State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs - House and Senate Meeting Jointly

Committee you come to order. Members would to help us take a seat will get started. I want to thank everyone for being here today and I'd like to yield immediately to my co chair chairmen Tosh and see if he's got any comments or anything you like share with. Thank you senator no I'm just glad sell the members of the House state agencies present here today and of course glad to have the Senate will this we missed you during our last meeting and the. And look forward to BLR today making the presentation for the overview that we had last I'm up like the Senate members of find it very interesting they did a great job in covering of the direction in which we need to go in that and how some of the things that will need to look at as we move forward so with that said senator out turned me back over to you. Thank you chairman Tosh members first order of business for us is consideration to approve the minutes from June twenty third of twenty twenty in November of twenty twenty in June of twenty one August looks like we're backed up I've got a motion from Senator English I have a second I have a second all those in favor say aye. All opposed no thank you members and the next item that we have on here obviously is item D. excuse me notes I don't see need a motion this is currently just a technical motion to authorize cheers to approve any special expenses that might be incurred by the committees I have a motion to accept his or second second for Senator English all those in favor say aye opposed no thank you and now members will get to our presentation first up for today will be an overview of redistricting I think there is a power point this going to be utilized and I thank you have a copy in your sheets before you in your packets and we want to recognize Machel Davenport and Matthew Miller and if I'm not mistaken I believe this is the first time in this process that you actually have at least some data that his that is now been transmitted so we look forward to your update you're recognized thank you yes I am Michelle that import within Europe Legislative Research. Matthew Miller of Legislative Research thank you you're recognized thank you if you could pull that close as you can I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing absolutely happy to do so. We're here to do a very brief redistricting overview and asked Senator Rapert said we know data is available however I do not have the numbers were working with our software vendor right now to make sure everything has been double checked and is coming into the system accurately so we're still in that process but as you'll see when we get to that slide we're looking at being ready to go for mapping in early September it is start out with we just want to run through quickly again what the role of the General Assembly is with regard to redistricting and as you know statutorily the Arkansas legislature is given the duty of performing the United States congressional redistricting to establish the four congressional districts we do maintain our four congressional districts we did not gain or lose a congressional seat. This is the current amount of the distribution of population and I thought it would be helpful to just very briefly again look at the difference between we talk about the maps a lot however in Arkansas the map itself is not technically codified we actually do it by the legal descriptions and so I wanted to make sure when when we're talking and when you're working on it the math is kind of a graphic representation of what you see here which is what is actually codified in the way we do this is if it's a whole county it's going to be listed as such if it is a a county that has a division of some kind that is done You know legislature decides to split a county this is the way that that would be done is that we would refer back to the voting district as it existed on January one twenty twenty one. That that poses an immediate question for me. So if that is necessary in the future. Are you are you telling me that we would have to wait. Until you're you're get those districts settled within those counties no Sir we would actually use the way they existed on January first of this year so you would not use the new lady okay voting districts you would use them as they are already established currently so that you have a baseline to go from for that process that you're used. I don't wanna bogs down but this makes me wonder so if those districts change within those counties. With that does that mean that you potentially could have an actual precinct within a county that might actually be split between two different congressional districts it would be possible interesting all right thank you. So in this consideration I wanted you to be able to see and also have a reference point going forward and each of the counties they're included in your power point for each of the four congressional districts you can see that of the four congressional districts currently the second congressional district was the only one that maintained only County. As we go through and we have the opportunity to attend a in CSL conference on redistricting it was held in Salt Lake City Utah and a lot of these legal issues there's a lot of case law that involves redistricting and a lot of case law firm varying states and this is a very short distillation of some of the legal issues and also you'll see following that some of the criteria and traditional principles of redistricting that other states have use that courts have examined but they're above for it not the only things that are out there this is just a summary of the ones that are most common and are found and have been addressed by the courts in some manner so when we talk about the legal issues were surrounding redistricting you really look to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States comp and constitution which states that. The court is required the state to draw legislative districts so that each district is about the same size and population as the others so when you talk about that it's often referred to as the one person one rule vote. Rule it's established in the case that you have here and the phrasing the court uses is that it should be as nearly as practicable and that is the standard that the United States Supreme Court has set