raise your right hand you solemnly swear the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god thank you okay. Senator Tucker if you would state your name and your position as it relates to this matter. Clarke Tucker St Senator member of the Senate ethics committee okay thank you have a right hand you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god the. All right. Senator Hammer. Already you can go back to answer Senator question. Commission member may I I will I don't mean to interrupt like authority was finished but that's no problem like say we just we're all going to work together in here we know well how to this is an emotional years and if I call you on or about seven times understand that and we all know that. Correct. I don't mean to call your honor. Share. I have a committee member represent Senator Solomon answer the question yes I think is that okay with you Senator Garner. Senator Garner is that okay with you Senator Solomon answers your question one man okay this is not the only to report their members of committee they were kind of painting that will thank you Sir. Senator Solomon you're recognized no one is denying there was an error in fact we've all agreed there was an error so the fact that the taxpayer was repaid due to an error was the right thing to do it had nothing to do with the ethics of it. Absolutely that's that's what I'm happy minute that on the record thank you for center parcs complained that the state would not have been discovered is that correct well I don't know means senator Clark could have come to the floor and said you guys were making some errors here and I want to correct them instead of doing that he files an ethics complaint what a complaint led to the taxpayer to be repaid this is for a good thing. Senator senator senator flowers reimbursement to the Senate was before the ethics complaint was ever filed so you see you could never you cannot say that the the ethics complaint led to the taxpayer's being reimbursed because that's actually not true. We can open a timeline of different testimony expected was the program is about the call you can actually counter that later but right now let's move on to my next question your your you have another question yes Sir questions Senator Hammer will see chart with you Senator Garner you're recognized assonance Sullivan said because of the complaint filed by Senator Clark we discovered that the Senate rules were not followed properly is that correct that's that's not germane. Well. Because you set the rules yes Sir okay I'm sorry that was not that we're talking about the procedure so you are correct yes Sir my name is section five forty deal with temporary procedural rule disregard disregard my yes Sir just make sure of our five. Ask questions again sorry law should between you to talk okay I'm sorry because of the center for complaint we discovered that the Senate rules specifically section five forty of the temporary emergency procedures was not followed correctly as regard to per diem is that correct. I would question whether that would be a proper interpretation and maybe years but don't necessarily read mine and maybe get senator senator Tucker we. I just think with this entire line of questioning there's a conflating of his investigation ex senator Clark St destination of what happened with the per diem and the filing of the ethics complaint out if you can raise questions about whether the rules were violated ask staff asked senator flowers. That investigation by Senator Clark did discover the air and lead to the reimbursement to the Senate of the error that was made that's an entirely separate thing from filing an ethics complaint and so to continue to say that the ethics complaint led to the reimbursement of the ethics complaint led to the discovery of the air I disagree with that characterization because the ethics complaint did not lead to any of that Senator Clark center station did yes did lead to the discovery of the year and the reimbursement but that's a separate matter from the following the ethics complaint thank you approval for new subject if you yes Sir. Senator hammer back your honor yes Sir. Senator hammer Senate bill Sullivan just brought up this point that's committee asked multiple times the center court withdraw his complaint is that correct he was given the opportunity to withdrawal yes and it was reckless asked one time for. Sullivan said Senator Clark voted to exonerate Senator flowers whenever we had a hearing in in in this chamber is that correct the yes Sir. It's withdrawn that motion at that time. Do you agree that would be a evidence of him being followed for this complainant cell if he voluntarily withdrew the complaint after everything going out without recommendations of the Senate committee to go forward when that mission of a frivolous for Reince complaint by himself. I would I would not agree with that I think we want to be speculation a and a really don't know where you're coming from with your line of thinking maybe one. Yes Sir K. anybody else can jump in whenever you want to make sure I'm just going consent is one of the. Yes Sir just briefly a finding of not guilty does not mean a something was frivolous the prosecutor files matters all the time where there's a finding of not guilty that's not what makes something frivolous so that withdraws the complaint could have been withdrawn at that moment and that does not lead to an admission that it's frivolous that's that's not the basis for the finding. Mr. But just yes center Solomon's recognize Senator Garner we're going back to for another question thank you one of the things that we discussed multiple times was what's reasonable and we'd end up discussing all these legal terms and what the law says what the law doesn't say we're trying to decide what was reasonable and also the committee kind of determined what was frivolous are not frivolous and we based out on what was a reasonable person would do and a finding said that what senator flowers did was reasonable she accepted the advice of the of the Senate council and of the body and some of the things you're asking us to do or speculate what would have happened if this or that wouldn't happen that's not what the Committee disc that wasn't our task we were tasked with finding out whether what she did was reasonable that's what we did. Thank you okay Senator Garner given other questions yes Sir multiple. Senator hammer and experience Senator Clark Is Senator Johnson's violation code June twenty second it's Centerton appear visor that's correct isn't yes she did and at that time Senator Irvin appear bison by Senator flowers ask questions about her period. Yes service in a report Page ten line pays for to do the twenty second I remember it yes she did correct an issue making issue of whether Senator Irvin should have been paid per diem for that as an meeting yes she did and was Senator Clark in that meeting when that discussion have. Yes. We want to know issued by jumping whenever you want right now you're the second two of the four you're recognized Sir Senator Hammer. Senator beat me to this but. In center for twenty four point thirteen. You find the or California for tally ation already. More inside the Senate rules. It is not is not yet in this committee report on the top of page four LSS accusation Senator Clark made against Senator flowers was for is. Frivolous and retaliatory in violation of Senate rule twenty four point thirteen is that correct. I believe I'd be correction on page ten the committee report says that the heading is fit Spurrier's frivolous and retaliatory is that correct. The report does reflect that on page fourteen on bottom of page fourteen on the top of page fifteen on page sixteen you mention the word retaliatory over and over again is that correct if you're going as the page numbers for him to answer that I think he needs a little more time to make sure there on that page I can withdraw that line of question okay I just don't want him to state something under oath I have an accent okay in your testimony earlier when you get a presentation on the facts of this case for Senator Clark you mentioned were retaliatory committee time for Californians can't believe the word you said. In your testimony you gave him thirty minutes ago you Mr teleported five six seven eight times like it member after trying to countenance or laws came would you say that's accurate you said it multiple times yes okay. To open the application of Senate rules. And in the evidence to use against Senator Clark the issue of retaliatory is a major component of y'all's case against senator Clark is that correct. I think it is a component but I would not assigned the word major but I think it has to be incorporated into the discussion NO one Senate rules allow for Intel retaliatory accusation to be punished under Senate rules is that correct. I would if you're if you're debating the point of retaliatory being part of the wording of why we have arrived at our conclusion I do not know that you could separate retaliatory from the conversation whether we're having it verbally or whether it's in print but I'd like to Senator Tucker to respond to that also. Senator Tucker you're recognized. The ward retaliatory is not enrolled twenty four point thirteen hours up to the members of the of the Senate to determine whether a a complaint is frivolous or spurious and whether a complaint is frivolous or spurious may depend on whether or not it's retaliatory so it's it's not excuse it's not as though the rule says we cannot find a complaint sanction bill because its retaliatory it's not explicitly excluded and it's up to the members of the Senate to determine whether of a complaint can be frivolous or spurious because it's retaliation Sir your local time for. You will list for California completely separate element for except for is that correct so much so that you labeled a hating on page fifteen and has transfers for those and would help. I don't have the reporting from at the moment There's there's no dispute that the word retaliatory is is listed in the report several times and it's not reckoning four point thirteen now that asked and answered Senate. I think you'll be on the brink of water to all come back Mr may respond. In the fifth that okay Senator Garner be responsible. Yes Sir all right. One thing that I wanted to point out is that in my comments that were mentioned awhile ago that while I do used to work for talent Tory which I don't know what other word you would use to capture what it is that led to the spurious and frivolous but in my comments while ago it clearly stated the committee recommends a finding by the Senate. By the Senate the center Clark's petition against intercepted flowers was period and frivolous in violation of Senate rule twenty four thirteen the ability to introduce the word whether in France or whether into a verbal argument as to what prompted the spurious and frivolous is one thing but it is mentioned that is rule twenty four thirteen that allows for spurious and frivolous to be noted. All right I've seen Senator Irvin and then Senator Ballinger you'll be after that if you still wish Centerton recognized for a question remember our germane yes Senator Hammer based on the comments that you just made where this word is being utilized in explanation of how the committee found this to be serious and frivolous. The rule twenty four point thirteen is in regards to any motion that is generated from the results of the findings where it can be made as various and frivolous B. as part of the motion which is not what we're discussing at this present time we're actually discussing the findings of the committee and the explanation towards how the committee came to it becoming a spur is approval is filed is that correct I would agree with that I think that was kind of captured was trying to say just a second ago it may have been the door in but it's it's not it's not what we're debating here we're debating a a spurious spurious and frivolous. Exhalations loud and real correct thank. Senator Ballinger in center Senator Hendren. Thank you. In this question may be better for Senator Tucker but either way it's good but generally you would agree that we need to be bound by rules right especially when we're talking about a situation where where we are going to decide on some pretty great punishments on a on a senator we need the following a set of rules. Correct I would agree it in. In this case we in order to but the penalties maybe it needs to be amended sometime in the input retaliatory and maybe that's a good idea I don't know but in this case there's nothing in this of retaliatory its purchase from us right. If you're asking if the word retaliatory is in the rules at one time to reflect I think the general consensus is that it's not again the focus point though is on what is being recommended and that is a charge based on a spurious and frivolous not actually the Word I just lost. Thank you so but it has to be if we're going to actually have a set of rules The ward's need to have meetings can you point to one definition of the the spurs are from was that also includes retaliatory to define it has as being part of the system all right let's Senator Tucker and. Senator you're recognized. I would just say that one of the definitions of spurs is that something is it something that I matter like a complaint is different than what it purports to be and a reason why it could be different than what it purports to be is because its retaliatory not because it's an earnest effort at finding an ethics violation so what I would say is we follow record their words right so we understand you know that that's the document itself thank. Missions first would be something that is not what it is right it's pretending to be something else those words the words on the document they were all relatively accurate there was no nothing was pertaining to it reporting in the the ethics filing that it was a school security document right there's nothing on the document itself the made it we're was fake or or phone me from anything besides what was correct. I have to review the petition that to answer that comfort you know comfortably since I'm under oath okay units in like they could be arriving as the commander in there that's not the document itself there's nothing on it that was made aware it was was sturdiest was phoning or or not what it purported to be. So. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna agree that nothing about it was spur yes but I I will agree that it wasn't a social security document or some other document like that yes. Senator Hendren. Your next Sir. Thank you Mr president. I want to start my own senator Hammer I appreciate the work of the ethics committee and the the diligence that you put in to a very hard and serious job. That I would also say I'm not a lawyer. But I've heard some of the dumbest discussion this morning it seems like I've heard in a long time to to to argue that you can't because something as frivolous that you all have found that it is frivolous because you determined that it was based on retaliation. That is the very nature of why we have this for this provision in the rules. you know what the Senate is being asked to do here is what is the ethics committee role going to be moving forward. Is it going to be a political weapon. Or is it going to be a tool by which we deal with some of the hard issues that have to be dealt with so that we don't have re occurrences of what many of us are going for decades down here. And I guess I'd ask you again the ethics committee has been. Knee deep in this we've had for complaints filed. How many of them have the ethics committee found to be valid. Two so fifty percent right now the Senate is sitting here with a body that fifty percent. Of the complaints that fellow members have brought forward. I don't know that I don't know the design question is germane Iran has to go with whether or not we're talking about frivolous here and I guess how we're gonna deal with it was I don't think there's anything more germane than whether or not this body is going to stop this nonsense I understand let's just try to narrow it down just just a little bit so it gets closer to the seller findings and recommendations okay so let me know again I think one of the reasons when we talk about you said frivolous in spurs one of the factors in your report that you cited was. The decision by Senator Clark to specifically site one member when multiple members had done the exact same thing is that correct yes. Now we don't have a provision the rules that say you have to sign every member that you view that as an indication that this was not a genuine sincere complaint. In an effort to try to reform the Senate but was retaliatory or or whatever you want to call it something that is inappropriate use of the ethics committee complaint process correct. Correct. And again I think we keep straying around and trying to trip each other up with legal mumbo jumbo but the fact is what the Senate is and what this motions that you're going to bring