ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight (2PM-4PM)

Okay members I'm gonna call this meeting to order. And I'm gonna go over I'm gonna go over a couple things just so that the so that those in the audience and the membership know that That that the these are appealed and the these claims have already been heard by the claims commission both sides got to to make their case what we're doing is hearing appeals I do not intend to call up either side to make the case or make the defense unless a member asked that that happens so we're just going to hearing overview of each thing that will make a decision unless a member asked that we actually hear some debate from one side or the other and just because it's been a long time we have the option to have a motion to affirm the ruling a claims commission motion to refer reverse the roles of the claims commission of the ruling motion to amend the ruling of the claims commission motion to remand the claims commission for further evidence and findings a motion to remand to the claims commission for a hearing motion the whole claim over until the next meeting of and we can go over those if you have more more questions but those are what we're looking for to affirm or reverse or meant so all right my co chair said he didn't have anything to say so we will we will get opening up with Adam C. make sure you're you're recognized. Members. Agenda item C. one encompasses for litigation oversight report submitted by the department of labor licensing we about the department to come to the table to present the reports please identify yourself for the record before you begin your report. It's showing read but I guess that's on. Good afternoon members Mr chairman to everyone senate I want to first thank somebody for put me on the agenda early I really appreciate that on I will be on a quick because I think what we have is is pretty nearly non controversial these for you all hi my name is Marcus divine I am a lawyer for the department of labor licensing and as allowed by Arkansas code annotated eleven four three oh three the director of the department of labor is allowed to to litigate if need be and collect claims of employers around state who don't pay their employees typically this comes to us as a claim has been substantiated from mine vested Gators and typically it's after the employment typically there is some contention on some back and forth because most employers when they're contacted by us they simply pay the the difference sometimes they say that there's something owed by the employee to the employer for tools or for some equipment or for something else but typically they do resolve those on the chance that they don't we do and we are empowered by that code say that it gave you earlier to litigate if need be to collect those and so what I have before you is for cases that we have all right now pending we have some others coming down the pike but these four individuals to some work of by our staff we did file a complaint on each one of them so the first one is a one of the Director of the Division purses Tracy Kokan our I presume that's the proper pronunciation of her name it is a claim that has been filed and it is in Benton County. And the total amount of the claim is forty six thousand two hundred and thirty dollars and seventy four cents there are a number of employees that we are litigating this amount for a varying amounts on the employer did say that seeking knowledge is the validity of the claim on and I sought to pay has paid some monies to the department for this claim and is in process is still doing that and so that will continue going forward. On the next one that we have is Little B. and that's the Department verses cope Harmon individually and as doing business as they can shake and Greenbrier this is filed in Faulkner county on the total amount of this claim for unpaid wages is. Seven thousand two hundred seventy one dollars and ninety two cents as a mention of the the employees typically respond to these per the statutory time frame and then we move forward toward setting a trial date and I will be charged to go to the various counties to argue cases and hopefully get a good verdict we typically when because the facts and the law on our side but we have two more to tell you about of course I'll stand for any questions if you have any while Americans presentation. The next actually if you hold up as. So C. number sixty one I just turn you on. Thank you Mr is representive love so Mr Devine I guess I can listen to the the rescue report and then just ask questions I can ask questions of the instances report you either way is fine with me okay we'll wait wait till it's finished and I'll yeah. Only two more on the next one is on the same department course purses James Gregory on this is a company doing business as RT's diner this is in Crawford County on the total amount of this claim is eleven thousand two hundred sixty five dollars and seventy eight cents also civil money penalty of one thousand dollars with that one making a grand total of twelve thousand two hundred sixty five dollars and seventy eight cents final one and as I mentioned we have the list of employees that are impacted that come to us most typically the employer is notified after the employee comes to the Department of talking about unpaid wages and then we don't do an investigation and by the mental for content come to litigation find one that I have for you is the same department verses A business doing business as fiamma eighteen seventy three restaurant today and in actually Northwest Arkansas but the person lived in Pulaski County so it's filed in Pulaski County and the amount that we are seeking in total is twelve thousand five hundred six dollars and fifteen cents as I mentioned we move these cases forward get trial dates and argue them on as need be unless they settle beforehand. That's my