out which means that it is up to interpretation by the courts on what that phrase means and what that population has today. When you talk about the population you're also talking about a deviation and that deviation terms meaning how far a court from one person one vote is that district currently how far away from a perfectly even split up all four to that number the population variance or deviation is one of the potential areas for a legal challenge in redistricting. There is case law there been certain cases that talk about a one percent general standard that some states use some states it's been interpreted however based on some of the other case law and as well as some of the discussion at the conference it's not technically a safe harbor that's not something set in stone this is just what some courts have looked at and interpreted and the census bureau and other cases have noted that the goal is just for the district to be as equal in population as as practicable to other districts. let me stop you right there while we're on the one percent I know that it's been mentioned I even read some ward I'm not sure who might to quote it was in the paper but. I in the red book in chapter two there is you're if you're referring to now thank on page twenty six or twenty seven there have been court cases and you're right the one rule vote equal equal of persons equal but the one rule vote and and actually there's a court case where the percentage was so close it was like zero point one three and I think the courts deal of rejected that if I'm correct so you correct me if I'm wrong because but I think they rejected that so I guess my question is of. With the one percent as you just alluded to how does that compare to the language that we find that has been set out in our guide in the red book especially there in chapter two how do we how how we're going to balance that with that rule versus what the thank you indicated we should do. And that's the question that comes before the legislature when you're looking at the one person one vote rule that's also where the other traditional redistricting principles or criteria come into this equation the proper authority of choices are left in the hands of the legislature so how you believe these criteria should be used the way that you believe your achieving equal representation among the four districts is a policy matter for the legislature and that is one reason we wanted to bring it to your attention as a potential area of legal challenge any of these areas still remain potential areas for challenge. And that is Michelle said there's no safe harbor necessarily you know there's been cases were relatively high deviation was deems okay because when they look to the rationale behind it in the criteria that the General Assembly was using they found that whoever was doing it they found that criteria to be meritorious therefore if that's what they were trying to do then that was the deviation that it generated so you can have a very high deviation for a good reason you can drill it down to almost zero in the courts say you violated one of the standards in reaching that goal. It just seems to me it from from what you said is just has to be justified by some particular governmental reason shall okay you have anything else for yes the follow up to that to make sure I believe the case was in New Jersey where they ruled against the state even when they got it as close as zero point one three and I I guess what I'm not clear on is exactly what did they look at what did that state dues I mean that's a that's pretty small margin of zero point one three to be able to get it that close and still have of the courts to overturn that so. What did what did they do wrong or are you member why they ruled against the New Jersey legislatures in regards to that I'll be honest I don't remember that specifics on that exact case however the over arching decision point by the courts is this is highly fact specific and so depending on each individual case they look at the totality of the facts for that individual case and as you recall one of the traditional ones it's spoken of often is a case where the district was drawn literally along the edge of a freeway for miles and miles and miles and you could tell it was a very long it didn't seem to have any of the other traditional criteria included with it in that case resulted in a the court overturning that particular district so that the facts are going to drive the decision in any of these cases and so again all we can provide is some of the guidance that has been brought from some of the other cases as to what types of things they're looking for but each individual case is going to be decided on its own merits well they will we can take away from this discussion in your answer is that there is no percentage that if we were to work within those guidelines that we are guaranteed to to avoid any type of litigation anything else so it's based on individual each individual line in the law and I guess it's data driven and we can justify it is is that pretty much what we need to look at and stay away from the trying to get to them to a certain percentage is that correct. I I believe that's an accurate statement all policy driven it's that it's just it's hard to say because there's just so many policy considerations that are going to go into this ultimately on y'all's part but it's hard to say I mean it. Thank you can't just look at the deviation alone is Michelle was saying that's not going to win the day you know the court's going to look beyond just that percentage that pops up on the map when we printed out okay thank you all for those dentures not appreciate you clear that up I know that's kind of been a concerning the question mark it's been hanging over of this and and so I appreciate the clarification on and I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation so please continue. In fact I've actually got some members of chime in for your for questions but you're almost complete I think with your with your powerpoint arches there's several other slides if it's up to you we tell you what members among take these three questions and I've got three members the list that will allow them to finish so that it may answer some questions but I have first representative back. Thank you Mr chair of my questions per strip for you mention that I think this massive challenged or