to the Senate our. What we do with the fifty percent failure rate because that's what we're at right now and I appreciate the effort you all done to to deal with that. Okay I'm take from an order I've Salem Senator Wallace your next. Members. Our country has been two hundred fifty years building what I think is a beautiful judicial system. Our laws. We're not talking about law. In this meeting we're talking about the rules and regulations that we collectively as centers developed over the last three years. We're tripping over masters right now we need to get on with the bill hold on just a second. I want to joke about this any type outburst we appreciate you being here but that's the second time I heard her laugh and this is very serious the members of this body down here trying to. To give this the due diligence that it needs thank you all would please please refrain that I would I would greatly appreciate it in my palm sorry Senator Wallace you continue Sir my apologies for proper because that. we're not gonna have a perfect system. We had this system that we collectively could draw up and we spent. Hours. Working on this in developing this. Trying to define what's frivolous. That's not what this is about. This is about what is right and what is wrong this is about. Protecting the character. Of the Arkansas state so. Thank you Sir yes Sir thank you. Senator Blake Johnson you would wish to be recognized I had unit. Senator Tucker please. Senator Tucker there's been no debate and questioning and about this Spurrier Sr frivolous and and it's pretty much experience to me is is meaning of fake or false charge so. Whenever this. This charge was paid before the charges levied. Then the charges is is faker. Are are not correct to begin with. In my in my view. And through the testimony in the committee that's what was found. The the amount was paid prior to. The charges being levied. So before it ever starts its fall short. That's my one non legal opinion. But I mean you can try to find for the privilege service experience but it was it was experience before as it was ever Leding. So I I think the the I think the key point and I should have. Probably said this better when I was responding to Senator Ballinger is. You're entitled to that opinion because you're a member of the Arkansas state Senate and is your job today to decide what spurs or frivolous Senator Ballinger is entitled to his opinion about what's Burris and he may think it's not Spurrier's because it's not associated document tax I can refer the case may be and when it's time to do it he can come down to the to the well and make that case to the other members but for all of us our job here today is to determine what our own personal definition of spurs and and for losses and I think you laid out a strong case to support your opinion as to why the complaint was very sweet it's I don't think anybody funds fall with asking a question about an error that occurred. We're trying to get that corrected. it's it's really more about. Getting those questions answered. Before you file a complaint and then when you get that information which you yourself determined was not ethics violation once you have all the information at hand what you continue to pursue an ethics violation and and as an ethics charge at that point follows yes Sir so. You know we have set forth these rules and procedures the older self account. In this case it was clear. We have not hello the staff to that account accountability they have jobs. And they're accountable to to us in that matter but not these ethics so this could not have been filed ethics charges against or staff it was charged against someone who has a direct possible. And and and found error in that direct deposit two weeks after after that and. Was. I was paid paid paid it back when the charges were filed. So. Paid for before the charge for the year for I don't I don't understand I don't I don't understand the argument. My. This is a matter of discipline this is not a matter of court this is administrative procedures and not. This is administrative procedure that we have set forth in our rules and our procedures that's that's right. That's right there's no constitutional rights at issue absolutely not yeah there's nothing in the state constitution about a Senate ethics proceeding it's something we created by rule four years ago. But my dad had a procedure and policy and under does it ever hear of and I'll find Senator the stick to the findings and recommendations I was never given that please thank you Sir. Senator Ballinger ahead you still wish to be recognized. Yes okay you're recognized Sir Senator Garner you won't be recognized yes okay you'll be next in this problem better for Senator Hammer them on page eleven twelve of the of the of the review financial report it has a the this is dealing with the of this giant killing thing that we've we've discussed. Okay got it do you recognize this is a commentary on on personal story of David and Goliath. A. When given when given a. Opportunity. That when given opportunity explained there was no reference to that by Senator Clark and as far as whether the. Actually we look to see if this may be a reprint from somewhere we could find so that would mean its original words to center parking across honestly can't tell you what he was thinking when you wrote it so Clark's commentary on the story Davis of the so for instance then you know you need to practice skills with a weapon you know this is David you know after working against line of the bear with the slain right you have to you need to you need to you know don't listen as experts and went on that. You know that he couldn't do it was too small I mean. They're like if you go through the story of personal chapter seventeen each one of these things are now this is court's interpretation not necessarily maybe how I would sit or somebody else to see it but this is basically a of a Bible study lesson right. I think they beer some chin not. That's that's a subject you're Parker Clarkson sorry you're. So the question that questions been answered do you want to have a follow up so so and I have all right so is it possible that this is just the Bible Bible story lesson is this possible that this is commentary on first senator seventy. I will I would not venture to guess what. Was being thought when this was written I would tell you this I've read that story I don't know I would have used it in this context if it was me personally well one of the things that I think is really important as well you guys are using the retaliatory in order to get to the for those for you Sir for what's right so the question is you know is this and this is evidence of it being retaliatory or is it or is this just somebody sharing a Bible study so for instance you know if you know how of the paragraph relating to signing of the contract before you do it have anything to do with the Senate that the man matters. Repeat the question please one paragraph in there that says make sure you sign the contract before you do that. How does that related to the Senate ethics matters. I'm I really you you highlighted some things you Bolden some things that were there other aspects of the calendar hold on what's your point order. Mister chair are we in question and answer time or in filibuster debate time okay just if we would try to directed more questions Senator Ballenger Jr. And. Hello you've asked questions you want to answer that Senator Hammer I'd like to I can restate the question because I never heard question more directly state state the question please Senator Ballenger okay so one of the one of the paragraphs will maybe just figure out which pair of it is so I can give you right what later you all service all the members consent so I'm on a different document that its pages ten eleven of the of the of the report. So it's a pair of the set that starts another three to if you want to get paid for killing giants signed a contract on the front and people have no fear and no need of anyone to help the killed killed at giants how does that apply to the ethics. I think we take it in the whole context of what was written when I think about toward retaliatory each characterized by a desire for revenge I think when you put that and don't lift out one statement and you put the whole statement and take into consideration it creates a narrative for was the cheers and frivolous action driven out of revenge thank you Senator Solomon would like to comment. Question and answer do you do you do care center Sullivan answers it also or would rather not if you want to answer the centers of the these are questions this body is going to decide this body is going to decide if that. Quote OR that paragraph is relevant or you're welcome that's what we're here for today and you continue to ask those questions but when we look at the number of and the different locations and different statements made and put those together as a whole I think they do make a statement but to pull out a paragraph and if you're right and it's a valid point in the body says man that's a big deal and it doesn't apply then we're going to vote him not guilty over that that's what the body's going to do not us you're also asking questions that senator Clark chose not to be here to explain what he meant he chose that well and that you're asking us to tell us what Senator Clark man that's not what we do if that's what you do with. Yes to the question do you have another day of the filing yes center were recognized. So so there is a paragraph that deals with the the the you know the keys to Vice don't care they're just buying time how would that apply to the point of this thing is so much of this this this paragraph doesn't really doesn't apply I can see how someone especially if your interactions with Senator Clark all was over the six things recently how you can see it apply to you but so many of these things don't applaud you would would you agree that some of this absolutely doesn't apply at all to the ethics you. They basically answer that same question all I don't. There under all those members are will have to help me yeah all right it is not real fun appear Senator Hammer. Do you want to try to ensure that five minutes slow it down a little bit of we have to Senator Hammer answers no all right we've question answer you have follow up Sir this is just one of the questions Senator. In the ten years that you've seen Allen Senator Clark down here have you ever seen him be retaliatory to other members of you seem to be hard headed you seem to be B. area agency to do whatever I can we know that we know Allen is Alan right have you ever seen him be retaliatory to another member. Yes. All right it's been answered. It appears or two Senator Ballinger is that are you finished Sir okay Senator Garner you're recognized survey and then center Chesterfield be after you yes Sir I have three questions I will be doing so if you indulge me or we go Senator transcribers one be up front about no Sir laws are germane you you take off this is probably better for Senator Tucker since he answered that before correct the record because I believe Senator Johnson was incorrect and centre Tucker agree with Sir Johnson said that the money was paid back for the complaint was filed I think the show that your record report showed that a second page was made on August twenty second three days after the ward's follow the notice of factually incorrect statements for the record reflect that would you agree with that sentiment. So the the supplemental payment may have been I don't have the dates at hand I know for certain that the main payment which is also Senator out flowers her first payment back was a hundred percent of what she was asked to pay back and I'm certain that that was made before the complaint was filed the supplemental payment after that it may very well have been after the point I'll take your word for and that that was the first thing we seven hundred dollars is that correct yes Sir and in the provided by staff of the of the total amount per diem and mileage Senator flowers was paid for the total of the General Assembly that announcmenet came out fifty nine hundred forty four dollars for a isn't that correct. If that's what the number is again I don't have that right in front of me but I'll take your word for me so there was a ballot questions that the committee openly answer to what total amount Senator flowers should revert. But your forget that any amount of pain to with the twenty seven to seventeen a problem with that but there was a ballot. Question if she over the weekend or not thank you for that the Committee look at all those numbers at the time with the exhibit provided by staff and just for the record that exhibit those numbers the fifteen hundred approximate number that you cited that was provided to Senator Clark I believe one week after the complaint was filed so. That document sale but I have counter evidence that forty two by four Committee that's not for you separately Senator Hammer back to back in real quick. Or you have Senate bills and those are just two more thank you. This is slow down no we don't like doing that would listed I'd like to add something additional to that testimony from a are you okay PS of additional absolutely yes Sir and then you'll be allowed to ask your other questions Senator Garner. If you look at page seven on record at the bottom there's a note that this is still trying to be a hundred percent resolved because of the issue the taxes or have work with the FAA because they're they're trying to get to the truth out one thing to be stressed is that senator flowers once made aware has been totally cooperative to making sure that everything that is owed and I would hope you would have done the same or are doing the same as well senator absolutely the question was what they're open question and you want to committee on the amounts paid versus what Senator Clark. First what that whole number and it sounds like you confirm even today we really don't know what that number is that you just confirm that. I think we're still waiting as far as what the true number is. But senator. Yes again. I'm I'm gonna restate something I said earlier or complaining conflating investigative and an error correcting process with an ethics process and yes one senator flowers for was first approach you know again I don't I don't have all the total numbers memorized but that she was asked to reimburse per diem at fifty nine dollars per day when actually she was only paid fifty five dollars per day during the twenty twenty one sessions so she actually overpaid when she when she remembers the Senate then another or was discovered in which not only with senator flowers paid per diem and mileage for days that you participated by zoom she was also reimburse per diem and mileage for days that she was on leave so that's where the supplemental came in and there was just there was an accounting process that was taking place that was separate and apart from the ethics process and she overpaid actually a second time which is the point you're making now because if you live less than fifty miles from the state capital which of course several members do then you're pretty Ms taxable it's not if you live more than fifty miles from the state capitol so senator flowers reimburse the Senate for everything that was paid out including the taxes that she never personally received so that's the question that's on going she still has over paid the Senate she's paid back more than she ever personally received and yes there is an investigative and accounting process that goes along with that and that separate apart from an ethics process in our do follow move on Senator Hammer all right this is the second question yes all right you're recognized Sir. Senator hammer the committee made a point and you made in your testimony that Joe Farrer evidence considered part didn't bring another complaint against a senator is paid per diem in this case me as identified isn't that correct correct so it was a retaliatory action if people want to point against one center and not another complaint against somebody else is that correct. Thank you will be a free all side but there was the question raised why one and not the other entertainment local time testimony you mention that because he did not call that a complaint you saw this as a reason to bring this section here senator would ask that question. I think it raises questions of why if you knew at the same time there were two why only one of the two well the side at center court didn't know about this to always eleven before final later after he'd already working complaint. Did you find a need to say it again in my question that the complaint against inter Clower is frivolous reckless Spurrier came without merit. In my comments while ago when I didn't question is not a good summation of the complaint that you said Senator Clark filed against Senator flowers that it was furry expert was reckless in nature that's a recommendation the body will decide if that if you agree or not so confused Committee