full report Mr Museveni questions represent love you're recognized thank you Mr chairman Mr Devine you said that your investigators have already looked into these these are these are substantiated claims that you're moving forward with yes Sir okay now the first claim is that are to be set did you say that they were paying on this claim the the after when the typically come to us after investigation I typically reach out to that employer and let them know that we have a founded case and then ask for their defense if you will the reason for not paying as I mentioned sometimes it's that the employee owes them money or if there's some dispute about that and so this employer actually did not say anything back for awhile and then after we file a lawsuit she started paying some of the money back but she has a pretty large amount I think the business is in some level of stress maybe and so she's made some effort but as you can imagine the employees worked and didn't get paid so that's why we've okay and which brings me to my next question how how long do you allow I mean how long do they get to pay on these dates I mean is it you know just pay as much as you can for as long as you can or you given the time period coming. So we abide by your statute and bond your fiat we're allowed to collect this money if we go ahead and file it we can collected for quite a long time and we can read we can re institute our collection and avoidance of stature limitations issues affecting I think you're raising that point how long do we do it our point is to basically collected into we collect all of because and we don't negotiate people wages because as you can imagine this is their money and because of your fiat and what you set up we don't make any money from the process and so all we do is collect the wages for the employees we give every single nickel back to them on and that's our mandate and so we we will do it as long as possible I lean toward making it narrow in time and trying to get the people's money as fast as possible because obviously this is something they've already worked for and had been paid okay all right thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you I'm asking just because I need to be educated in the process so in the case of the one that you're going to be basically let him pay the debt off what happens once it clears this committee today and say it's six months down the road they stopped paying what happens then well I want to make sure that I've I'm clear with the we're letting them pay but we've already filed a lawsuit and we already have all the tools we need to collect and so they're just they're just paying post litigation on so we are watching to see if they actually continue to pay on because of your fiat we do have some abilities to collect a garnishment and to collect some property and things like that does any kind of collections you imagine that any attorneys could do and so if they don't do that don't comply with what they started doing we'll go back and going to trial in and collect as much of it or all of it is B. began at one time and you do an asset test to determine if they have the long term ability you know to to make the obligated payments yes along with along with the new agreement between us that we can also litigation okay thank you they Mr. Thank you members seen no further questions do I have a motion to review this report I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Jose NO motion carries thank you may have a good day thank you. We're gonna move on to Adam D.. Relation of warrants and unpaid bills. miss destin can give us a brief description of the claim. This is Katie a claim number two one zero four seven one Arkansas rehabilitation association versus Arkansas rehabilitation services this claim was filed by the Arkansas rehabilitation association requesting re issuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of twenty four thousand one hundred thirty dollars payable from Arkansas rehabilitation services the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on. Mister read as the commission have anything to add. Are there any questions from members discussion. Seeing none do I have a motion to approve this item I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye opposed say no motion carries Adam D. to miss destin. This claim number two one one zero seven two Calmar associates verses Arkansas author of state this claim was filed by Kemar associates LLC against the Arkansas auditor state for an unpaid bill in the amount of twenty seven thousand two hundred sixty five dollars and forty six cents. The auditor filed unanswered meeting liability respondent explained that most audit's results in both cash and securities and that a ten point five percent contingency fee is deducted from the cash proceeds however a previous administration engage Gilmore to perform several securities only audits given the nonliquid nature of the securities these audits of little to no cash proceeds available for use in paying the contingency fee the claims commission allow the claim and referred for review in placement on. The service a claims commission have anything further to add. No seeing no questions or discussion from the Committee do I have a motion. I have a motion do pass and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries Adam D. to this desk and please give us a brief description of the claim. This is claim number two oh one two three five and you should tax services the university of central Arkansas Clementi should Baxter of flute instructor who is employed by you CA sought seven thousand five hundred dollars from UCLA for unpaid wages stemming from two hours of work during the second pay period in October claimant's rate of pay was thirty seven dollars per hour you see a denied liability in its initial answer but later filed amended answer recommending payment of