something about it so if we were to redraw these districts with they automatically go to some type of a review if no one challenging does they just go as they are. It requires a legal challenges require someone to bring suit to challenge the way the districts were drawn so if they are not challenge they stand at the end of the day it's a bill you know it's just the same process to someone to challenge any piece of legislation the General Assembly enacted thank you. Okay. Senator Tucker. Well I don't know I think you turn yourself off aren't hold up just a second and now give it a shot all right thank you Mr chair I just heard German Tosh referred to the red book and conferred with a few of my colleagues here and I know I wasn't at least the only one who would not was not aware of that can you just kind of tell me what tell us what that is and if it's something we can look at absolutely NCSL produces a document and as a legislator I believe everyone's entitled to their own coffee you just have to request it to the NCSO website and it is called redistricting law twenty twenty it's a handbook that's been around for quite a few years and I update it with each redistricting cycle and so this and you're welcome to use mine any time if anyone would like to have it before they can get it delivered you're welcome to use this and a lot of this information is also found on the in CSO website and a redistricting they have a very comprehensive list of resources of case law summaries that cover all fifty states as well as some of the congressional actions and so this is definitely is very heavily relied upon in the redistricting conference and is a guide book to some of the principles and a brief synopsis of some of those cases that are out there so again we have several copies around the bureau if you're interested in don't you no need to get your hands on it before you have an opportunity to order it from NCSL please let me know and we will make sure we get you a copy of that thank you so much thank you representative Ladyman. Thank you Mr chair of the discussion on the variation. The way I understand what you're saying is there's multiple criterias maybe four five things and and we as a legislature would established what we're trying to do with those criterias and variation might be number four so far primary. Target is to keep full counties say that's our primary target then we might be able to have a larger variation number. At I mean I know that we have to go to I might be acting answered in court but am I understanding that correctly if our primary goal is counties then we can go a little bit on the variation. Obviously we're dealing in hypotheticals but I mean in that case obviously if you're going to keep counties intact there's a minimum variance you're going to be able to get you know by moving counties around that's an absolute number you're going to have to the. Limited to the lowest you can get and then the combination so if there is a challenge that would be presumably a fact that was presented to the court that you felt like that was an important criteria and you do illustrate the written the General Assembly would illustrate the reasons that it felt it needed to keep counties intact. Therefore that was the minimum you know that was the result of mass reaching that goal. Okay thank you. All right members as a said we're gonna go on a minimum if you have a question you had getting Q. but I will let them continue on here for a moment. She thank you and that is actually represent waiting and that's a very good transition to what the courts have established as some of the traditional redistricting principles and these are not absolutes these are a list of traditional ones that have been identified by both in CSL and other courts as being considerations that have been used in this process the first one of these is what we were discussing with the illustration I mentioned about redistricting along the highway where you've got a long linear and that's the idea of compactness having the maximum distance between all the parts of a constituency something like a circle a square hexagon being the most compact in the way that it's formed. Contiguity is the next which is means. All parts of that district are actually connected in some place with the other parts of the district so you don't have large gaps between a district that make it non continuous at that point this goes your question representative wearing preservation of counties and other political subdivisions this refers to not crossing county city town or other boundaries when drawing districts that is a consideration that has been used in some cases preservation of communities of interest geographical areas such as neighborhoods of the city or regions of the state where the residents have common political interests they do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of a political subdivision such as a county or a city that's been used in different cases preservation of quarters of prior districts this refers to maintaining districts as they were previously drawn to the extent that that is possible. Avoiding pairing of accumbens I know a lot of you've provided your addresses this report refers to avoiding districts that would create contest between current incumbents. Next. We talk about the two kind of overarching redistricting principles that are also traditional criteria and that is compliance with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts have held that the equal protection clause means that you're not drawing based solely on race solely or primarily is the way that the court uses that phrase the US Supreme Court has held that districts should not be defined exclusively by race although it is permissible to take race into account while drawing district boundaries there are exceptions for drawing or adjusting a district based on racial considerations in order to avoid a violation of the voting rights act which is the next rotational principle that we look at which is compliance with the voting rights act of nineteen sixty five in addition to those fourth and Fourteenth Amendment equal population requirements. You have to look at that and. The voting rights act prohibits any practice or procedure that has a discriminatory effect on racial or language minorities. So those all in conjunction or water looked at as the traditional redistricting principles as