is now saying that Senator departure to follow other your words not mine Spurrier's frivolous reckless complaint against me and the fact that he didn't show that he is retaliatory scurry centers and frivolous in nature is that correct. No. What should that is let him answer if you don't my mind Senator Garner Senator Solomon you're recognized that there's an attempt to separate all of these and any one of the allegations standing alone is sufficient to find someone make a finding we consider all of the allegations we didn't separate them but we did take testimony on everyone of them and the testimony as a whole on the individual acts on the individual charges taken as a whole is a result of what senator Hammer was saying trying to separate them out it as if they were singularly responsible just not what we were charged to do I'm just confused because you use a point center. Clark didn't file a complaint against another senator but at the same time you say that basically the same fact pattern was reckless recklessness permits so in essence you're saying that he should have fallen of the first lawsuit. Frivolous complaint by your words not mine thank you senator I would agree you're confused. Okay. This is your answers on the question number two yes you okay with that the answers to some questions number two absolutely all right this there's there's two other points I want to jump in with one is not to say that the committee's position is not that Senator Clark should have filed a complaint against you necessarily the point is that there was disparate treatment between two similarly situated senators two is to set Senators both receive per diem and error a complaint was filed against one a complaint was not filed against the other that's dispersed that's desperate treatment whether the complaint was right wrong and different whatever the case may be that's his per treatment the second point is it's not just the filing of the complaint and this has been discussed by Senator Hammer is original presentation and and throughout the rest the questions it's not only the filing of the original complaint it's also the continued refusal to withdraw the complaint once the evidence comes out. And last question and I'll I'll be doing yes Sir. Senator Hammer Garcia this complaint in this recommendation only. Was there any funds in the committee that Senator Clark committed any federal or state law violation the break the law. On this committee hearing this committee recommendation only. March breaking the law yes I know what they're saying within this report this report only to found Senator Clark acted in morally Daddy still a bunch of money from the Senate that you staff and proper way was or anything are to be acted morally as for stealing money or still supplies or anything like that. Again Senator Clark yes I know was there any allegations or facts that prove that Senator Clark is something that we would find morally reprehensible outside of the chamber of the cheat on his wife that he be somebody up because a little tighter if you don't mind the last question yeah. The basis of what you're saying is germane but we need to keep it a little Tucker this is that's the last four days yes for if you wanna answer that. As stated in the report the report stands for itself the answer your question is no. You have a follow up service of the final four to be clear you're asking us to disenfranchised thousands of voters and Senator Clark district. Use the severest punishment that have been imposed since I've been up here in the Senate. For manager minute didn't commit any crimes instill any money I didn't have any more fails. But we're going to kick him out of the Senate essentially and disenfranchised his folders his constituents from use a Senate staffer drafted bills to shore committee two more points thanks to email and. Simply only internal essere Tucker described it Senate procedure is that correct. He had three opportunities not to put us in this position he has made a decision that is bring going to bear the full weight of that decision because of his actions and it is just bodies determination whether to go forward with that or not. Senate Chesterfield ages next. Okay I move the agenda to consider the recommendations of the committee. That's a proper motion. So let me make sure I understand what you're what you're saying. To consider the recommendations of the ethics committee what I'm trying to do is to move to hear the recommendations we debated everything else okay time to get a recommendation okay there is a little bit of a process that we need to go through I thought you were talking about as far as this particular one we can't we don't we can't move straight to his motion at this time. The recommendations from the committee we have not done that yet. He stated stated those he is not stated the recommendations of the committee what pages that I would you immediate consideration. Well. But there's a process that we have to follow. So. If you would do would you wanna answer try to answer that do you want to tell what what Pitsch tell the senator what page the. The findings were on a let them find it but in my comments while ago. before I yield to the chair for questions from senators I read the statement the committee recommends a finding by the Senate that the Senate but Senator Clark petition against Senator Stephanie flowers was spurious and frivolous in violation of Senate rule twenty four dot thirteen I did make that statement well go for you look to the chair okay. I don't know if it's proper not in this in this of the waiver sitting here but I'm all out of but you're gonna have to restate what you're immediate consideration is immediately immediately to consider what you because let me let me explain this to members were not were not in session or in a Senate business meeting so hope you all give me a little latitude so what you're saying is you want a media consideration. Walmart okay all the recommendation of the ethics committee. Okay. So what that would do is that would that would that would limit this testimony. And what that means that we would have heard all these recommendations and if that and at that particular point the way that our procedures are then we would be a senator Clark's. Sir Clark is not well I'm well aware but there's I know that there's another member that has asked me to make a motion and I've told him I would recognize in did you will. The what whatever we get there that's fine so for me to for me to recognize your motion what what you need to do what you need to state is that it is just as it relates. What what is questioning that we're doing okay ma'am whatever you need me state tell. Well because we want to point out. And we at all income discussions all morning which is the basis of any time during the. We could not safely and not he would do time for us to put put up addition okay. Do I understand that as far as this part of the procedure that we're in the we want to limit the. You are limited debate and that we go on to the next section is that what I'm understanding. Okay do you mind turn your back on and and stating that so it'll be a record yes okay all right so members there's a there's an immediate consideration on the floor it's not supposed to be debatable what it is is that this part this part of our procedure we will complete and at that point we're probably going to take lunch and then go to go to center parcs part. So all those in favor the motion say aye. Any opposed. I said. Senator Hester you have do you have a comment or question yeah I mean I I think we're all here and I would I would ask the body that would not break for lunch and we we finish this process. Okay offered to be offered Senator Hester is a. Motion all in favor say aye. He opposed. Okay we'll continue All right. Question. Question of the chair yes ma'am. Senator Irvin. And. If we get to the point of making the motion and we're debating the motion which was my point was that we questions and answers it's a different type of this section versus debate of a motion so at the point of debate of a motion if you're a member of the ethics committee do we need to be sworn in if we speak for or against the motion. Let me let me confirm a staff on that that's not the way we had it set up let me or. Okay no ma'am we okay thank you. The motion and consider that the issue is or three witnesses who have testimony I think it's vital for the preceding and I'm not have theirs on a mechanism in place to allow me to call them and question them unless we amend this procedure. Okay. Senator Hendren recognized. Yes our rules have some time limits on things and I guess for all of us is Senator Dismang said earlier who are missing work and have obligations are we going to put any kind of guidelines and time limits on this I think the respondent is limited to one hour for your presentation which includes questions answers start to finish are we going to do that are we going to anticipate happen to be here the what the where procedure procedures are set up like a senator Hammer he had one time for his presentation we do not have a time limit as far as questions and answers or whatever of course this body could always stop if eighteen if you all desire to do that but as far as our procedures and center set up is just one hour. for the presentation and then they can continue own until you stop. Senator Chesterfield. First thank you Mr has the care received a written request from senator Clark indicating that he wants the Senator to act. I will be happy to read is that okay with you that's of Senate just to let cha know senator garner had approached me before today and told me that he was looking he was going to represent Senator Clark standing. And I told him that I was going to rule that out of order and I totally get a bill to the floor which is what we're doing now in addition to that as he was walking off I said. One quick another question that I would have would be have you received anything in writing from senator Clark authorizing that. And he said I have not and then. Ten fifteen minutes later he sent me a text from it says Alan Clark at the bottom of it is as on this date of September twenty seventh authorized Trent Garner to act on my behalf in any capacity needed due to my and my attorneys inability to attend today's proceeding proceedings Alan Clark. Senator Elliot you're recognized ma'am. Thank you. Senator. Could you just give us some idea of the extent to which you as senator Clark have worked together so that you could stand in for Senator Clark today to assure so we will have some sense of certainty you're actually speaking what he would say he work here yes ma'am I don't think means I will say this under percent but I'm ninety nine percent sure means Senator Clark had no real conversations about the proceedings before September sixteenth because the ad is attorney and he was going to present this act questions out of proper to ask as a senator after that meeting was adjourned I reached out Senator Clark and said I understand it you may have something coming up a vacation or something up will you be there and if not can I help he said let me think about let me discuss with my attorneys that was quite begin in a week when that was decided I don't know the exact date a few days later he wrote me back and said yes I'd like to proceed he sent me some documentation I believe at that time we met last Friday with his attorneys at their law office here and I got some additional paid opening statement a closing statement and some the questions he would like to be asked and then we've text a few times in the proceeding time until today specifically sent him what my question would be what my with this but I request witness is going to get his back and forth on that as I think it. What if I would have had somebody representing the I would have wanted to talk to you about contemplated questions at this body might ask did you go through that process I just. Okay my personal opinion about different things he gave me his legal analysis based on his attorney is done and we had a discussion about the merits of that one way or the other. So you did not contemplate what questions might be asked of this body so you can be prepared to answer on behalf of senator Clark that's what I'm asking. Yeah we discussed it's it's hard to I don't to be a base of in this it's hard to say if they ACT six I want to say why I don't think we had any conversation like that we had thanks is a bad issue this is what I would say or that's what the issue is we had a conversation like that but I can't sit here and say that he said it Senator you know Elliott asked me point as you say why that conversation and have Selassie's Senator if we if a question comes up from the body you would not discuss it with Senator Clark are you at that point going to let us know you have no basis on which to answer that question I cannot provide to the record most the time or with the testimony from the witnesses themselves thank you thank you this. Senator Hammer youre next. Thank you Mr. The center I'm listing the roles that you're gonna be speaking in. Granted you'll be speaking of so you're Senator Clark. You're going to defend Senator Clark. You're going to speak against a recommendation. But the additional twisted this is you're going to speak as a senator who did exactly what Senator flowers did that resulted in senator Clark filing charges against her but not you that's a pretty complicated scenario do you think you can navigate through all that given all for those things absolutely I think that is critical to the reason why top reached out Senator Hammer. I would argue you viciously that I did not violate the Senate ethics rules as this body decides. Senator flowers did the same thing in her response which I read in full I agree with a lot of for points not create a lot of work center Clarke Tucker click with the others well the issue I have the reason why I think this is important. Because we're going to allow a process where center brings a good faith argument where there's tangible results that to result a public good or respondents and forthright with information and that we found that the rules were followed correctly and then this body is going to sever them from the Senate body that is a chilling effect and a person I could not stand by I'm not I don't have much time left in the Senate but I could imagine being a Senator Clark position very easily for multiple reasons. And find myself being treated the same way that is what made me stand up and defend Senator Clark. Thank. The Senator Dismang you're recognized thank you just a couple of questions make sure I understand this the committee so that Senator Hammer so if you are this decision will your take on the role Senator Clark today of course you know probably not on the side if there is one levied but. So there's going to be at a point here we're going to do you know we're going to accept this motion and then we'll begin debating the actual motion we're not there yet this is just gathering information background. Do you expect that you're going to be speaking against. The motion or for the motion at that time. It depends on what this body does right okay if we allow you to be Senator Clark for today. I'm not in center court as defined as a station homestead in his place to this too but that's what they're asking to be in today attorneys or their clients or not we're learning for Senator Clark but I'm speaking General laws or the would be allowed to be doing what you're doing right now per rules but my my point would be I mean what I would like an acknowledgement from because his ways in on my decision do you plan on speaking against the motion shortly so it sent me another yet another role so you were a question just a minute ago is a member that you're jury whatever you wanna call ourselves now you're gonna come down and you're going to be some pause attorney but not attorney for Senator Clark and then you're going to turn around and are you going to speak against the motion or can we anticipate you to be like Senator Clark in that mode in that nature and not be a part of the back and forth on the form against appreciate your bringing up this being a qualified judicial thing justice center hammers both prosecutor jury in the centers well and holds dual dual roles there's multiple people in your whole different hats I think you can acknowledge that what I will do is if this is defeated I will make my comments would made during the motion at the end. Just that segment I want him to make his own of I will not I will not happen please only wrote me sir I want to have the opportunity to to question witnesses which I think that information is key what I will make my presentation during that emotion if this body allows we proceed forty this. Will not have anything to say unless something major happens when we quit yes Sir how long do you anticipate you'll need for your presentation the first part will be very very quickly I I am intentionally not spend a lot of time on that for presentation presentation