seventy four dollars you see a later filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that claim it cannot demonstrate that she had worked two more hours than the hours for which she was paid after the hearing the claims commission enters an order awarding claimants thirty nine dollars and twenty two cents for unpaid lesson on October twenty fourth two thousand nineteen which included six percent pre judgment interest concerning the second lesson the Commission file for the text messages between claimant and her students suggested that this lesson was a rescheduled lesson for which the claim that was already paid Klayman feels. This survey does the commission have anything further to add. Are there is there any discussion or questions from the members. Seeing none do I have a motion. I have a motion do pass. And second. In a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries Adam D. three. The staff can please give a brief description of this claim. This is claim number two zero one zero nine six Mitchell one versus the state board of election commissioners claimant Mitchell one sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages an injunction and an apology from the state board of election commissioners for unwarranted investigation claimant served as a stone county election commissioner and alleged that an unlawful in for list complaint was filed against him by the chair of the stone county Election Commission in the course of the investigation that followed claiming alleged that the attorney for the respondent wrongfully investigated him harassed him and tried to besmirch his character claimant also made allegations of fraud and corruption by election officials allegation of respondents reprisal through intentional infliction of emotional distress and allegations of violation of his Fourth Amendment rights responded moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ms commission enters an order dismissing the claim pursuant to Arkansas rules of procedure twelve V. six and subsequently denied claims motion for reconsideration. The commission held that it neither had authority to grant injunctive relief more authority to order SBC to publicly apologize with regard to claim its claim for unwarranted investigation the commission found that there are there was no recognized cause of action for such a claim to the extent the claimant was attempting to file a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress the commission held the claimant did not state facts to support such a claim under Arkansas law specifically the commission found that the fact that SPC was investigating a complaint filed against claimant in and of itself did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress rather the claims commission noted investigating potential election law violations was part of the species responsibilities and it appeared the claimant would have an opportunity to present his disagreements at the STC public hearing claiming appeals. Mister read is the commission have anything further to add. There any questions from the committee or discussion from the Committee. Seeing none do I have a motion from the Committee. I have a motion and a second Senator Flippo second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries move on to Adam. Three B.. This desk and you're recognized. This is claim number one nine one one four three Gloria and coal versus the Arkansas state police claimant Gloria and cold sought fifty thousand dollars in damages after the state police allegedly illegally told her vehicle claimant allege that her vehicle broke down on I. forty near Galloway she stated that she did not have a cell phone so she turned on her emergency signal and left to seek help. Limit later discovered that her vehicle had been told and sold the Arkansas state police denied liability and argued that it had of forty to tow the vehicle pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section twenty seven fifty twelve oh two because the vehicle was partially in the roadway in support S. P. attached a picture of the vehicle taken from trooper's dashboard camera video after hearing claiming agreed that the picture looks correct the claims commission how the climate was not entitle relief because the state police that also had authority to tow unattended vehicles without the consent of the operator passenger claiming appeals. Service Commission have anything further to add. Is any member of any discussion or questions. Seeing none do I have a motion. I have a. I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries Adam. Three C. as asking you're recognized. This is claim number two zero zero five seven seven Bryan Sanders versus division of services for the blind claimant Bryan Sanders sought an estimated six thousand dollars in back pay from the division of services for the blind alleging that when the pay grades were changed only three of the five managers salaries were adjusted correctly claimant also alleged that when he tripped when he was transferred to a new position you requested a fifteen percent raise as an exceptionally well qualified candidate which he did not receive. Spondylus motion to dismiss the disparate treatment claim was granted concerning the remaining back pay claims respondent filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the climate was not entitled to retracted Hey and that respondent was within its discretion to deny claims requested race in granting a motion for summary judgment the claims commission found that respondent made a prima facia showing of entitlement to summary judgment but that claimant's responsibility demonstrate that any issues of material fact remains the Commission side Arkansas code annotated section twenty one five two oh nine emphasizing language that was not the general assembly's intent that any pay increases be automatic or that employees have a