ALC-Personnel
Video
Transcript
14 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
of the personnel committee. We've got a rather
short agenda today. I don't think anything on here is going to be controversial, but we want to have everybody get their questions answered and concerns that they have. I will give you a report on Senator Wallace. You remember last meeting we had, he had cataract surgery? Well, today he's having his other eye done, so he says that he's amazed at the color he's been missing for the last 20 years, and having had that
myself, I know exactly what he's talking about. So with that, we will get started with the call to order. Do we need to do the minutes? No, sir. Okay. All right. So the first thing on here would be item B, and I'm going to ask Tony to present that
Speaker 7
2:17
to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item B is a request from the Department of Agriculture. This is to establish a salary administration grid for the archaeologist classifications. The request is based on advisement from the federal agency that provides the grant money for these positions.
The salary grid amounts are set based on years of experience are in line with the
Speaker 8
2:35
federal government's pay structure for these positions. OPM has recommended the requested salary grid. Any questions? I
see someone here from the Department of Agriculture if
Chair
Unverified
2:46
you have any questions. Without that, is there a motion to approve, to review? Second. Motion is second. Any discussion? Those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no.
Motion carries. Tony, number C. All right,
Speaker 7
3:05
Mr. Chairman. Item C is a request from the Claims Commission to surrender one administrative specialist position in return for an attorney specialist at a GS-11. The new position will come from the OPM swap pool. OPM has recommended the swap of positions in order to allow for claims to be processed with increased speed and efficiency. Any questions about
Chair
Unverified
3:25
this one? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?
Is there a motion to approve? Motion and a second. Any discussion? Those in
favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carried.
Speaker 7
3:45
Number D. Mr. Chairman, Item D is a request from the Department of Correction. In June, a salary grid was created for agencies to utilize as needed for positions with pay grades 1 through 5. As part of the implementation, OPM set the maximum salary increase at $5,000 per person per year. The Department of Correction would like to create an exemption to that cap
and have it lifted for correctional officer 1s and corporal titles. The department feels like they are not able to provide the entire increase if they're not able to provide the entire increase on the front end, will create inequity within their ranks. OPM expects this action to create an additional $1.9 million in cost to
Speaker 8
4:25
the previously estimated $18.4 million to correction, and that's to implement
Chair
Unverified
4:31
the original salary grid. Okay. Discussion on this? Any questions?
Representative Dotson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, I think I saw something,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:45
an article or something about this recently. Is this a, so this is just a temporary funding, but we're going to have to try to come up with additional funding on this. Is that what I'm understanding? I think I saw Solomon Graves
out there, the secretary. Yeah, there he is. Would you come up and address this, please?
Speaker 24
5:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Recognize yourself and then you're recognized to answer this question. Solomon Graves, Secretary of Corrections. To Representative Dodson's questions, I believe he is referring to item E specifically. Item D is we have accumulated sufficient salary savings to cover the additional one
$1.1 million to implement item D. Okay,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
5:46
so I guess it'll be, when we get to that, I'll ask you that question. Yes, sir. Okay.
Well, if you would, Secretary Grave, just remain seated there and we'll deal with D first. Any other questions on item number D? Hearing none, is there a motion and second? Motion and second. Any discussion? Those in favor say
Speaker 13
6:09
aye. Opposed, no. Motion carried. Now we're down to E.