or for it will be more about the witnesses back and forth I can show you my sheets out there roughly about it is that I'm sorry is interested. Answer Senator Garner continual I can show you my sis I discussed with staff my question is a page page and a half per are Page or half a page for each witness unless the body more has questions I don't dissipate in taking five or ten minutes of peace if that and in my clothes statement I was going to ask for a little leeway to require fifteen minutes housing going more detail there and kind of save the. Not to a buster plow the same ground in the first hour if that makes sense Senator Dismang give another follow up well I do not understand in selling my understanding was the presentation the questioning of the witnesses by this individual would be one in the same. And so you you're going to be less than an hour for your presentation question which that witnesses in your clothes I will stand up here and get the presentation that I deem to help Senator Clark and I'll step away will go to the witnesses as per the procedures we put in place and then they will be closing statement of fifteen minutes which House because well. Anything else. Senator Irvin your next. The chair has ruled that this is not a member so you're asking for us to overrule the chair yes. And so a day that would be. Overruling the chairman of I would say we agree with the chair that this is not part of our procedure are you concerned that if you are changing the rules of the procedure that that's not pushed out and as chair of the ethics committee we spent. I have no idea how long hours and hours and hours and hours and hours creating these rules in these processes and we debated in the committee all the details about the ramifications of this and the ramifications of that and we spent I can't tell you how many hours trying to create a process that we believe was fair was reasonable and that makes sense for the body to proceed down this route. So right now you're asking us to really put in a whole new section of the rules that has not been flushed out by the members of this body Justin you your asking based on what you want in your opinion not. And process that has been flushed out by the ethics committee or even asked to be reviewed by the ethics committee which could have been brought to light by Senator Clark. And that so that's that's what you're asking is for a Trent Garner section of the Senate rules. Press process and procedure outside of the ethics committee's ability to look at this and flush it out. That that's what you're asking for today what is second to have to go staff I believe that the Senate rules lays out a very generalized procedure we follow and the specifics of what was done to the Senate hearing meeting process I don't know if that part was approved by the Senate at the committee are not just figured I know the Senate rules were put this procedure based on those rules was I believe put together separately I'm not exactly sure who put that together I do not think it's the Senate Committee if I'm wrong I will be stand corrected I know you are part of the Senate ethics committee four years ago and I can tell you from from we went through all kinds of scenarios and details to try to create the rules because we were trying to understand how this would actually play out in the Senate yes ma'am I don't think this is an issue with the rule of things issue with the procedure that was created based off of the rules I think that's a distinction that matters. Senator Hendren I do next. So senator garner would you be opposed to a substitute motion that allowed you to have no more than an hour and then no more than thirty minutes for back for questions and discussion in Minnesota one thirty vote certain time. there's also a closing argument in that section I would if you want a minute this way I'll be more than happy I can see I want to spend less than a minute on the opening presentation for the witness section as long as some medium the question not the members as a whole I bet I can get what I need done in thirty minutes south twenty people ask questions and you filibuster time I'd be worried about that not be able to move on because the thirty Mrs right now and if I could have roughly thirty minutes dinner closing statement I'd be more than amicable that I don't care how the hour is spent or even the thirty minutes I guess what I'm saying is would you be opposed to and I I one thirty we take up the considerations of the and have a. One thirty as long as I'm granted the leeway in my closing to exceed the fifteen minute time line because I don't want to plow the same ground in the opening as a with the closing of the closing has a fifteen minute prohibit that's up to you you're the one this is the respondent making the the time but it's I mean it's it's it's not because the rules specifically say I can only help you limit to fifteen minutes so if I was exceeding that the body would have to allow me to exceed fifteen minutes so you would not be opposed to one third no later than because maybe we have a buy one but no later than one thirty vote a certain time so long as there was not a you could exceeded fifteen minutes if you can do so by one thirty in my section specifically the part where I'm standing Sir Clark I would have no opposition to help the body wants to allow for a motion for different parts things like that as long as I get to ask my question to the witnesses like I cannot be cut off from that board. Mr president I make a substitute motion that we allow Senator Garner president Ford Senator Clark with the time under the current procedures of no more than an hour and then at one thirty this body will set a time certain to take up the recommendations of the ethics committee and and I would say make that and no later than one thirty again if we finish early I don't think anyone's going to. Per se that's the total the total time. Correct for witnesses correct tire the entire section of that process correct okay that. All right what we got that motion. Hold on just a moment Senator Hammer you don't need it I wish to be recognized. We've got a substitute motion on the on the floor at this point. It's just a question for me. To clarify well I think the appropriate thing is we now have this motion the substitute motion on the floor so Senator Hendren do you wish to. answer questions on that. At. Senator Hendren is we have a substitute motion on the floor. I understand it correctly what it is is that it it says that we will continue we will complete to senator Clark portion that was was there within one hour that's all inclusive of everything so senator mark Johnson if you wish to. Senator Hendren I would agree with your motion except I want to clarify. At the time that other senators would have to ask questions of a witness during that proceeding that senator garner calls would not count against his time that is. Some of us could not filibuster the time and eat up his time as part of that other than that I'm perfectly OK with the could you clarify that. Again the most important part of the motion is I don't think any of us here going to impose our will on and limitations on how senator garner chooses to spend the time nor will we impose our I do think if somebody chooses to filibuster than they need to do so knowing full well that there will be a vote at one thirty in there they may be causing more harm than good so the purpose of this is to continue just to stop us from continuing to rehash and just allow us to have some of. Certainty about when we're gonna finish this. Thank you. Senator Ballenger way that yes thank you. So I think probably almost all of us are on the same page as far as what we want to accomplish the one thing that a little concerned about is if other people are asking questions and filibustering that is Senator Garner would not have this fifteen minutes to close and so would you amend this motion to make it where where regardless of the time Senator Garner will have that a lot of fifteen minutes to close I'm fine with that so long as we make it one one one fifteen senator garner has the option to cut off questions and debate income give a fifteen minute closed then we still give him that opportunity we have the one thirty certainty. Okay with the. Yes the I'm I'm okay with that. Thank. Any other questions. Okay system center Hendren whatever you get back to your chair I want to I want to ask you to restate that motion because I do not want there to be any surprises I had a ruling from the chair. On the first motion that that was not properly so the way that I'm look at this is it this substitute motion is going to to trump that if it was to fail. And we're going to go back. Thank you senator garner so if you would if you estate your substitute motion again then we're going to vote on that my motion is that we set a time certain of one thirty to consider the recommendations of the ethics commission between now and then we allow senator garner to make this presentation on behalf of senator Clark and we ensure that one fifteen he has the ability to preserve the final fifteen minutes for any closing comments. Okay. We have some other questions Senator Irvin I want to make sure that senator Hammer fifteen minutes is also preserve for his closing statement so that would actually need to be at one o'clock. That would be a different section so if if we do everything we are taking a vote at one thirty. And that's a vote on the recommendation senator Hammer needs to have his ability for his closing statements which is afforded to him by the process. I'm fine with that adjustment to say that again at. We still set the vote at one thirty but senator Hammer will have the opportunity to present a closing statement after senator garner is closing statement of that pushes us I'd be on one thirty I think that's understandable. Senator Ballinger. And I think I know this because we use the phrase to have the vote at that section we will hear the motion from the Committee will and probably actually multiple motions from the Committee at that time we want actually it's not it's not ending debate at that point they'll still be people have opted to speak for against or whatever. Correct. No I I think we will hear the motions the debate will occur between one and one thirty or hopefully before it senator garner presentation is not an entire hour but the the motion is to have the vote because we can have two hours of filibustering the day after a motion if we if we open it up like that the motion is to have the vote at one thirty on the motions the. So there's multiple motions that we're going to have there won't be one to be the end of the process I guess okay I think there's two. There will be no opportunity to speak for against motions. There will be thirty minutes in debate. At least. But I'm so sorry we we have thirty minutes at point to start thirty minutes in debate. Speak for against most. We again the purpose I'm hopeful that we can be done prior to one thirty as against senator garner as presentation is shorter C. said. But the purpose of the motion is to set a time that we will vote on the recommendations of the ethics committee that is. Barring that is after including any debate that the Senate will continue to have we've been debating this all morning and another day entirely already. Senator Flippo do have a question. All right. The other questions Senator Irvin this getting all out. Okay all right okay motion. All right we're gonna be voting on the set to motion it was senator hindrance so all in favor Senator Hendren motion say aye. He opposed say no. No. The motion carries. So at this time Senator Garner if you'll come down. Mister chair. Senator Irvin. Sorry I just. For the behalf for the benefit of both senator Clark senator garner in the membership we have a written copy just so that were real clear that he is me or something in writing I just think it would be appropriate for us to have to have that in writing as part of the records the the body just decided not have the techs that come from senator garner job asking for that to be a copy made for the record okay I'll send it to staff thank you yes ma'am. Yes okay. Hold on just a second train Senator Garner. Another question. I guess I need to put you under since you're gonna be acting is this if that's okay with you all right if you would a state your name related to this proceeding Patrick honor state center for detainees okay thank you would raise your right hand up do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god I do thank you Senator Garner this time you can proceed and if I understood everything you have until. One thirty to get it all complete. One skews me. One o'clock that what you're agreement that's what you understand yes Sir I think a point of time all right. You may proceed I reserve my time and forgo opening statements a presentation this time will move straight to witnesses. For the day. I didn't hear you Sir what did you. I'm for going a presentation in opening statement as per allowed and I will be returning the response times Roman it factor into the the witnesses and also to the closing. Okay the questions because I will roll that out of I'm I'm consider rolling that out order because are you saying that you're going to come back no longer open and statements no Sir what you're what you're looking to do is to take the entire time for the. The questions of the witnesses yes Sir and I'll try to explain it to. Right now my time for opening statements yes Sir and presentation I am correct in the opening statement and presentation will move on to the next part with the witnesses and the we are closing at five six. Okay. Do you have a question no senator needs develop himself questions as he agreed to during initial questioning and additionally just ask Senator Clark would have to do if we're presenting here today. I'm for going to presentations from there be no questions that does not have the hi Jeff it's not how that works are you going to force me to stay up your Senate is mine. All right we can do is rated E. and we went down this trail okay so all right. He's for going that. If there's a proper motion from the floor then I'll take a proper motion from the floor but as of this point right now I've. I think that that's your right so you can take to see certain medical. All right Senate motion for committee consideration. If you would could you put but media consideration of what because I that's finding to accept the findings of the ethics committee that's the first one is that not correct. I mean I know we're not in debate but not happy be happy to discuss that. Hold on just a moment I need to discuss with counsel. Okay it's my understanding that Senator Dismang is going to. Ajustes motion. Yes Sir members if if all they would. Please take you seats but. Just wanna slow down let's slow down to make sure we get all this right you need to write it out so everybody understands it because I don't want there to be any confusion in this process so Senator Dismang thank you members from the start to the are you withdrawing I'm withdrawing my motion for me to consideration okay and now you're recognized for motion members from the start of the. To the me of the story about Johnston pretending somehow that's not associated what's happening this chamber the line of questioning we just went through for everyone that was on that committee I believe that this is being made a mockery of our processes and it's time to end it. I ask Pacific looser garments going to be willing to take questions he alluded that he would be willing to do so. And instead got down and immediately made a quick statement and ran away from the podium. That told me his intent on what we were doing if this isn't a game it's nothing to be made fun of this is a serious matter and one I think most members of the Senate takes seriously. And so with that I move that the Senate finance Senator Alan Clark has violated the Senate's go to that ethics specifically Senate rule twenty four point thirteen by filing is for is for religious retaliatory ethics petition against Senator Stephanie flowers. Okay you are the motion. You're going to take questions. Are there are the question are there any questions. Is there a question yes Sir by senator garner ask your question please. By Senator Dismang. Per we discussed earlier Senate rules dictate that we go through a certain process. With this motion be out of order for the rules that we have in place to get to and substitute motion to suspend the rules in order to do that not that I see no Sir. All right anyone will speak for the motion. Senator Irvin well you're you're seeking for your speak against I did that wrong really. Really against these to go first so that's my mistake Senator Ballinger people come down speak against the motion. Thank you Mr president. What makes a mockery of this situation is the fact that we are about ready to level it levied really happened I I'm like I'm I'm of no illusion that that that Senator Clark coming you know I don't know if it's like representation or