right. Or claim to pay increases claimant appeals. Miss early this commissioning for ad. Are there any questions or discussion from the membership seeing none I have a motion. I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion to affirm carries Adam three D. or weight skipping over that one Adam three E.. This is claim number two one zero seven eight eight Anthony could reverses the Arkansas department of transportation claimant Anthony country sought nine hundred seventy five dollars and forty nine cents from the department of transportation alleging that his vehicle was damaged after hitting a pothole on the State Highway the department filed a motion to dismiss arguing the claimant had failed to show that the department had prior knowledge of the pothole and fail to respond within a reasonable amount of time to repair it the claims commission granted the department's motion to dismiss the commission found that in the absence of evidence that the department had prior knowledge of the pothole and fail to repair and reasonable amount of time the existence of a pothole alone was insufficient to establish liability claim an appeals. Service Commission anything further that. If if there any questions mysteries happy to answer some other I currently see no questions or discussion. Do I have a motion. Well I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission second president Flippo all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries Adam three S.. Mr stern you're recognized this can. This is claim number two zero zero six eight one Anthony Williamson versus Arkansas state police placement Anthony Williams and filed a claim on January sixth two thousand twenty alleging that a state police officer stopped his vehicle near the thirty six mile marker eastbound on I. thirty thirteen years earlier. After the vehicle was searched claimant was taken into custody for a parole absconding and felon possession of a firearm claimant alleged alleges that a cordless drill ski masks a pair of binoculars a plastic water container a black canvas tool bag drill bits loves a mirror zip ties shoes ball caps and clothes were taken and stored in the state police evidence locker a firearm which was confiscated during the arrest was subsequently destroyed pursuant to a court order claim value the rest of the items that's seven hundred forty eight dollars and twenty five cents claimant sought return of the items or alternatively damages in that amount state police moved to dismiss the claim arguing that one the items were lawfully seized during the course of an investigation to the statute of limitations for this claim of three years ran ten years ago and three Arkansas rules of criminal procedure fifteen point two required claimant to file a motion for return to seize property within thirty days of notice of the seizure and climate failed to do so limited not respond to the motion but file discovery requests on February twenty eighth two thousand twenty the claims commission enters an order denying and dismissing the claims as time barred pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section sixteen fifty six one oh five the commission also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration claim it appeals. Service Commission even further to add. Nothing further that is any member have any questions or discussion. Seeing none I have a motion. I have a motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission and a second all those in favor say aye. Motion carries members I want to go back on that just clarifies think once or twice I forgot to clarify the motion so the motion on each one of these items was to affirm the ruling of the claims commission if if anyone understood that differently speak now. Okay thank you we will we will we will move on to item for. Mr Askin please give a brief description of your claim. Okay this one is claim number one nine zero zero one one lance Owens versus the Arkansas division of corrections claimant lance and sought six hundred fifty dollars in damages alleging that ABC employee intentionally and wrongfully took his hobby craft property from them and disposed of it claimant received notice from the Cummins unit informing him that he has sixty days to remove his property claimant then received a subsequent notice stated stating that the property must be removed by March eleventh two thousand seventeen claimant alleged that he timely submitted a request to the property officer on February twenty seventh two thousand seventeen. In that notice he informed her that he would have his property removed the name of the person picking up the property and when they would be doing so claimant alleged that the officer returned the request with no mention that the request would not be granted grievances attached to the complaint claimant stated that he submitted another request on April twelfth two thousand seventeen after he discovered that his property had not been placed on the yard for pick up as he requested. In response to his request an ATC employees stated my quote if you had sent a request to have your Hobbycraft picked up I would have been more than glad to your time expired on March eleventh two thousand seventeen therefore your option to remove the Hobbycraft is out and quote eighty C. denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim stating that the claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the claimant fail to plead any basis for the award of damages after the non BBC's motion to dismiss both parties filed motions for summary judgment which were denied by the claims commission after hearing the commission enters an order awarding climate four hundred dollars the claims commission found the ATC employees response to climate second request was especially frustrating in light of claimants earlier request providing the name of the person who pick up the