Speaker 12
6:14
All right, Mr. Chairman. Item E is a new salary administration grid request from the Department of
Speaker 7
6:19
Correction for the titles listed on the front page at grades 6 through 10. The grid implemented in June, this grid implemented in June was also based on years like the one in June. This grid was based on years of service. You can find the grid rates for each pay grade on the second page of the request. It's estimated that this request will cost an additional nine million dollars over over the original grid's $18.4 million. The grid is requested to help alleviate salary compression
and ensure that employees in lower graded
Speaker 15
6:48
positions are not making higher salary than those in
Speaker 30
6:54
the higher graded positions. Yes, sir, Secretary Graves. Yes, sir. First of
Speaker 24
7:00
all, I want to thank the personnel committee's efforts to address this issue, and I want to make sure you understand we've taken
Speaker 31
7:08
seriously the comments that y'all have heard from your constituents as these grids have been implemented across state government and we've taken seriously the comments that we've heard from
our own staff within the department of correction the challenge that we faced with the grade one through five grid implemented by the council earlier this year is that it created a very serious issue for us in terms of salary compression. Between the, in the positions of correctional officer one to major, which is a GS, that major is a GS09 up to deputy warden, there are no intervening grades. So if you do not address salary compression up each level of
security rank, you end up with an issue wherever you draw the line of a subordinate staff making more than their next level of supervision. And depending on the level of seniority with that subordinate staff, we saw issues where up to two levels of supervision that the subordinate employee would make more than their supervisor. So what this grade 6 through 10 grid will allow the Department of Corrections to do is adjust, based on seniority, those compensation levels for our security staff
up to grade 10 which at the facility level is a deputy warden it will also allow us to increase our level of competitiveness in our division of community correction specific to parole and probation officers many of you represent communities where I know your sheriffs your chiefs of police are having these same conversations with your city boards and with your quorum courts about increasing the salaries for local law enforcement that those conversations are warranted and I hope in your communities they're successful.
What that means is we have to remain competitive with the rest of the law enforcement market so we can provide that level
Speaker 32
9:12
of public safety that we're expected to provide by statute for those individuals that are
Speaker 33
9:19
on community supervision. This grid will also allow us to increase
Speaker 31
9:24
our level of competitiveness with mental health staff. That has been a long-term problem for the department remaining competitive with the private market in terms of
licensed and unlicensed treatment staff. This gets us a little bit farther down the line, and as we continue to have conversations with TSS and with the administration about long-term opportunities to address compensation, we believe this to be the most prudent course to address the current market that we find ourselves in. These adjustments are funded through salary savings.
We have sufficient salary savings. We have projected at this point through the end of the biennium without having to make any additional funding requests at this time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to take any questions from the subcommittee. Okay. I represent Dodson. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if I heard
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
10:25
you correct, you said you're going to do salary savings. It'll cover all of this through the rest of the biennium.
But how much more after this biennium will you be requesting for an ongoing to
Speaker 31
10:45
maintain this and keep it up? We project once fully, if fully staffed, this would increase our current payroll by up to $25 million above current funding levels. But we believe at this time, due to vacancies, that we are able to account for
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
11:03
that through accumulated salary savings.
So it'll be an ongoing legacy increase in costs of
about $25 million. Do you have any idea off the top of your head, you might not, the overall cost of your salaries? How much is this increasing? What percentage is it increasing it overall, I guess, is my question. I'm looking at staff. No,
Speaker 31
11:26
sir, I don't have that, but I can follow up with our HR and budget shops and get that
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
11:33
back to Tony. This seems like kind of a substantial ask for an ongoing thing
that we might want to wait a couple of months until we're into a fiscal session so we can have a
Speaker 31
11:50
further discussion on this. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes, sir. I would respond to that representative Dodson by saying that we're in a very substantial crisis point. We have been managing by grace in all honesty our staffing through this pandemic.
A staff sent me some numbers this morning. Our current vacancy rates for entry-level correctional officers are 54% in the Division of Correction and the Division of Community Correction it's right at 42%. What this plan does not only addresses salary compression, but it demonstrates to those higher ranking staff that have stuck with us through the hardest 18 months in the history of many of their careers that we value them.
we understand that addressing compensation is not just a issue that we can stick to one or two positions, but that we've got to address this systemically. I agree with you that we need to have long-term conversations about compensation, and those are conversations that we've started at a department level with TSS, and I want to thank Secretary Fetcher and also our partners at DFA and Secretary
Walder for their willingness to engage in those conversations with us. But those are long-term issues. Immediately, we need to be able to implement this grid so we can remain competitive, that we can maintain the men and women at these higher level ranks that are sticking with us, that have that institutional knowledge, and to be honest, that are keeping our facilities safely running day to day for the last year, year and
Speaker 42
13:40
a half during this squarely pen COVID times
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:43
we've all had to face. Well, I thank you for that. And I completely agree. I think it's probably totally justifiable. I just, it's something that we haven't seen before really today. And this is a subcommittee of a fraction of the legislature dealing with this, but asking for a legacy commitment of $25 million a year. It just seems to me as if we need to have a little bit further vetting on it before and getting all of the numbers and data
together. So anything you can send me, I would love to see that especially before we have final approval on Friday of this if it comes out of this committee today. Yes, sir.