whatever but I really kind of feel like the process well sort of bent against him from the very beginning you don't have the opportunity to put on evidence in this process. Again you know in his defense may have. Never. He did have opportunity today. It in at the opportunity and any committee of the committee it was not about him. They just issued that the decision brought it out here never has a bit I will put on any evidence all you have is the prosecutor side of this case and now we're going to decide. Not only against Alan Wright who. I mean I don't know I mean it's maybe I'm weird but I like I thought everyone loved Allen. I loved everybody. You're calling been here a long time with you. And now is against them but the eighty seven thousand people in his district. I'm not just saying like. If this motion passes he's never not once have the ability to put on evidence in his defence one time. Okay. Your last question to you was or who has first question because I have Senator Irvin scripts B. speak for the motion SO question who has referred questions. Senator Solomon and is Senator here. Are you saying that I don't love Alan no I don't know what you said I said we all love Allen is actually what I said. Let's take a questions and answers please bring it back is this is questions today about whether people love Alan or not this is the question no that's to have an opportunity to present his defense today. No okay all right it by rule he's like to have the tourney systems can be. Senator Hill. I'm going to get back to what the center so just just sitting you made a comment that he did not have a chance to present his side of the story. He had the opportunity to be here today but he chose to go on vacation I chose after not seeing my son for a year and a half to leave early to be here today. And I don't see him for another year and a half and that was on vacation so he had the opportunity to tell his side of the story he chose not to show up you agree or disagree with that I district attorney. I will show up that's a question decided to open up at the he answered Senator Hill. Senator Mark Johnson you have a question okay you're recognized Sir. Senator Ballinger we can go Friday. We were here to take this matter up for we not your and I believe senator Clark was sitting over here and had two attorneys with them. And. Are referred to recall there was a motion I'm believing correct me if I'm wrong maybe you Senator Dismang to recess is proceeding the call of the chair yep and Senator Clark oppose that he wanted as I recall correct me if I'm wrong want to stay and finish this that day correct so. I'm I'm shocked that affect my colleagues to do everything they could to do not even as a stand in with senator garner to ask these questions witnesses and quash this whole thing this reminds me of the the term that was used by I believe justice Thomas it's a high tech lynching. This is an outbreak Senator now owns I'm asking a question please Sir please use this. This is follow any kind of due process whether it's our rule and procedure that we adopted for anything else we just stop in the middle of and have a motion to go vote is at the top here the that's correct. Thank you Sir thank you Mr okay any any other questions he's left the well Senator Irvin you want to speak for the motion. Hey Senator Irvin as go speak for the motion Senator Garner you waiting to speak against the motion and you'll be next Senator Irvin you're recognized. Thank you members thank you for letting me speak for this motion. I've been on the ethics committee for four years I chaired it. We spent countless countless hours trying to determine how we stop. The corruption that we experienced it's not fun to vote for a bill and then figure out the somebody was making money on the side. That wasn't fun. In that member that was a senator in this body is in prison right now. It's I don't know. I need to be able to send it to the. Please let's try to let's try to rein it in as to the recommendations of what the motion is that I understand that I understand and I understand there's more to it but let there is a time and a place for things. And we have to have the ability because the public is watching this the public needs to understand and hear all of the stories they need to understand why we're here we've and I understand I'm gonna speak to the motion. This committee spent countless hours going through the findings of this these were choices that were made by Senator Clark. Not me. Not by any of you Alan Clark St Louis's he made these decisions to go down this path he's the one that jeopardized his ability to serve his constituents that's not on me that's not on this body those are choices that Senator Clark made when he went down this. Senator Clark gave. He was given every opportunity of the ethics committee to present his case he was given every opportunity to lay out his evidence we sat for hours listening to his side of the story at one point he made allegations and accusations against us as members of the Senate ethics committee that we had already pre judge this and when we asked him about that and called a point of order both myself and missed and Senator Solomon. He wouldn't back it up. And he retracted the allegations he made towards us as members of the ethics committee when we have spent hours and hours and hours trying to be as fair and reasonable as possible to look at these and the fact of the matter is is that Senator Clark lied to us. When he said that he filed a complaint against senator flowers because it was. An egregious based on the amounts. He had no way of knowing that it's when he filed his complaint and I was a false statement that he made to us he had no way to qualify or quantify that statement because he didn't know the amounts that were paid to senator garner as a clerical error. So he had no way of knowing. The amount and the difference between what was paid to senator flowers and what was paid to senator garner. And so he made a false statement in a lie to us. And when we pointed all of these things out we gave him not everyone opportunity not to opportunity to opportunities to pull his complaint down to avoid this penalty phase that we're in right now. Again a choice that he made a choice that Alan Clark made not to withdraw his complaints. He was given those choices he could have chosen not to file the complaint he could have chosen to pull it down the first time he could have chosen to pull it down the second time and then after we made our public. Comments and motion. That senator flowers was not in violation of an ethics complaint. The Committee brought him in. So that he could then again. Have the choice. To avoid the penalty portion of this. And he chose not to. And that's where we're at those are choices that he made not choices that I made any of every opportunity to avoid what we're doing right now we have given him every opportunity to present his case he has presented it in public he is made plenty of statements in public and I for one I'm not gonna where the Republican lands. That's not for me. I can't on Republican glasses and say this is a partisan issue. That would be unethical for me and a below my standard as a person I can't do that. Yes we care deeply about our colleagues I care deeply about Senator Clark and the other senators that have been involved in these issues over the years. That's not my job as a senator I have to maintain my own personal standard of honor and integrity and honesty. That was not maintained by Senator Clark through this process with the ethics committee. Which led us to where we are to day not by my choices but by the choices of Senator Clark and I would appreciate a good vote for the motion. We're it we're in for against do you want to speak against. All right of center center Johnson I told Senator Garner who's next you want to yield to him Senator Garner Senator Johnson. You're speaking against. The motion. You're recognized when you're ready Sir thank you Mr chairman. I said I wasn't speak today. I thought we were gonna have a procedure we're going to hear testimony we're gonna hear report record testimony greater witnesses. And now suddenly Senator Dismang makes a motion says. Let's just drop everything and move for conviction. Now. Servant I was not sitting in that closed meeting that you had I didn't hear all those things you referred to and you heard I'm because you're a member of the committee but the rest of us that are members of the committee might want to hear the testimony of these witnesses now we put some limits on the time and again. Because we're stand up you're wasting the time that we agreed to allow Senator Garner fill in for Senator Clark. I'm appalled that the process. The man deserves his constitutional rights. Right to an attorney. Right to make his case right to call witnesses we've written rules that contravene the intent I think maybe the letter of the constitution. Your attorney can answer a question for you here but you can ask any questions. Mendez's it is absurd it violates every bit of fairness in American jurisprudence now what to Senate chooses to do after hearing from these witnesses and the case made in this adversarial relationship which is our system. I'm okay with. The just saying I'm tired I want to go home my kids are waiting for me I mean I don't want to be here either I don't think a single one of us in this room or be here but Senator Clark showed up on the date he was supposed to be here Headies two attorneys last time we were ready to go home motion if we can motion was for us to stop what we're doing and vote I understand and that's a bad motion I urge that you rejected allow our little hour and a half of due process to go forward. In the in the Senate can decide I can live with the consequences I just can't sit could sit there and be quiet and see. The due process part being skipped thank you Mr chairman I appreciate a no vote Sir all right he spoke against everyone wants to speak for. Senator Garner also wants to speak against. Senator Garner you're recognized. Please try the motion one yes Sir thank you Sir. College's been a stressful day. Any time you're dealing with the severity of. Suspending a member of the Senate. And the consequences of those actions to put pressures on all. I've intentionally and purposely tried to keep the mood about the rules the evidence and things of that nature failed a couple times of course during the match back up for debate. But the reason why I'm speaking against this motion I think it's so critical important. That we have this. It's because I could see myself in the same situation one day. Okay so you filing come against me of severe sanctions. And whether I'm guilty or not whether I did something wrong I want to know that the procedures and rules that we put in place are followed in done to the best of our ability. That things like due process the rules we voted on the nature of that as follows so I can defend myself or anybody in this room can. I disable we're not here to that principle. We're not here into the rules and due process that we set. I know it's contentious I know was back and forth. But there was basic what guidelines we put in place on how this process will go. I don't get upset or make a big deal whenever I did a substitute motion are the motion to allow me to stand if Senator Clark understood as bodies will whether I'd be able to do that or not. Because that's the decision in the process we have in place. But now we come to this specific motion. What we're going to skip over. Things like witnesses who have vital testimony that I believe wasn't so stale and the Senate ethics committee. Now I'm not indicting and nor will indict the work to Senate at the committee did. I think every man and woman to serve on that committee did it with honor. Did it with integrity and it would purpose on the serious nature of what they've been charged to do. But I also know we are process allows us to debate. Question or do you encounter what those findings are and to bring witnesses in defense of that. To allow a modicum of since due process for those who are choosing will be disenfranchised and thousands of constituents. I have a presentation on the actual merits of the case discussing whether it's frivolous close purpose the Senate and the committee adding that were retaliatory and why that is wrong. I did that to the best kind of possible defense at this time to make sure that process followed like we give to every criminal defendant or anybody in the civil or any other cases they have that right. If we allow this motion to go forward. We're saying the Senate. That one day. You may be the one on the line. And you may be the one trouble. Instead of following and giving you what you're do. We're going to do it on the fly. And I think it taints the great work the Committee did I think it taints the process we a follow and whether Senator Clark was going to be found sanctioned or not at the end of it at least at the end of the day you could say the process was followed in the same process in here is that we all must to. I thank you for your time and I'll ask you to vote against this motion. Thank you senator garner garner spoke against the motion Senator Blake Johnson you want to speak for the motion correct yes you. You're recognized for. Senators. Like I stated earlier I don't come to this will very often but this is an administrative process. And I don't want to hear another word about due process your constitutional rights when in an administrative process this is not a court of law. This is a penalty. Hearing. And he. Senator Clark and I I admired him since we sat on Education Committee for four years. He had the ability to be here. Just like everyone of us I got off the combine twice to be here. I got one time the year to plant a crop I got one time of year to get a profit out. I have not had a vacation in six years. But I'm here. I don't want to hear another word about due process whenever I'm here. And this is not an excuse all this is not an accuser this is a penalty and I never got to argue a penalty whenever my father. Came down with the penalty. We gave this to the body of the committee the body the committee has Brandt brought a recommendation if any other voice wanted to be heard it should be here today. If it's not here it's not any of the senators it said in this room fault but the one of his own. I appreciate Senators this main motion and I would ask you to vote for it thank you Senator Blake Johnson has spoken for the motion does anyone or speak against the motion. Senator David Wallace wants to speak for the motion. Senator Wallace you're recognized to speak for the motion. Thank you Sir. Members. Actions have consequences. This goes back to this summer. That decision was made. The Senate made a decision. Senator Clark did not like the decision. I sit next to the man I have. I thought he was a friend concerning my friend. But what was said. What was done the actions taken what we have read. Interpretation that was a Bible story some people could say it was a manifesto depends on how you look at it and will you look at it from. Actions have consequences. We need to look at this we need to. Vote on this and I am in favor of the motion. Senator Wallace is spoken in favor of the motion anyone would speak against the motion. Senator hammer you've indicated you will speak for the motion. You're recognized Sir. On the subject of how important is this. It's important enough for you to be here. Remember back during a special session we all just kind of lived on needles waiting for the session to be called and I remember when the special session got called a lot of people had a change of plans it was because they were anticipating it. I can't think of going through a process like this if I'm the one that started it that we're all having to deal with that first started it is in here himself. That I wouldn't think in the back of my mind you know what I need to make sure that everything I've got on the table. Is expendable because of my reputation is on the line. If I'm going to be called into question if my family's name. It's going to be associated with my actions. I don't want to be because I think well maybe I need a lawyer here maybe I need to this. It's like the world stops for me to be here to answer for my actions. No that's the way I feel what you feel that way or whether Senator Clark feels that way I can't say. But it's important enough that you are here it's important enough. And I'm not sure that everybody in this chamber above or below R. as constituents what's important enough for some of his constituents to be here. And it's also of issued to those that may not be here. That his actions are going to have a direct ability to take care of all this constituents if my eighty seven thousand constituents were dependent upon me being here not being here. I'd be here. I'd be here. My family may not like it. But I should have explained to my family why I'm doing what I'm doing. In that process. It's important enough for us all to be here I also want to remind you how