property additionally the commission discovered upon inquiry that the items were not destroyed until July eleventh two thousand seventeen and has found that the issue was still subject to resolution one claimant submitted his second request consequently the commission found the eighty SI was negligent and destroying claimant's property and awarded climate four hundred dollars in damages respondent appeal. Mister read is a commission anything further to add. Seeing no questions or discussion from the. Committee I have a motion. I have a motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission. And the second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries Adam for B.. Staska. This claim number one nine zero zero three eight on Mar Health versus the Arkansas department of corrections division of corrections claimant Omar Health sought ten thousand dollars in damages related to personal injuries he suffered when another inmate attacked him on January seventeenth two thousand seventeen claimant allege the other inmate repeatedly hit him on the head with a piece of brick and batteries and a sock claimant allege that in Arkansas department of correction employee was asleep in the control booth at the time of the incident and as such ABC bridges duty to create keep close supervision on the inmates in the barracks claimant alleged that the breach of duty resulted in claimant sustaining contusions bruising personal injuries as well as pain and suffering in support of this claim claimant attached grievance which was found to be with merit at the unit level the ward in later noted that appropriate action had been taken concerning the rivets in addition claimant also attach various medical records the claim including the health services in counter from the date of the incident ABC denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim arguing the claimant had failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted ABC also urged dismissal arguing that claimant fell to bleed any basis for the award of damages the amount of ten thousand dollars eighty C. argue the claimant was not entitled damages that amount because he only sustained minor injuries and had no medical bills are lasting injuries eighty six knowledge the grievance was found with merit after two levels of review but noted that appropriate action had been taken against officer to ensure that procedure was followed correctly ATC contended that although the claimant had alleged negligence on its part I haven't had not set out the elements of negligence or given any evidence to prove negligence. After the hearing on the merits the claims commission enters an order awarding claimant fourteen thousand dollars in damages by two to one vote the commission noted that ATC did not dispute liability but only disputed claimants damages all commissioners concurred in the claims commission's finding of liability but one commissioner dissented from the decision to award more than ten thousand dollars which was the amount pledged by the claimant in the complaint ATC appeals. Thank you cannot miss Herby. Can you give us any and lightness anymore online claims commission decided to award more than that more than they were asking for hi yes Sir captain RB director the claims commission Well the short answer questions is that paragraph fifteen gives us the claims commission's reasoning in which doesn't get. Doesn't give a whole lot of explanation to it other than I suppose the graciousness of what it felt the policy violation was it was a two to one. That with all commissioners finding the liability was appropriately found. But two of our commissioners felt that ten thousand dollars not adequately compensate the climate for his damages. It is a claims commission of anything else you'd like to add that servant happy to take any questions are there any any further discussion or questions from the committee. Xenon Senator sample the of a motion. I have since I was a motion to affirm the ruling the claims commission and a second Sekhemre Senator Flippo all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries. Moving to. We to number five. Corrections denied and dismissed claims members if it's okay with you we would like to just batch these unless any member would like to hear them individually. Both in the back I have a motion to batch in the second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no motion carries we will batch Adam five this does can Okay now The Addams have been bashed I have a motion to affirm the decision the claims commission concerning the five a three D. five in. I got a motion and a second all those in favor I got a I have a motion to affirm the rulings of the claims commission. And a second all those in favor say aye. say no motion carries. Moving on to item six negotiated settlement agreements Mr asking please give a brief description of each claim. D. six eight is claim number one nine zero eight two one need a Gilmore versus the Arkansas department of transportation. In her complaint dated February thirteenth two thousand nineteen claimants need to go more alleged that she and her minor daughter were traveling northbound in a two thousand four GMC Sierra on March sixteenth two thousand sixteen approximately eight ten AM at the same time that the appendix an employee of our dot was traveling behind claimant in a two thousand twelve Dodge ram claimant alleged that she reduce your speed due to the traffic ahead but the panics failed to notice or observe claimant reducing her speed ahead of him claimant alleged appendixes vehicle struck the rear end of her vehicle suddenly and without warning after the collision claimant and her daughter were transported to the ER by ambulance claimant allegedly suffered suffered a concussion as well as neck right shoulder and back pain. Clement has undergone several surgeries physical therapy and other treatment in