Thank you. Thank you. Mark Berry Yes, sir.
Chair
Unverified
14:45
Representative Mark Berry, you're recognized. You've got me turned on.
Speaker 1
14:48
Okay. All right, whoever… 69 is me. Okay. Well, you're down
Chair
Unverified
14:55
here on the… Okay. Go ahead. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Okay. Over here. To your right.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
15:05
Thank you. my question is you know we're experiencing this high rate of inflation right now and I know that that inflation is causing for us in a private business to have to increase our wages to everyone just simply because it's the right now it's a cost of doing business that's the way we kind of have
to look at it because to keep and have good employees you're having to raise those it's just like you're speaking to with these new numbers that you're asking for have you taken in consideration the inflation, and do you think that these numbers are going to be reflective of what you're really going to have to have based
Speaker 36
15:43
on the current escalation of inflation? The answer to both those questions is
Speaker 31
15:48
yes. We've also consulted, I call them our SEC member states in the southern region,
and this request is in line with what all of our surrounding DOCs have also raised to their legislatures over the last year. This is the new market. Okay, but have we projected with the
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
16:06
current inflation we're seeing and where we might be in two years that we're going to have to, because when we go into physical, we're going to have to start thinking out ahead. So have we thought about those numbers? Yes,
Speaker 31
16:19
and that's what I was alluded to on the front end.
We believe that based on the current trajectories that this gets us to where we need to be right now and this puts us in a position to sustain this
Chair
Unverified
16:46
see. Representative Wooten, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
16:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, I understand. And I want to follow up on Representative Dotson's questions. I'm not a member of the committee, but I am on joint budget. And, of course, you know my love for personnel situations. I guess I've got two questions. One, how much will this cost right now? You're saying that you have the salary savings to cover it.
Speaker 31
17:26
For the remainder of FY22, we project the cost to be about $11.2 million. $11.2 million. Yes,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:35
sir. And you're saying that, if I follow up, Mr. Chairman, you're saying that you accumulated this through salary savings. Yes, sir. How did you do that? Let me ask one more question and answer both of them at the same time. salary savings, did you do that through positions that are unfilled? Is that how
Speaker 31
17:57
you accomplish this? Yes sir, this is through the funding attached to budgeted unfilled positions that we're actively trying to fill, but as we are roughly halfway through the fiscal year, we can approximately project out what our payroll is going to be for the remainder of the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
18:18
year. And I I appreciate your position, and I understand, but I think we'd be far better off in our budgeting process if we went ahead and included that $11.2 million.
You knew it was coming. You knew you were having a shortfall. Then having all those unfilled positions that are budgeted and then come back in here and ask for money to be shifted to those new positions, I just think we'd be better off from a budgeting standpoint for the state, not just your agency, but all of them if we budgeted the correct amount to start with as it relates to the current positions and then allocate that money, you know, as you need it.
Speaker 31
19:04
Am I making sense? Yes, sir, and I would draw a distinction between unfilled and unneeded. These are not positions that we have left unfilled by choice. These are positions that we're actively working to fill, that we will continue to actively work to fill, but in order for us to fill these positions, we've got to increase our competitiveness with the rest of the law enforcement market.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
19:31
Okay. One more follow-up and I'll be through.
Yes, sir. But if that's the situation, how
many of these positions have been vacant for over two years that you're taking this money away from that are budgeted? We'd have to run those numbers.
Speaker 31
19:53
I will say none of these are- I would appreciate- And none of these are currently on the, because I've asked our HR staff to pull those when and they look at our vacancy numbers to not pull anything on the two-year hold list.
So none of these positions are currently on the two-year hold list. They're below,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
20:11
they're under two years. Yes, sir. So you had that? Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll get that specific number. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Speaker 79
20:21
Representative Hammer, are you 85? Yes, sir. You're recognized for a question. Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:27
you, Mr. Chair. I noticed on this that a lot of these would fall, or they fall in the mental health area. Am I correct on that? Yes, they are.