important the decision that were about to make is. In testimony. In testimony. It was stated that thirty two to thirty three of us are subject to go through the very same thing I want you to soak that in for a minute. How important is it for important statement was made the thirty two to thirty three of us are already in the process of getting that same way. How important is it for us to set the bar and to say look. If something can be done from a frivolous natures if something is going to be done from the superiors nature we need to kind of set what we want the expectations to be. Spurius is defined as not being what it purports to be false or fake. Privilege is having no sound basis as in fact the law that's been established those two things have been established. Ethics committee weighed the seriousness of bring an ethics violation against another senator. And using the committee process. Question you need to consider in deciding to vote for or against it says have we been used. S. the institution of the Senate been used and for what purpose and what reason and to whose advantage and what causes being advanced because we've been used. Interlanguage death thanks rule says the holding a public office is a public trust created by the confidence which the electric places in the integrity of the senators who serve in the Arkansas Senate. Members of the Senate Arkansas carry out the duties in a manner that brings honor integrity to the body and when they don't give us what you have to stand before the body and given the account and if you choose not to stand before the body guess what in leisure land in a funeral home somewhere. It's your responsibility to be here. Do you feel it was your responsibility to be here do these people in the gallery feel it was their responsibility to be here. To the eighty seven thousand constituents feel it's duty to be here. Minded. My family even feels it's my duty to be here. Committee felt Senator Clark section at target center flowers isn't the use of ethics rule seven bipartisan members. Several. Which if they're not staunch friends are at least colleagues that respect each other. Regardless of the party line. Committee felt he could stand by and allow this process to be used for retaliatory means. What is it the goddess to the superiors what is it that got us to a privilege. Began with retaliatory nature. You can even read the words yourself. Committee felt the comments the actions of Senator Clark including bringing these ethic petitions for the purpose retaliation we're bringing dishonor and disruption to the institution of the Senate. They also felt a moral obligation not to allow Senator Clark to quote. Burn the house down. The finding of the petition spurius the privilege was included in the ethics rules for a reason. And this rises today to that level for the reason why this is not ethics complaint this is accountability in action. Committee recommended imposing shares penalties to demonstrate how very sure Senator Clark words actions and transgressions of our code of ethics is and may I remind you this was a unanimous bipartisan decision with no dissension among the members of the committee and this is the second time in this bodies history that we've been sitting in this General Assembly that we've had to do this. I guess the one thing that drives it home more than anything else in my mind because I gotta be honest with you it's a struggle. When friends have to sit in whole friends. And make determinations if it isn't a struggle your one calloused individual we ought to have to go through a painful process we ought to have to expose ourselves to the challenges of the discussion that's going on here today so that for whatever conclusion we reach we've reached it in a thorough manner. But I guess the one thing it just brings in my head I can't get out of is that I would bring accusation and charges against a fellow senator knowing that there's thirty two to thirty three that are sitting out there that possibly may be made on who knows what basis. And then to set. And it is all the center that brought the charges against. As if all well. I was wrong. I had no merit for I even agree with the conclusions. I can't get my mind around that one. That's why my vote for this motion As Senator Hammer spoken for the motion. Anyone else will speak against. Anybody else want to speak for. Okay I am director I'm about to ask you to call the roll I want to make sure that all the members. I understand the motion so do you have that in front of you Senator Dismang if you don't mind I want you to state that motion one more time because we've been a. We've been around back and forth so let's do that and then we're going to have a roll call. Okay members if you would please listen to the motion closely members and and I think clarity needs to be that the with the motion for committee considerations withdrawn I think was alluded to that we were moving for me consideration that is not the case this is the actual motion I moved that the Senate finance find the Senator Alan Clark is violated this in its code of ethics Pacific Lee Senate rule twenty four thirteen by filing a spur is frivolous and retail Terry at the petition against Senator Stephanie flowers okay thank you for repeating that. Okay motion of members I ask that everyone of you take your seats. I'm already this so there's no confusion the pairing a voter not be recognized you senator present shall verbally respond we and very important with the women his or her name is called voting with one of the following responses yea nay. President or staying. Madam director Garrity would you please call the roll. Thank you Senator Teague. Ballinger. Ballinger Baltz named Beckham. Second that's may Bledsoe. Bledsoe TA Caldwell is on leave Chesterfield. Chesterfield both T. A. Clark. Clark. Davis. Davis thirty eight Dismang Dismang a TA Elliott. Eligible to get a English. English Flippo T. A. Flippo. Flippo T. A. flowers. Flowers bill to get a full for. Full for voce Garner. Garner votes no Gilmore. Gilmore votes yet Hammer. Hammer voce Hendren. Hendren voce Hester. Hester votes yet Hickey U. K. thank you for TA Health. Helber K. Ingram. Ingram but yet Irvin. In Irvine voce Blake Johnson. Blake Johnson voce mark Johnson. Mark Johnson that's no Leding. Leding voce pitch. It's votes he a report is on leave rice. Russell J. sample. Sample voce Stubblefield is only searches on leave Sullivan. Sullivan VOA TA Teague. Teague. T.. Yeah T. Rowe J. Tucker Tucker road J. Wallace. Posted yet. Okay members by a vote of twenty six chase four Nays and one of stanchion that motion carries in this doctor. At this time. I'm a I'm a recognized you at twelve Senator Hammer. Okay members I will read this while Senator Hammer is a. Coming to the well since the previous motion passed in under Senate rule twenty four eleven. If a senator has been found to violate the to Senate Senate code of ethics the Senate will proceed to discipline the member as such I'll recognize Senator Hammer for motion Senator Hammer. You're recognized for your first motion sure I have two separate motions regarding penalties due to the high vote count required for one of the penalties recommended by the committee. You're recognized for your first twenty first motion having found the Senator Alan Clark ethics violations against Anders Steffi flowers or superiors frivolous under Senate rule twenty four thirteen I move that Senator the to Senate imposed following penalties on Senator Clark. The loss of seniority moving Senator Clark position thirty five for the remainder of the ninety third General Assembly and number two recommendation to the night for the General Assembly at center parcs losses your to be sustained as a personal or business at the organizational meeting to be held in November and that he remain at position thirty five during the ninety fourth General Assembly that's my motion Mister chairman okay does center hammers motion any questions. yes Sir yes Sir do you mind the Senator Hammer. The Senate having found the Senator Alan Clark ethics violations against Senator Stephanie flowers were spurious and frivolous under Senate rule twenty four dot one three I move that senator imposed following penalties on Senator Clark. Immediate loss of seniority moving Senator Clark to position thirty five for the remainder of the ninety third General Assembly and a recommendation to the ninety fourth General Assembly the Senator Clark SPLOST of seniority be sustained as the first order of business at the organizational meeting to be held in November and that he remain at position thirty five during the north ninety fourth General Assembly that appropriate sanity. Okay. Thank you yes Sir. All right any questions CM none. Any member will speak for against this. Okay. Committee members the penalties in this month motion require a majority to be adopted person a rule twenty four ten if the role now because I'm more Regis again although you're getting tired of it I ask that all members take their seats the pairing of votes shall not be recognized you senator shall verbally respond we and. His or her name is called the voting is one of the following responses UA may present or playing. Adam director if you would please call the roll. Ballinger. Undervote Nate Beckham. That converts Nate Bledsoe. Let's of a TA call goes on leave Chesterfield Chesterfield L. T. A. Clark. Clark Davis. Divisibility a dismaying dismember TA Elliott. Valuable TA English. English row TA Flippo. Of a TA flowers. Flowers for TA full for full for votes yet garner garner votes may Gilmore. Gilmore ability a hammer. Hammer votes J. Hendren. Hendren voce Hester. Hester voce Hickey yeah you will see a hill. Hello TA Ingram. Introverts gate Irvin. voce Blake Johnson. Blake Johnson but you get a mark Johnson. What mark Johnson to its name Leding. Leding voce pitch. Pitsch voce report is on leave rice. Price thirty a sample. Sample TA Stubblefield is on leave searches on leave Sullivan. Sullivan vote yea Teague. Teague. Yeah. The Bill TA Tucker. Tucker Bowe TA Wallace also TA. Okay member voted twenty six days four Nays and one of staining the motion carries Senator hammer out now recognize you for your second. Motion. Mr. Yes Sir you're recognized. The Senate having found that Senator Alan Clark thanks bye elections again so if Senator Stephanie flowers were spurious and frivolous under Senate rule twenty four dot thirteen I move that the Senate oppose the following penalties on Senator Clark. Suspension for the remainder of the ninety third General Assembly effective immediately upon adoption of these findings and recommendations to the Senate to include the loss of reimbursement for conference registration fees or travel reimbursement related to in state or out of state travel attendance and participation at legislative committee meetings or meetings of the Senate with the exception of any Senate organizational or Senate orientation meetings of the ninety fourth General Assembly including access to the member of staff only areas of committee rooms and faculty facilities and access to and use of Senate the bureau of legislative research legislative audit and other legislative facilities and equipment and staff resources including the Senate email account that's the motion Mister chairman okay you all heard Senator hammers motion any questions. C. N. ninety one speak for against this. Okay members the penalty this motion require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the membership to be adopted Senate rule twenty four ten if the roll will now be called away set all members take their seats. Senator Hammer is proceeding that is. Appearing to vote should not be recognized the senators president trump verbally respond when his his or her name is called the voting was one of the following responses the eight a president of state. Madam director Gary would you please call the roll Ballinger. Ballinger Baltz nay Beckham Beckham votes name Bledsoe. Let's seventy eight Caldwell is on leave Chesterfield. Chesterfield A. T. A. Clark. Clark. Davis. Davis will take a Dismang. Dismember TA Elliott. Eligibility a English English votes yet a Flippo. Flippo vote Flippo T. A. flowers. Flowers go to get a full for. Full for votes yet Garner. Garner votes nay Gilmore. Gilmore votes yet Hammer. Hammer voce Hendren. Hendren voce Hester. Acervo GA Hickey yeah thank you vote yeah hell. Although TA Ingram Ingram budget Irvin. Irvine vote yea Blake Johnson. Thank Johnson voce mark Johnson. Mark Johnson votes name Leding. Leding the TA Pitsch. Page ability a report is on leave rice. Rice votes nay okay sorry right thirty eight sample. Sample the TA Stubblefield is on leave Sturch is on leave Sullivan. Sullivan VOA TA Teague. T. reg J.. Tucker Tucker voce Wallace. Most the TA. Okay members by a vote of a. Ninety six shades FOR no days one of staining the motion carries. At this time I need to take a I need to take a brief recess because I have a letter that I need to re calendar view all eyes that none of you leave us so what let me do that because I need to work on this depending on the outcome of how this works so I need about fifteen minutes how will come back in. We will come back in it One ten. And then we'll proceed with our other business. Members if you don't mind please take your seats. Okay members I first want to read a letter that we sent to senator Clark of course it'll be addressed to him personally whatever it it sent but I want to read it in here instead of just sending myself so the Senate having found that Senator Alan Clark violated the Senate code of ethics specifically Senate rule twenty four point thirteen by filing a spur is frivolous and retaliatory at six petition against Senator Stephanie flowers the Senate impose the following penalties as a role result of this violation. Immediate loss of seniority moving him to position thirty five for the remainder of the ninety third General Assembly. A remit recommendation to the ninety fourth General Assembly. That is loss of seniority be sustained as the first order of business at the organizational meeting to be held in November and that he remain at position thirty five during the ninety fourth General Assembly and effective immediately suspension for the remainder of the ninety third General Assembly which will he handed eleven fifty nine fifty nine PM January eighth twenty twenty three. This is the suspension includes a loss of reimbursement for conference registration fees are travel reimbursements related to in state or out of state travel. Attendance and participation in legislative committee meetings or meetings of the Senate with the exception of any Senate organizational or Senate orientation meetings of the ninety four General Assembly including access to the member and staff only areas of committee rooms and facilities. And access to and use of Senate the bureau of legislative research legislative audit and other legislative facilities equipment or staff resources including his Senate email account. Senator Clark personal items that he may want that he may have been want to remove from the Senate office. Our desk or from his Capitol Hill apartment during his suspension of suspension. We'll be permit he should be provided access to the Senate chamber his Senate office and capitol hill apartments until four thirty PM on October third twenty twenty two. He will also turn in the following items by the above date and time to the capitol police offices office any Senate issued electronic devices including a lack laptop and iPad. The Senate license plates keycard to the capitol and capitol hill apartments. Keys to his office on Capitol Hill apartment and any other item issued to him in his capacity as a senator. In addition the following will occur immediately he will be prohibited from accessing is Senate. Email and Senate computer accounts contacting a working with Senate bureau or legislative research and legislative audit staff except during the Senate orientation organizational meeting and accessing legislator only a legislator only areas within the capped one big mac buildings is set during the Senate orientation. An organizational meeting again this letter will be sent to Senator Alan Clark. Okay this time members. Yes Sir re read that part about it is the expiration of the suspension eleven fifty nine fifty that I think you said twenty twenty three would be twenty twenty two. It's next. Next. The members are supposed to go into this session on January ninth and what that does is takes is up to the last minute before we go into the ninety fourth. Yes. All right members at this time we will go We got a little bit more agenda I have a Senate rule of. That I'm a request so we'll have to I will ask you to suspend the rules I'm West Senator Dismang if he would step forward at the appropriate as as of right now so I'm present that. And then after I do that I believe there's another one I'll step back to the chair and recognized as an. Problem. The. Sorry okay. Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question. Just clarification which one. Members back into and take their seats we've got a couple of questions I think maybe want to provide some clarification that I'm not even sure an additive that Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question they would share with the chair clarify which one we're actually supposed to have in our hands as soon as I find out I will find something that will allow me to differentiate that from the other but I've not seen any you're either the proposals. We have Senator Mark Johnson at the top corner I'm assuming that's one there's gonna be another that's going to say Senator Hickey. The. They. Just nine members just wanna verify does everybody have a copy of Senator Hickey is Proposed rule change. If you do not have one raise your hand everybody is good to go okay Senator Hickey you're recognized for a motion yes the first motion I'll need to do is we need to suspend the rules so that we can hear this suggested change to our Senate ethics rules. I thank you members with a motion to suspend the rules to hear. The proposed rule change to Senate rule twenty four by Senator Hickey. discussion on the motion. Sir Chesterfield I think you're waiting on the copy. All right. See no questions any discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye those opposed motion carries. Yes members proposing this rule change basically what this says is just only if you'll see the top line what it says it takes three or more members to you know who have good reason to blame bring an ethics complaint according to our rules that we have in place. If you look down below we also added this because there was some confusion where we put this the Secretary of the Senate shall deliver a copy of the petition to the chairman of the ethics committee. That was not in our our other rules so you know we had that we need a process in place of how that's done so that the secretary would actually deliver it to senator Hammer you know so that we actually have that in writing. And then there is everything else is basically turning of. Thanks to a floral. And there is just one type of change that is on the very last page if you look down at the bottom it originally it said. And it should say all right there. So with that I'll attempt and answer any questions members any questions Senator Elliot I see first you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. President I'm is one if you would just make a friendly amendment changing chairman to simply chair. Which is right in the middle of the page the Secretary of the Senate member copy of the petition I think that's part as appropriate okay. That was actually the top of so I will I will amend my motion to say that that that'll be to the petition will be delivered to the to the chair not the chair manacles everyone gets go ahead and make a note on that that way we would be adopting this piece of paper at some point Senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question. Clear. We sent. This is pretty close any one individual from bringing that violation claim is that what we're saying yes ma'am it does. I think that you've seen it to. But with with what's transpired I believe that you know we all operate as a body in here anyway and it takes multiple. Multiple members to do anything we all know that one member basically never does anything by themselves be it a bill draft or rules or whatever and I just think that you know we've learned a lot through this process and I think this is part of the learning process that that we found and you know that people ask me will know why would you say three why would you say four and basically is from my standpoint this is the biblical saying that you know stranded three chords not easily broken not to say it couldn't be all penalties would would still apply this is just requiring the the three. All right Senator Hammer and then we'll go to Senator. Garner thank you Mr chairman Senator Hickey I just kinda like to hear your boss if I'm Senator that thanks that maybe somebody else has done something wrong. Who are the other two I'm supposed to trust to go to and say Hey I think this is going on or how do you see that played out I think that's up to us I think we all know each other here senator Hammer and you know. I think that we all know that if we believe something like this going on that I would go to a certain two members Senator Garner by Senator Ballinger would senator rice and so on down I think that I think that would all work itself out of the way that it would need to. Follows Mister Sir Through this process there's some. Possible other changes that are going to be coming. this is. Honestly. Why are why are we doing this now versus waiting to what might possibly come give the factors close to the in before the next general assembly will be coming in I just I just saying what what what we've went through his body over the past couple months this this was an important need that we needed to address now. Thank you thank Mr. Senator garner. Thank. Thank you concerns me is that I can think about a hundred scenarios. Where the incident with only one center being a ball for no one about your facts of what happened. You all have not run very quickly on how that works. The issue is that we've just learned this body will give out fairly severe punishment for frivolous or spurs. The issue you also put that these people who sign their name on there could also face punishment even though they may think it's a good faith argument when they signed on. If there's any twenty two centres completely off campus completely somewhere else no material witnesses see that. How can we confidently put our name on the doctor that could in turn around turn out to be frivolous experience be used against us right I mean I think that's up to the other two members how they want to one approach that to make a hundred percent sure that you know that those facts can be proven I mean just because I'm out her to use the example about seeing someone you know I think that those facts are going to have to be proven and that is really the basis of this because you know I think that we need to guard against and the but I've heard Senator Hendren say weaponizing this and we do I think this is a guard against this shall you know what had been talked about here and I need to bring it up you know senator flowers suppliers actually went through. What a month to six weeks of having to enter this and I think that that this is something that that body that this body needs to recognize also is negotiating juror what all this transpired she had to injure twenty hours of nineteen to twenty hours of the ethics committee meeting or she didn't know actually what was transpiring either although she knew that she was not guilty of what should have been accused of she still had to enter that so I think anything that we can go due to actually still have our ethics committee in place because we all understand why this is here senator Irvin alluded to during her comments today this was put in place because because we had multiple members out there that we're doing things and we this body recognized that we needed they did have a process in place. I think this will strengthen our process I think that it'll also require whoever wants to bring this to two other individuals that they're going to get to sign on with them to go through that to vet it to actually go back and forth and to say what do you think about that and you know so they can bounce it off of them so I believe that the again I believe this will strengthen our process thank. it's. And then summarily my my comment is. I think it'll help I'm racking my brain trying to remember who I made the suggestion to but I suggested five. Can you give us a little when we are in committee discussions and and. Can you tell us why three and I notice a se three or more yeah and that was what I that was what I said we have so many pick members it asked me you know again actually members I struggle with this you know on how to how to do this is something I just came up with a whim I'm actually on a tractor Buschow again and again it was truly biblical you know in that nature because I remember the Bible verses in on a five closes Rome basically that accord a strand three chords is not easily broken because I originally was thinking to I was thinking for you know thought that might be too many so that right or wrong that's how I come to the reason of doing the three. Thank you Sir Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. Senator Hickey I was just trying to figure out this process of if there are three people and when you sign on on assuming you would think it's something you know ridiculous but in the process for example if you find the three of us right here have signed on and I find that it is frivolous I would have the right to withdraw money whether or not the others two one nine. To restore that there were some presumption is not addressed but of course mine is just for the initial filing so you know that you know that so the filing was there whatever you get into as we've seen today if you were to get into the Committee process and you see that you see that there's or other evidence been brought forward to it you know contradicts what you originally believed then yes it would be it would be up to you at that point to get all I think the other members would continue to stay home if they wanted to continue the process much as we saying today that would be would be up to them because originally there were three people who filed it that's correct what this is and again I think that we have to. I think once he gets to the committee process that it has to be allowed to play out but each one of those members if there's other evidence would be able to come off but if there's one that stays then we could basically wind up in the position that we are today. But before a member is accused. Of something again on the initial thing I believe this whole will serve to limit. things that could possibly be proved fruitless. This quick follow up and that it would not require that going for us I think I understood what you said that you got respect and get some other third person to replace somebody that might have dropped all this no no it's not written that way and that's not my intention no ma'am thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question Mr master legal counsel questions for historical purposes Casteel question. You're recognized for a question will. Going back to the days when the athletics conversation for startup thank goes back into the nineties at some point. Was it was it a rule and that it was one senator or was it multiple senators that. Signed on to when this conversation the original the original Senate code of ethics was adopted and before the ninety nine session. And at that time the rule read that If you petition to the pro tem with eighteen Morse signatures on a petition that the pro tem would call a business meeting to address the petition so basically it was a petition signed by at least eighteen senators. To conveying a business meeting to address an ethics violation. Okay. I'd like to ask questions Senator Hickey when he gets back in the publicly. All right Sir Garner you're recognized for a question Sir is this is this lastly for myself I have to go I just wanna make sure I was on the record if we have a kind of voter. Senator usually that Senator Hickey I'm sorry I'm sorry you're recognized. Hearing the historical and where we are today and where you want to take as this is more back to the middle. Balance between what it was what we evidently moved away sometime and where you're where we are now where you want to get this is that is that a fair assumption I would say is quite to the middle budget yeah I mean eighteen to three is not. Yes Sir and I'm not. I'm not being flippant with that but it's a bit but it is a it is a little bit a little bit stronger process that you have to go through thank you thank you should. I members with any other questions. Would anyone like Senator flowers you're recognized. In the rules and this is a question for. Legal counsel thank. share about. Making a verbal accusations. And. About a member. The queues in the member of ethical violations so how is it that is a part of our rules I can't find it but things like a great for not rules I think you may speak to this but you know there's a it was referenced earlier by Senator Hammer there's a whole separate section of our rules they didn't have to do with the frivolous complaint or whatever whatever you wanna call it that is not that is about it was a behavior unbecoming of the Senate Armed member the exact words which then can be brought before the body that I think you may be alluding to something like that that that could be considered underneath that section of our rules but I let. I'm just trying to help those the proposed rule not contradict. The other rules because I'm concerned about three members collaborating. and speak among themselves. About making allegations or accusations against a member. that's not a piece of paper yeah that's not in the form of a petition and then spread out to the media are all the rumors get started. That concerns me. That would have three. Collaborate. I don't understand the purpose of this rule I'm not I'm not sure that we could prohibit three members from getting together and gossiping about another member. I think this is specifically for three members required to come together and jointly signed a petition and ethics petition to the that the secretary the more openly go for the ethics committee I think the intent of the rule is to. Sure that someone for me would be to ensure that someone saying stop have we ask all the questions that we've gone through this do we for instance just take the time to call senator flowers to find out a little bit more about this surely amongst three members there's enough common sense to maybe get away from some of the motion that may be involved I think that's the intent of this is to. Make sure that things are vetted before we just automatically throw something up to the ethics committee input. This body the public and everyone else to something that was not necessary because it OR is or prevailing. That fear Senator. It was but I don't necessarily agree with that that you're going to find common sense among three members okay fair enough It would be very very on the three I would agree to that. I think it lends itself. To a lot of conspiracy theories and setting someone up. I just would like to know how do we prevent that because I'm not close to about three members. Senator flowers I think that's probably a question for me if you don't mind financer I think we have right now everyone can do it so basically what I'm trying to do is limited against that. By just adding the other two so as was as was given in as it just happened with you One member brought that against you. If we pass this thing it would require those three to actually do the written filing so that they all three we would do it so that it's actually trying to limit against that a little bit more. Senator Irvin recognized for a question. Actually in your binders under Senate rules and procedures on page nine is where at this guy's house and bringing in a manner and verbally and I center shall not make an allegation of a violation verbally in a meeting of the Senate or by any other means outside the petition committee process at these rules and if a senator or in this case if this is adopted Senator. improperly brings an allegation of a violation they may be subject to any of the penalty set forth in section twenty four point one one of this rule so I just wanted to point that out that that is already adopted in part. Thank you. who's up next senator Clarke Tucker. Thank you Mr. The center I'm just following up on a point that Senator Elliot made about withdrawal and I just wanna make a suggestion that I don't think would be controversial but just would clarify what your intent is if you look at the last paragraph before twenty four point one a. Sabin for twenty four point ten okay. That paragraph starts are you with me Senator Hickey yes Sir. Allegation of violation may be withdrawn you see that yes Sir so my suggestion would be to to adjust that to say an allegation of violation may be withdrawn by one or more of the claimants. Yeah. I thank should we say that or should we just say this allegation of violation that that they're allowed to is that the way we want to put it allegation violation may be withdrawn by the claimants. Withdrawn by one or more of the claimants. Is not is not my intent though that that if one person if it's if it's already been filed it's been delivered to the ethics chair. You know what. I wouldn't want to. Be inferred that to you you could add a set a second sentence that says the proceeding will only. Terminate if all of the claimants withdraw sure. And. Me I would I would be more than happy to do that if that's what the membership wants. Again you know we're just trying to. Trying to get through all this so so my suggestion would be an allegation violation may