an effort to alleviate the pain that states that she continues to experience pain and will allegedly need ongoing medical treatment mineralogist and a pain specialist in support of our claim claimant attached an itemized list of both her medical expenses and those of her daughter. On March fifteenth two thousand nineteen respondent answered denying liability and the parties proceeded with discovery answering interrogatories and providing requested information a hearing was scheduled in this matter the parties inform the commission of settlement prior to that date. As a side note claimant's minor daughter was listed as a claim in the complaint the claims concerning her daughter were dismissed on March nineteenth two thousand twenty one upon motion by the claimant. On June ninth two thousand twenty one the parties entered into a settlement agreement concerning this claim contingent upon approval from the Arkansas state claims commission the Joint Budget Committee or of Legislative Council the General Assembly and the governor's signing the appropriation bill pursuant to the terms. Of the settlement agreement respondent agreed to pay claim at three hundred thousand dollars in full and final satisfaction of any and all claims and claim it release responded of any liability concerning the accident. A claims commission approved the settlement agreement and award on June fourteenth two thousand twenty one and refer the award to the General Assembly for review and placed in our preparation. Service Commission of anything further that on the side of no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay are there any questions. Or discussion committees saying none I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission I have a second. I have a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries Adam six B. as does come. This is claim number two one zero zero two one carpenter farm's medical group LLC versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration. Claimant and responded or parties to carpenter farms medical group versus the FNA at all Lasky county circuit court case number sixty CV eighteen dash eight five five five and entered into a settlement agreement to reimburse claimant for reasonable attorney's fees specifically per the terms of the settlement defendant's understood and acknowledged the carpenter farms may file a claim for recruitment of reasonable attorney's fees and costs expended in this matter before the Arkansas state claims commission up to and including the negotiation of the settlement agreement and winding down of the state court lawsuit but not including any post settlement lobbying efforts before the medical marijuana commission defendants agreed not to contest the claim provided that the amount claimed was supported by notarized affidavits of the billing attorneys as well as itemized billing records showing the date time spent description of the task performed and the documentation supporting the amount of all expenses claimed. On July seventh twenty twenty the claimant's attorneys are Victor harbor and that Simmons filed a claim with the claims commission totaling one hundred and twenty one thousand one hundred sixty eight dollars and thirty four cents an attorney's fees and costs in support of their claim the attorneys each attached an itemized billing statement on September third two thousand twenty responded moved to dismiss the claim arguing that carpenter farms medical group was a proper party to file the claim for reimbursement of the fees and not claimants were the attorneys for corporate or forms in addition to the lack of standing argument respondents also urged dismissal arguing that the attorneys had not submitted notarized affidavits the billing as required by the settlement agreement. Respondent also contested the amount of the claims on reasonable contending that the attorneys had billed improperly for excessive difficult duplicative and clerical work that was not permitted by applicable law on September fourteenth two thousand twenty Clements responded to the motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint form complied with the definition of an affidavit to avoid misunderstanding claimants also filed an amended complaint listing carpenter farms as the claimant and affidavits concerning the bill submitted. On March first two thousand twenty one the claims commission granted respondents motion to withdraw its proper motion to dismiss based on claim is amended filing on June twenty first two thousand twenty one the parties entered into a settlement agreement concerning this claim which also incorporated the terms of the June fifth two thousand twenty settlement agreement concerning the lawsuit pursuant to the terms of the agreement the parties agreed the carpenter farms had a valid claim for attorney's fees and costs the amount of one hundred twenty one thousand one hundred sixty eight dollars and thirty four cents the claims commission approve the settlement agreement and awarded full on June twenty third two thousand twenty one and referred the war to the General Assembly for review of placement on an appropriation bill. Is there anything further the commission commission like that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions are there any questions for discussion from the Committee. Seeing none at a motion to affirm from Senator sample second Senator Flippo all those in favor say aye. Posay NO. Motion carries members were gonna if there's no objection we will now spend the rules a move to the supplemental agenda this agenda this agenda item is a litigation oversight report submitted by the Legislative Joint odych Committee we about the representative to come to the table to present the report please identify yourself for the record before you begin the report. Just please state your name for the record you're recognized to present the report. Thank