Speaker 31
20:38
We tailored this plan, our six through tens, because we wanted to be prudent stewards of our budget. This is not addressing every grade six through ten position. This is only addressing those grades 6 through 10 positions tied to security, tied to mental health, tied to parole and probation supervision, tied to food service. Okay,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:04
so these are, are these within, which, which systems are these
within or which units are these? These positions are spread
Speaker 34
21:14
between the divisions of correction and the divisions of, in the division of community correction. What I was wondering, in the in the Department
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:23
of Corrections, does the does the health contract or the contract we have with the company that provides the health services not pick
Speaker 31
21:36
up any of these services? Yes and no. So well our contract medical provider, when that contract was negotiated, it was only
negotiated to provide mental health services in the division of community correction, in our community correction centers. The board actually last month approved a pilot at our East Arkansas unit in Brickies where we are going to set up a pilot to privatize mental health services there, evaluate that for the next year and a half with the expectation of rolling
mental health services for both our operational divisions, correction and community correction, into our medical services contract when that is bid out. Are we getting
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:25
the cart before the horse then? If you're asking for these increases now, if we're going to do a pilot program that might
Speaker 34
22:34
privatize it, and how would that not affect the positions? That pilot only impacts one unit, and these this proposal addresses statewide but if you pilot and you end up and that's successful
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:48
and you would duplicate that across the other units then then how is that not running counterproductive to what you're asking here if it turns out to be you know a cost
Speaker 31
23:03
savings without compromising quality that that would be about two and two years and some change down the road before we would get to the point of implementing our next medical services contract. And as we have indicated with this pilot, any employee at that point,
if ultimately the department, ultimately our next governor, the Board of Corrections at that time, and the legislative council all check off their approvals for that medical services contract, no employee would be displaced and they would be provided other opportunities within the system. We have a system with a lot of needs. There will never be a point to where there won't be work to be done. Okay, thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you. Senator Chesterfield.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
23:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion at the proper time and I'd like to
Chair
Unverified
24:03
speak to it, please. Okay. We've still got some in
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
24:05
the queue. Well, let me go ahead and say what I have to say. One of the greatest fears that we have is that people will escape from these facilities. Boy, it is one of the greatest fears I have, that people will escape from these facilities. We have been truly blessed in that
Speaker 31
24:26
we have been understaffed for how long? I would say the critical staffing levels where we are currently facing have been present for going on two years and some change.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
24:35
And with increased salaries from the private sector, it is more and more difficult to maintain staff. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am.
And so I'm wondering, since we already know about salary compression, we already know that if we raise those bottom salaries, then the individuals who are supervising others are going to need a raise as well. Is that what this is about? Yes, ma'am. And so I'm just urging my colleagues to please vote for this now because if something happens and we continue to go down this path and people are escaping from these correctional
facilities, then we're going to come back and ask the Secretary why he did not do more. I think it's important that we act now so that we can keep those individuals who have stayed with us because this has been an ongoing issue at the Department of Correction. We cannot find adequate staff. It's not an ideal place to work, to say the least. And if we continue to do this, we're going to continue to lose folks. So with that, Mr. Chair, I yield. Thank you, ma'am.
Representative Berry, is that you? Yes, sir. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
Speaker 89
25:46
for taking my question since I'm not a member of the committee, but I will say I don't think we have any, I don't have a fear of anybody escaping from those facilities because I know the tremendous job that Director Payne and Secretary Graves is doing down there. I've been down to their facilities and seen firsthand the incredible people that they have working there. I'm fully in support of using the salary savings to mitigate some of the challenges that you have at this time.
And hopefully during the fiscal session, we can address what we need to do to fix the problem in the future because this is a recruiting and retention issue for the Department of Corrections. And we want to keep, every time we lose a corrections officer that goes out the door, we are, from a business model perspective, we are losing money. And we need to keep those highly motivated people that I've witnessed and that I visited with at the Department of Corrections when I was down in your facilities. And I appreciate everything that you do. And I would ask that the committee consider supporting Secretary Graves' request.
Thank you. Do you have a response, Secretary? I agree. Thank you. Okay. We don't have anybody else on the queue. So, uh, okay. Motion is seconded to approve. Any discussion? Those in
Chair
Unverified
27:07
favor say aye. Opposed, no. The motion is carried. Mr. Chairman
Speaker 12
27:14
and Committee, item F has been pulled by the agency, so we'll go on to item G.