figured out by several of the court again in CSL compiling you know universal some states actually have some of these criteria in their statutory or constitutional provisions that's one of the sources of a lot of these principles so these are the ones that have been looked at and weighted differently by different case at courts and cases as they're going through the process. One thing that was stressed also at the conference that we attended and that is just a little bit of a departure from the way our typical rules of confidentiality or approach the confidentiality that you're accustomed to in the drafting and research process in redistricting it may not be available in certain court challenges comments or written documents that you provide to staff your colleagues or other state officials may be discoverable in the event of legal challenge this can including emails text messages conversations with staff or other information related to the mapping process. However given this absent any litigation the matter the bureau staff will continue to keep your draft your map request confidential and not be shared without your approval we treat this exactly the same as we do a bill draft request a bill draft process that we're going to have your approval before that information is given out if there's a legal challenge we would be able to inform you of that and let you know what information would be subject to that. Senate dition NO just general information about the process. Is that while you're handling the congressional redistricting simultaneously the board of apportionment is responsible for redistricting the seats of the Arkansas house and Arkansas Senate so the board of apportionment is set up an article eight of the Arkansas constitution and that's where they get their powers their duties it's made up of the governor the secretary of state and the Attorney General they are currently holding public meetings regarding this issue and redistricting their website has a list of all current meetings as well as the minutes from meetings that were held in these are being held all over the state so if you have any questions about when meeting it may be coming to your area or if you have any questions about the process of the actual redistricting of the house and Senate seats the board of apportionment website is going to be the place to find that and I've got the website on there for you so it's easy to find and you can reference back to that. And back to where we kinda started the day we know that the official release date is September thirtieth twenty twenty one but as you know everyone's talking about the data being available as of August twelfth. It was provided in a database format it does not have the search features and things to the public that will be available on September thirtieth that is still the official release date the data is exactly the same how you access it is what is different and so those tools to access the data from the census bureau website itself is what's not going to be available until September thirtieth and September thirtieth is still considered technical release state of that census data we are currently working with our vendor to ensure the quality control of that August twelfth release data and the import of it into our system so that process is ongoing and we do anticipate that it should be available for mapping and for production to the committee in early September and as soon as we have that date as soon as we know that quality control has been met on that we will let you know as soon as possible that's ready. Once that data is processed by the vendor and again this will be left to the discretion of the chairs on any other you know ways that they would like to handle this but both Laurie Bowen who's in the back with or Research Division myself and Mr Miller will be able to draw maps for you get that information put together once you have that as we talked about at the very beginning the graphical view the map this software is going to then provide me those legal descriptions once I have the legal descriptions I'll be able to create your bill draft that will be very similar to those statues that we already having code so once we have the graphical image or map I'll be able to produce the bill draft from and it will reflect all the current or that your chosen congressional districts and then finally after all of our contact information at the end of the call a slide presentation that you've got a copy of that on who to reach out to when you're ready to begin that process and we're happy to take any questions all right thank you for your presentation I do wanna make mention specifically for members I've tried to reiterate this couple of times during the last six months or so but regarding the confidentiality of you know members your are typically custom to working papers not being discoverable right and so you this is one thing that stands out to me is that you stay that comments are written documents you provide to staff or your colleagues. Or other state officials may be discoverable the vent of legal challenge so are you saying that the members text between each other regarding the subject would be able to be attached in in legal proceeding. The turnout okay they're gonna the quite going kind of what representative Ladyman our talk about if the court is trying to figure out what the intent was behind the mask you know in determining why those goals for reach that's the kind of information that they theoretically could come looking for you know communications tax things like that if they're looking for intent courts have shown a willingness to go that the to look at the communications between legislators I will I just I want to hit the point again I've just said in general just to be extremely careful in this because we know text often are taken out of context anyway and so be careful because even a text in jest might be very challenging if if it were involved litigation with that I want to get several people in the queue representative Deffenbaugh I believe you're up for sure. Thank you Mr chair if you charge going to ask the chairman talks to. Quo ten. What that percent that was ruled unconstitutional in New Jersey was it point zero one three percent the. Am I understand that right I was trying to get a handle on it now you you're exactly right to a representative calendar we go back to my. Notes It was