you Mr chairman names Roger Norman on the legislative auditor for the state and I have with me today Frank Gehry legal counsel and Marty still debt the legislative auditor and the reason we're here today asking of the notice to the the committee under ten three three twelve of some possible pending litigation within the municipal accounting law there's an enforcement mechanism and ACT seven twelve of two thousand seventeen provides it if the Legislative Joint ontic Committee completes a process once regarding municipality and then within the three years I have to complete the process again they can referred the municipality to the adjourn Attorney General for revocation of the municipalities charter. In September twenty twenty the Committee referred all port to the Attorney General for revocation. Without notifying the legislative branch the Attorney General is negotiated a settlement with all port. Providing the allowing for special master to be appointed and to determine whether all port has complied with the municipal accounting loss. Of this would allow the court in the special master to second guess the legislative determination that's already been made by the committee this process is not authorized by law and then is direct conflict with ACT seven twelve two thousand seventeen we've been instructed to ensure compliance with the act seven two seven twelve two thousand seventeen and we may intervene if necessary and we're here to answer any questions. President Dotson you're recognized as be represented Wardlaw Wardlaw not near as pretty as representative Dotson. You made a statement that they did not confirm with the legislature talk to legislature do they have to or should they have. It to address the it depends on whether or not there the legislatures consent is considered our clients we had made on several occasions requests from the attorney general's office to know what was going on in this case in fact they appeared in December twenty twenty at our executive committee meeting and told the executive committee that the next day that they had a of complaint prepared the next day that they were going to file that that did not happen we were told in the spring that they were talking with the town of all port to get them to voluntarily submit their charter of and the the only notification that we had was on August thirteenth when we read in the paper about this agreement that had been entered into. So if they were to have a conversation with the legislature what would that have looked like Mister Norman would not have been the chairs of audit and you're you're office are how would that have taken place. Well obviously it was the committee that that had referred that over there I'm I'm not for sure that whether they got back to us or not is the issue I think the real issue is that they did not follow the law in in the filing of this. Okay. Thank you Mr. Senator Mark Johnson you're recognized thank you Mr chair Preciado opportunity speak I'm not a member of the committee of. I was on audit subcommittee and full committee when this matter came up I believe I made the motion to recess and to start the process to rescind the charter and I am. Frankly Norman I am shocked we're sitting here we're not even basically getting the cooperation of our own lawyer of. Hey this is unprecedented I mean I know we haven't been implementing this twenty seventeen ACT for some time but it seems to be this is about the only stick that we had. To get compliance by these recalcitrant municipalities any of the the by far best vast majority of them are if they make a mistake they own the mistake and your staff to the best extent possible tries to to help them and help them to get in compliance but I received a letter from an attorney telling me he was representing all port and then this I've knew there was litigation but I didn't realize that that our attorney just kind of laid down on this and and I'm I'm shocked and wondered have you had a discussion with any of the attorneys involved with this at the AG's office and is there any information you can share with us. We met with him last week really don't want to go into too much about that that would ask you to that's what I was raised the question where the. We we were disappointed in that the law was not followed felt like that the the the law lays out what the procedure is and that that the the court what they need to do is make sure that the procedure was followed and as far as an appropriate remedy was there and that the law is clear and that the legislature had made it clear what the responsibilities of the Attorney General are in this situation. Okay I want pressure on that Mister Norman thank you in and judge Jerry Mysteel for everything you've done on this if I could Mr chairman a I guess maybe my backs up just a little bit on this it seems like lately we've had problems with judges in Pulaski County that don't seem to think they have to listen to anything the legislature says officially or unofficially and I'm I'm I apologize for my county to the General Assembly as a whole for this attitude but a. It I am perhaps and Mister chairman I don't know if you're the proper party to do it or sent maybe Senator Rice and and our our house leadership in on LC but I'm wondering if perhaps a formal letter or something could be sent to the Attorney General seeking even if there's some instance we're not aware of that might mitigate the action that we took in that she is as has has a solution that maybe would be good I don't know but but I think it's imperative that that that the legislative branch at least stand up for itself and and make an inquire if you know where are we on this and why are we in this situation so I appreciate you give me the opportunity to speak Mr chairman thank you. So Senator Mark Johnson and and the members of the committee at know that we are subcommittee avail C. so if