Speaker 7
27:22
Item G is a request from the Department of Public Safety for Arkansas State Police. The department is requesting the surrender of five ASP corporal positions in return for five ASP sergeant positions. The swap will allow state police to restore two lieutenant positions and one captain position that had been previously cross-graded down to sergeants and help them better facilitate transitions and retention of department knowledge. OPM estimates the cost of the swap of positions will be about $13,000.
Speaker 8
27:52
OPM has recommended the requested swap. Do we
Chair
Unverified
27:56
have any questions about this? Senator Chesterfield, you are
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
28:01
recognized. Thank you. First of all, I'm so glad nobody else has fear of escaped convicts but me. But I want to make sure that when we are swapping these, we are not swapping out our ability to respond in an expeditious manner. State police? Okay, Colonel Bryan,
I think I saw you in here.
You come up and address our question, please, after you identify
Speaker 99
28:39
yourself. Bill Barrett, Director of the Arkansas State Police. Senator Chesterfield, appreciate the question. Currently, right now, we have a total of 54 vacated budget positions. We're getting ready to hire 41 troopers and start a troop school in January. So we have like 13 left over. We want to swap this, the corporal positions.
You know, you've heard me testify before for state police and Game and Fish Commission, recruiting and retention issues. But I think to your question, if I understood it right, is
Speaker 98
29:11
it going to affect our response or anything like that? No, ma'am, it's not. All right.
Speaker 85
29:16
Thank you. And with that, Mr. Chair, I move approval of the request. Okay, we're going
Chair
Unverified
29:21
to hold that motion until we see if there's any other questions for Colonel Bryant. Seeing none, then we will accept the motion to approve the request.
Is there a second? Okay. Any discussion? Those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion is carried. Thank you, Colonel.
Speaker 7
29:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, item H is a miscellaneous federal grant request from the Prosecuting Coordinator's Office. The appropriation and positions have already been reviewed by peer. Personnel is tasked with reviewing the titles associated with these positions. This MFG has three new classifications for a pause for justice program that was born out of Act 957 of 2015,
which is the Courthouse Dogs Child Witness Support Act, and Act 824 of 2021, which expanded the permitted use of certified facility dogs in the courts. The program will provide dogs and handlers to the state's prosecutor's offices to help with victim anxiety. anxiety, and fear. The three titles include a certified dog handler program manager, facility dog handler one, and a facility dog handler two. OPM has recommended the requested titles. Any questions?
Speaker 103
30:36
Senator Rice. I don't know whether the staff know this, if not, do we have any courts that are not allowing this at this time. Okay. Mr. Bailey, you want
Speaker 28
30:51
to come answer that question for us? There you go. There we go. Bob McMahon,
Speaker 105
31:06
prosecutor coordinator. Senator, in response to that question, I'm aware of one court a few years ago in Perry County where a motion was
Speaker 106
31:13
filed by the prosecutor and that concept was rejected by that particular judge. I'm aware of the dog being used in three or four other judicial districts in multiple cases and no one's ever had that problem. The law provides for that judge to not accept that. So there is procedure in place if the dog is going to be used for the prosecutor to file a motion and the motion articulates that the dog has
trained, has been trained, that there's insurance for the dog, that the child or vulnerable witness has established a relationship with the dog to allow the child to be a more productive witness. So there are procedures in place in the law that would allow a judge to deny that, but I'm only aware of that one situation. That case was never appealed or anything so it just ended
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
31:57
there. What I was wondering is if the handlers would be an important part of putting some judges at ease that might not
Speaker 105
32:05
have been before. It's possible. I mean, under the existing programs that we have now, there are two dogs
Speaker 106
32:12
in the state right now. There are already handlers for those dogs. So in that one particular situation, I don't know if that was raised by the judge or that was a concern, but there was a handler present in that case and there always has to be a handler pursuant to the law. We would not be able to do
Speaker 22
32:29
it without that. Thank you. Okay. Representative Dotson, had a
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
32:32
question. Yes, thank you Mr. Chair and I think this may, you may have indirectly answered it. You said there's two in the state and there has to be a handler, so would this allow for a total of two additional dogs statewide? Yes, the
Speaker 105
32:46