be withdrawn about one or more of the claimants and the rest of that sentence stays the same and the. Other sense after that would be added that says the proceeding will only terminate if all of the claimants withdraw the complaint if and I would I would I would agree to that amendment can we get a staff we have that on a piece of paper that way I read that back. but you get the. The. I'm not asking to hand out something else but I will read that and and in the two changes that I think we have so far before we take that Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you for continuing on that thought just play this thing out so you got three senators that initiate action somewhere in the process one realized who the same right and they back off and the answer may be withdrawn would it be your verification what you're presented today that that one senator that dropped off would be free of any future punishment may come if it's determined that the other two that have stayed on it is frivolous most certainly yes Sir most certainly okay once at fault Mr once once that one senator drops off it becomes too. Would that how would that play out is for violating the rule because then at that point you don't have three or more you only have to. Again this is just for the filing that the amateurs that's what Senator Clark yes yes the language at that center Tucker had suggested will okay clear that language of okay very good thank you will kind of cleared up it will clear to thank you. We have any other questions all right Sir Johnson you're recognized for a question this is just a clarification Mr chairman Senator Hickey I will use analogy and you tell me firemen's hearing this right of three individuals file a lawsuit against somebody and it's private goes to court the judge receive the Clark received a C. got a lawsuit one of the plaintiffs decides to drop out of the lawsuit that doesn't mean the lawsuit is dismissed as that analogous to what we're talking about I'm not to be honest center Johnson I'm not familiar with the court proceedings like I say it's just this is aye Senator Blake Johnson said administrative proceeding that we do in here with the Senate body so I'm always saying as it is now I don't well I don't that I would rather just stick with the way it is but. I don't like to say lawsuit in all that we understand this is us at the exploration I'm not alluding to this being a loss and simply say that three individuals taken action the action is filed and then one pulls out the action doesn't go away saw regardless of what the need is I think you can consider you consider your analogy correct thank you Sir yes Sir Mr. With any other questions. All right Singh and everyone anyone like to speak against the rule change. Speaking for. All right members I want to quickly go through and make sure that we understand what's what what what we're going to be voting on is not exactly the papers to take off your intake it depends or pencils and is on the first page going to cheer change from chairman to chair and then on the second page the language is going to read. This is on the second paragraph on the top. Here's one to read allegation violation may be withdrawn by one or more at first change. Of the claimants at any time prior to the fight with the ethics committee during the hearing procedure withdrawal of the allegation violations shall be reported by the ethics committee to the president pro tem of the Senate. The this is the new language the new second sentence. Okay that sounds if the proceedings will only terminate if all claimants withdraw from the petition. Is that correct Senator. Just text to me. I'm adding I'm adding one other suggestion based on Senator hammers point which I thought was a an excellent point I'm adding a sentence that says any senator who withdraws his or her name. Will not be subject to punishment for violating rule twenty four point thirteen. So I think that reflects your into the the answer to Senator. Can we discuss that for just a second. I'm with you. Just if you don't mind give me little latitudes chairs for this discussion on that my only concern would be. Is three members again doing Some cute things filing an ethics committee complaint previously knowing they were and then all backing out of that complaint after they started the ball rolling that would be my only you know that the headlines of already been made everything's happening they know the rule and so that is all three back out and we had a great time torturing another senator. If that makes sense that's my only concern about that language I would argue that for us is a membership what we just went through demonstrated I think the need for member to come explain themselves for why they took a particular action against another member and in doing so it would be us to determine if that was a fruitlessly filed complaint or whatever may be just my two cents. It's not my. If I made. You all get where to sit business meeting this is important as I said earlier no one member down here does anything by Seth and that's being demonstrated I welcome what you're what you're saying for us to work through this because we need to get this right thank you. So says the additional language would essentially exonerates someone from having a frivolous. Complaint filing or whatever it may be charged against him if they withdraw their name thanks to the simple withdrawing of the name would exclude them from being. You know part of that. Yes Sir I hear what you're saying Senator and I don't necessarily disagree the way the rule is now is that you can withdraw at any time prior to the when the vote is taken and you are not subject any punishment that time so. My thought in adding that sentences to reflect what the current rule is that if you want to change the the rule beyond that you know I I think you make a valid point but that's so that's my thought process in a and if I may and it sent I mean if the Mr cook and correct me I know that we're talking about the ethics right here and we're trying to get these straight but you know if this body of eighteen members we don't have to have any of this in place you know under I believe that we have the authority and under anyway under the constitution to discipline our members so if there's some extra work extraordinary circumstances where we see that it looks like that someone has a filed this dropped it or whatever this body still has that ability to discipline the member anyway they wall all we've got to do is come together so. Just because it's not written exactly right if we find that then we can proceed that way. My recognized by address the chair Sir. On the way I'm trying in my mind around the way it is now. A member one or if this goes through three. File a complaint the way the rules are currently they could take it right up as was illustrated while ago right up to the time that the gap is sound and pull it out and whoever that member is that has gone through the experience you're right the press is out there hopefully after today so that we change. So. Underground is gone. One of one or three what difference does it does it may and are we really addressing your concerns. By. Moving it from one to three and and how are we going to address your concerns. I what's concerns so I'm not sure which one you're specifically referring to but so for the one or three and I again I don't need to debate that the chair I mean I think they understand the intent and all I was trying to do is outline what I think in center Hickey was with what moving it to three I mean I believe that the the thought is that surely when there's a group of three people someone speaks up and says maybe we should do it this way before we all sign a piece of paper masse Senator Hickey question yes Sir. Under what you're proposing think about the language is Senator Tucker is talking about if all three came right up to the last minute so you know what we pull out we're not going to do this the fact is going to be the same as what we just experienced. Or is that being in your mind is that being addressed by what senator Tucker is proposing. Well I mean you know if that if that happened I mean I guess I'd have to say that if you got it's going to be I hate to say it this way but if you're going to get it's gonna be harder to get Three road members in one I mean that files a frivolous type complaint I do I thank you I think it on the on its face in its simplest form that you know basically we're just we're just trying to get the conversation going in the N. word will be vetted more amongst those three members you know for him says well this I say well how do we know a hundred percent sure. That that's correct what what we need to do to strengthen that or if it's not there then we don't need to say it. So I appreciate that I'm just thinking that if we move it three five throughout the other issue. Three could do same day. I do appreciate the intelligent and I'm just trying to address that do we really fix that issue or that's going to something that we need to come together to committee along with some other recommendations to deal with and just for some clarification here the way that that rule actually reads don't have from the with confirm with Mr cook is you not absolved from filing a frivolous complaint you still filed the complaint if you pull your name back you can still be charged with or you with filing a frivolous complaint I mean I think the point that everybody in this room is trying to make was you know we have a discussion on penalties and whatever else and tip done so would have changed maybe the perception of the committee. You see that is still there there's nothing that's going to prevent someone from being charged with filing a frivolous complaint just simply because they remove their name. Okay that we of the body Senator Tucker just mentioned the Senator Dismang but I think I'm. Not the whole amendment which is the part that as that last sentence to say you're absolved if you withdraw because that's not actually in the current rule the to Senate is nine point and and your point Senator Hickey because this. Just because it doesn't say in the current rule if you withdraw then you're absolved so I think. I thought I was I some withdrawing that last sentence because it actually would go further than what's in the current rules so narrowing my suggested amendment back to just say one or more can withdrawal but the proceeding only terminate however if all the. Claimants withdraw the complaint but there's no additional language about being absolved under rule twenty four thirteen so it's just a first sentence that you suggest yes the person yeah the the change to one or more in the first sentence of the Division of the final sentence sentences says allegation may be withdrawn but in a. The procedure will terminate however all claimants withdraw the complaint. Again again members were trying to get our ethics we're trying to get this so that it'll take three to file and we keep say this over and over if if eighteen of you all Tomar decides it you want to bring you want to punish Hickey for something then that's going to be your right of ethics ethics committee or not that's that's that. That is that it's been given to us under the constitution. Senator Wallace and then senator. Perfect is the enemy of good. This is better than what we have and I think you will prevent. What we have gone through the past few months I think it's good rule thank you I appreciate that it's a. Again you all it's it's hard to get anything perfect like this I mean a lot of this has to be based upon the character of the members. Senator recognized for a question just clarification and and again that's on page nine in your binders and that. For clarification the withdrawal again prevent somebody from still being issued penalty under twenty four thirteen. And you cannot withdraw it once the final votes has been made by the ethics committee correct just separate from the Senate so. I appreciate a rule I think it's actually a good bill that a change to the rule okay thank you five members of any other questions. And as everyone understand the changes that we made on the piece of paper so the first as chairman chair adding one or more and then that final sentence about the three withdrawal then it will be terminated. All right members anyone would speak against. For. Seeing none. Close courts have. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed motion carries right. Senate Johnson I think you are. I don't have it. Okay at this time uh center Johnson yes I'm not sure this if you're recognized me from point a person instead of passing this out yes yes senator Johnson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. The first rule change your passed out by mistake is my rule change I would actually ask at some point if it's passed out please take a look at it. I'm not going to ask the Senate to vote on it today. I might even say it's a work in progress. I'm very concerned when we do things in this chamber that violate due process regardless of the fact that the infant Senator Blake Johnson said this isn't a court of law no it's not but we try to operate fairly and the. Due process it is exactly that it's process of the rule change that I'm going to work on and I would invite comments from any of you about it would basically open up these proceedings the ethics committee. Would hear testimony. With in public public meeting just like we have testimony on bills and everything. it would be live streamed The Respondents would be able to have her attorney and their attorney could speak they could ask questions of witnesses these are just simple due process procedures I do not claim to have it all figured out but it is Senator Wallace use the term awhile ago you don't want the perfect be the enemy of the good now I will not bring it up today but I ask all of you to think about this and we come in in November I'd like to have something cool together I would appreciate all of your your input on how we can improve this I think it's important that. The Senate do the Senate's business in public. Transparency is the best policy the the change would be it would be just like a jury wants the ethics committee has heard the testimony and then they could go into deliberations in the executive session but then would just like us every city council quorum court in the state of Arkansas does they would have to come out and vote in public so that's the essence of the rule change that I'm I'm looking at I trust my colleagues to to get your fine tooth combs out and come up maybe with some better ones but but the intent that I would have and would not ask you all to even go into this seeing something as simple as Senator Hickey is a good rule change that changes it to three that's not a magic number but it took a little time to get to that so I will not burden you all today we're doing this but it is something I think it's important and I ask for your input and your ideas and thoughts and perhaps we can come up with something that again will not necessarily be perfect but will be an improvement so thank you Mr chairman and I'm not gonna answering questions thank you Mr. Senator Hammer your next question to the chair place yes Sir procedural question I respect the thirty five members in here this is a business meeting but we're discussing rules that are changed to the ethics and to my knowledge of this first time I've seen both of these today I know there's talk in the halls as to what are we going to come we have come straight into the body as a whole to have these discussions or will any of these be referred to the Committee and then come back here wage fine I just like clarity because if there's other members are going to be dropping things in if I if I understand correctly to be referred to the case should be referred to the ethics committee the rules are suspended today so that's why we heard the one on the floor senator Johnson was not presenting he is he was just asking for a point of personal privilege okay so I hope that answers your questions Senator. Senator Irvin along those lines and that was my question would be did senator Johnson wanted this to be referred to the rules committee because not yet just because the one in the so that actually had been discussed at length. Five to the four years ago and so just mattered and that you may want to look talk to some of the folks that were on the first I think committee we did talk about the ways that might give you some more insight but were I didn't know if we need to make a motion to refer the I don't think he's I don't think it's draft is where it should be but that's a very good point once it gets there thank you probably the ticket with the current. At this committee of course Senator Hester we haven't to appoint a new at the same committee for the ninety four General Assembly okay thank you. Anyone else have any. Anything else that we are under the on other businesses or any other type of business if anyone needs to discuss. Hi to greatly appreciate everybody being here with that returned.