we make any decision here or not just used to push this off to a LCD give us a couple days to have more of a formal discussion on this on Friday certainly he gets more feedback from the Attorney General by then but we've got a few questions before we to side to make sense of senator Hammer you're recognized thank you Mr slow walk me through this Mr Norman if you would the is this the is this the final step to revoke their charter as a city. Yes Sir okay and prior to that I'm trying to understand around Senator Johnson's questions where they represented by legal counsel of so who is our legal counsel that represented them it is the law of the legislature has Plumeri authority over municipalities they can create and they can revoke on they they can do what they want to in that order the law was passed that if this process under the municipal accounting law was not followed you go through the process that we're the the turn back as with hail and they still don't corrected and that happens two times within three years under ACT seven twelve then it's supposed to be referred to the attorney general's office who files a motion to have their charter revoked in circuit court. Okay and that was filed no. Okay and because of that and that they filed a motion but it was not consistent with the law what they're motion was was a negotiated settlement with all port to have the court appointed special master to determine if the city has complied with the of municipal accounting law which the law says that it's the Legislative Joint auditing committee's responsibility to do that so what in effect you're doing is taking that away from the legislature and giving it to a special master right so what we would be doing today is asserting authority allowed us under the law is by what anybody else did or didn't do if we move forward with this and revoked their charter will be functioning within what the law says we have this or to to do well the if as far as what's in the court right now is is that procedure and what we're looking at is if if the the seeking the the authority or giving notice that and we've been instructed that if the Attorney General does not follow what is set out in the law that we are probably going to intervene in the lawsuit and and state of to the court what we feel like needs to be done and why okay and then the what what's motivated this is the city's failure to be compliant with what the law requires as far as the term back money in the historical failure to do this at eight in their characters ADD is their failure to comply with the municipal accounting laws and how proper accounting procedures and who would then take over the affairs of the city and the money that would be that there is a process in the law about that it okay a or a receiver is appointed and that's handled and ultimately the land and everything or a the general goes back to the council of the lease for all right thank you thing Mr. He I guess someone **** of Senator Mark Johnson you it says from your county do you represent all court. Do we know who the state senator is and state Rep is from all port. I need some Lonoke County. You. Your. Thank you Mr. So. I would invite my co chair just to speak if I speak out of turn. But reading this third pagers that you gave us here. It says it turned General shall notify the director of the bureau lead let's say research who is executive secretary to the Arkansas Legislative Council are to the Legislative Council as soon as possible as a legislator is the Attorney General becomes involved in such litigation. Well maybe. We should have them come Friday to counsel. And explain. Where they are and what's going on. To give the legislature. A chance to move forward if chairs of audit have a objection that I'd like to hear. Represent Womack you're recognized. Over there okay thank you Mr this is a little it's gotten a little convoluted our conversation today really the point we're at we're not talking about details anymore we're not talking about compliance we're not talking about any of that stuff what we're talking about is it's explicit in the law how this procedure operates you know you you follow this step into this state you do this to have you do this step the Attorney General does this that's what the law lays out so what audit is asking today it is for permission to intervene because that process is not being followed what the Attorney General has done in my opinion is outside the bounds of what the law prescribes that she does. You know this next step is you file that motion to revoke the charter and what they've done is filed a motion to do something completely differently that I have not seen in law anywhere so so what what we need to do today in my view is is just grant. Order which is the legislature give us the authority to intervene and make sure that the laws followed or not this this really have nothing to do with compliance or any of that stuff we're just we're just we need to make sure that the legislature retains its power and we have follow the law and we need to we need to follow the procedure that's all this is about today so I would appreciate that we just. Make that the make that take that action today before we leave. And I would be happy to answer any questions about the process that we've been through if anybody has any. Mr chairman if I may speak that's yes I would feel more comfortable in that two as opposed to. Inviting the Attorney General and. At try to litigate this in front of of council feel like the the appropriate places probably in in the court at this point in time. All right seeing no further discussion Senator Hammer you're recognized for motion. The motion is to accept this report as is due up I have a second I have a second Senator sample all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. All right members unless someone has some further business. We are adjourned. Thank.