plan here is to incorporate the existing dogs into the program, but in order to apply for another dog, we have to have a position in place and a handler and then the individual would be sent to the training facility and we would send a letter you know recommending that person and then they go and they have training when they get there and they are actually matched with a dog so they get down there and they don't know who what particular dog is going to be assigned to them it's almost like the dog picks the person to be honest and so that's how that works and then they train so they train with additional dogs while they're there and then
they would train with the dog that's assigned to them then they come back to the state of Arkansas and that dog becomes, you know, part of our team. So the dogs are donated to us. We don't have to pay for those dogs and those dogs are very, very expensive. I think they're about $40,000 per dog. But again, my request would be to apply for new dogs for these positions to go along with these existing dogs so that we would have a better statewide program. I mean, we would be only the second state in the country to do this. Alabama has done that. It takes a while to get the dogs
and do training and everything, but we would be the second state. So our goal eventually would have dogs all over the state. I think Alabama is up to 12 right now. But, again, it would take us a substantial period of time to get there. How many
Speaker 112
34:01
dogs would we need total to cover the entire state? It depends, I mean, how we set
Speaker 105
34:06
that up. Our goal right now, I mean, again, we get our foot in the door with a few more dogs. We will set them up, you know, regionally. I mean, they may be based a few out of central Arkansas because it's easier to travel that way. But my goal, if we get this going, would be to have a dog in the northeast part of the state,
a dog in the northwest part of the state. It's just going to take a while to do that. Doing it this way seems to be better than having individual jurisdictions apply for their own dog. I mean, I don't think the state of Arkansas is ever going to get 28 dogs, you know, one for each judicial district. So in talking to my counterpart in Alabama, we felt like this is the more appropriate way to do it and then regionalize this. But like I said, we need this to get it going, and then we'll apply for the dogs, and then we'll go from there. But I think it's a tremendous opportunity for the state of Arkansas to help victims. And you all gave us the authority to do that when you passed those two laws.
In 2015, if I could take the opportunity to just educate you all, I hope, a little bit on what the program is. In 2015, when the law was passed, it was for child victims under the age of 18 in sex offenses. And we were one of the first states to do that. And what we've learned in the past six years is that other states came in, even though they don't have statewide programs, they have laws to allow for this and we learned that there are other victims that may benefit from the use of a dog. So this session, when we came to you all and you passed the bill to amend our law, it expands the number of victims that
we can treat. So now, in addition to those child sex victims under the age of 18, we can make that petition to the court to help vulnerable witnesses, which could be adults that are developmentally disabled or things like that. So this is a, again, a tremendous opportunity for us to expand, you know to help victims and I'll be happy to answer their questions. I hope that helps a little bit kind of clarify the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
35:48
goal of the whole program. Yeah and and just just so to further elaborate just slightly on that I know of at least one instance in which this was highly successful but
how successful have these dogs been in in the intended goal of the legislation? I am not aware
Speaker 105
36:02
of other than the one particular situation where the dog was not allowed to be used I'm not aware of any other cases that went to trial where there was not a conviction. Again, they're very, very successful. Now these dogs aren't just used in jury trials, though they have been used in jury trials. They're used in hearings and things like that and it often takes multiple visits, you know, with the child witness and the dog for the child to get comfortable, you know, with the dog and
then the dog would actually go to court with that witness and it's very specifically set out in the statute that the jury would never see the dog. They They know that the dog is present, the jury, the dog would be brought in out of the sight of the jury, the case would be handled, and then the jury would leave the courtroom before the dog exits out of there, so it's, you know, it's, and
Speaker 106
36:48
these dogs, again, these dogs are highly trained to not be disruptive in the
process or anything like that, but. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Dotson.
Chair
Unverified
36:58
Okay. I almost said Senator, didn't I? Any other questions of Mr. McMahon? I
need one. Can I bring mine? Okay. Representative Bledsoe, you're recognized for a motion. Have a motion that we recommend this. Is there a second by Senator Chesterfield?
Chair
Unverified
37:29
Any discussion? Those in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 7
37:38
Opposed, no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in committee. Mr. Chairman, item I is a request for 10 positions from the higher education central growth pool. University of Arkansas Community College at Hope Texarkana is requesting one public safety commander, three public safety officers, a dean of students, two 12-month faculty positions, and three academic advisors.
The public safety positions will be utilized due to the rising costs of private security. The dean of students' positions will be new, but there's already someone on campus performing the duties. They're just wanting to get the right title for that person. The 12-month faculty positions will be replacing some nine-month faculty positions, and then the academic advising positions will be tasked with advising and coaching students in specific areas of expertise. The Department of Higher Ed has recommended the requested positions. Okay,
Chair
Unverified
38:28
do we have questions about this request?
Seeing none, do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Those in favor say
Speaker 7
38:46
aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, item J is a request for a second language differential from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Employees who utilize the second language during the course of business may receive up to a 10% compensation differential based on their level of proficiency. The institution is requesting a 10% differential based on the score of advanced proficiency
for the incumbent employee. The Department of Higher Education has recommended the
Speaker 9
39:14
requested differential. Any questions on this one? Is there
Chair
Unverified
39:22
a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
Speaker 7
39:34
period. Mr. Chairman, the rest of the items K through M, these are reports that require no action,
monthly personnel actions reports from the Department of Higher Education and the Office of Personnel Management that show the use of directors discretion increases, labor market rates, exceptionally well-qualified candidates, salary administration grids and the like. That's items K and L. Item M is a list of provisional positions from DHE. There's 15 new provisional positions across four-year schools and one at a two-year school, and that's the reports, Mr. Chairman, and item O has been pulled from the agenda by the agency.
Speaker 9
40:11
Any questions from the committee about any of these? Any questions about anything else about
Chair
Unverified
40:19
when we can get a dog? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. You
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Request from Department of Agriculture to establish a salary administration grid for B067C, Archaeologist classification, grade GS08. (Wesley Ward, Secretary)
C. Request from Claims Commission to establish one (1) position from the OPM Surrender Pool established by Ark. Code Ann. §21-5-225(a)(1). (Kathryn Irby, Director)
D. Request from Department of Corrections to eliminate the five thousand dollar ($5,000) annual cap for grid salary increase and to allow incumbents to gain the full salary in the first year of implementing the Salary Administration Grid for grades GS04-GS05. (Solomon Graves, Secretary)
E. Request from Department of Corrections to implement a Salary Administration Grid for its staff in security, treatment/mental health, and probation/parole positions. (Solomon Graves, Secretary)
F. Request from Department of Labor and Licensing to transfer one (1) position to the Shared Services section and to be utilized across the department when the need arises. (Larry Walther, Secretary)
G. Request from Department of Public Safety- Division for Arkansas State Police to establish five (5) positions from the OPM Surrender Pool established by Ark. Code Ann. §21-5-225(a)(1)(Jami Cook, Secretary)
H. Request from Office of Prosecutor Coordinator for the establishment of three (3) Miscellaneous Federal Grant (MFG) positions in which uses a certified facility dog team to directly support crime victims. (Bob McMahan, Director)
I. Request from University of Arkansas Community College at Hope-Texarkana to establish ten (10) non-classified positons from the Higher Education Central Pool authorized by Act 763 of 2019 ACA §21-5-1415. (Dr. Maria Markham, Director)
J. Request from University of Arkansas Fayetteville to establish the second language plan differential pay to determine and provide differential pay for an employee who has demonstrated proficiency in a second language. The differential pay request is based upon ACA §21-5-221. (Dr. Maria Markham, Director)
REPORTS
K. December 2021 Personnel Actions Report (Department of Education, Division of Higher Education, Dr. Maria Markham, Director)
L. October-November 2021 Personnel Actions Report (Office of Personnel Management-Department of Transformation and Shared Services, Amy Fecher, Secretary)
M. December New Provisional Report for (15) new positions are approved for (4) Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education. (1) new position for (1) Two-Year Institutions of Higher Education. (Department of Education, Division of Higher Education, Dr. Maria Markham, Director)
N. Other business
P. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative David Hillman Chair
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 13
Speaker 12
Speaker 15
Speaker 30
Speaker 31
Speaker 32
Speaker 33
Speaker 42
Speaker 1
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 79
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 34
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Speaker 89
Speaker 99
Speaker 98
Speaker 85
Speaker 103
Speaker 28
Speaker 105
Speaker 106
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 112
Speaker 9