zero point one three percent it was a case that was and The court concluded that the New Jersey legislature they attempted to justify their deviations but there the percentage actions is zero point one three percent in the courts said the yeah they're they're they're explanation for that the court the rule against them okay so in Arkansas in each districts about seven hundred fifty thousand people that would amount to about a hundred people I just wanna see if I've got a handle on it if it was it it does zero down to that close to a hundred people to put in to go from one district to the other or make a decision on one is that yes Sir I understand your question I think the testimony and what I've been up Senate here today is that actually what percentage it is is not as important as the justification as long as it's data driven and you show that justification and it might be a case where is one percent of the courts may oppose but in this particular case they did rule shall I you know what is the one and as stated earlier the one vote rule is that college so that I don't know if I answered your question or not these two attorneys may do a better job of it but I think it's got to be data driven I don't think the percentages that great of a factor is much is is that justification for what you come up with okay that helps me a lot I just want to try to question appreciate councils it did I answer that would you add anything to it. Yes Sir I think that's an accurate description okay thank you all right representative makes thank you Mr up I had a question. Concerning a follow up to legal challenges so this is a what if scenario but what if we draw on of real nice map the court looks at it says now you need to tweak it here and here and make a few little changes to it Fortner in order to go into effect so if the court says no at that point what happens does it require the governor to call special session because we're dealing with bills for us to come back in and re look at the map and if that's the case for call back into a special session to look at the map does that not then open Pandora's box for us to draw completely new maps. Which could then based more legal challenges and you can kind of see what cycle goes I just be curious as to what happens I think it what if questions it's just it's it's really hard to say because there's just so many variables involved in that you know it would just really be a very very fact specific situations if a court ruled adverse one of our maps on what the next step was but but would would automatically require the necessity for special session or could we handle it in a committee of the whole without coming back into session if we needed to change the legal description of a map to. Match up court's concerns you'd be talking about passing a new bill and so you know you need to be in somewhere else we would have to have a session it would require the passage of the bill you know any amendment to a congressional district line would require the passage of the bill all right thank you. All right Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr going back to the issue of of our tax and communications and so forth and I think that it's a I think it's important that we know this so that we are so frankly we either have all the tools that we have or we we set up in an **** careful as we need to be but in Arkansas we have fairly strong legislative privilege when it comes to our communications correct that's correct and the case law is definitely split in this and that's one reason we're letting you all know we have not had a challenge to this issue in Arkansas we do not know if this was a state court challenge how that legislative privilege would be intact we know that at a federal court challenge they have looked to be on a state legislative privilege okay so it is so all right so therefore our constitution which to me if you've got an issue like that it should be in our constitution and what are court say about it oughta be what's binding that you're saying another into in federal courts that's not been the case in certain federal cases they were challenging it on equal protection Fourteenth Amendment grounds okay which then it's because it's a federal court issued a decision it's not even bringing in the state legislative privilege at that point okay and so but it and you so would have case law but we don't case on point when it comes to redistricting but we've got a bunch of case law dealing with legislative privilege and in Arkansas and it tends to be released I mean whether you like it or not it tends to be extremely strong and that was not what it's going to be with a lot court subpoena before anything was released from our office or in any of these situations it would be at the direction of that and in a legal challenge situation or just one more question so if if we did end up in a federal court that that. What seeking these things is there any limitation in the other case that you saying dealing with tax that are not between colleagues but between colleagues and friends family that kind of stuff is all that discoverable in those situations. I think it's just really hard to say you know I'm again it's so factor and I we keep saying that over and over but it's good the court's going to be looking at the gold are trying to reach based on the the situation is being played out in the the information they're looking for so at I just it's really hard for me to say where they would stop other than that you who in this NCSL conference in Utah I mean they talked about this issue over and over and over because it's coming up so much in states as these challenges or file but to the intent to the extent that intense becomes an issue this type of information become something the court thinks is indicative of the thought process okay thank you very much. Thank you senator Elliots do you still have questions ma'am. Yes and I think it's too quick ones the first one is I think last time we did redistricting we talked about affinity groups is the same thing now as interest groups. Yes the case law uses a variety of terms hi everyone the NCSL centered on is communities of interest communities of interest okay using that definition to define different groups so that it was more inclusive okay thank you I might my second question when we talk about the these affinity the Committee is of interest Do we have the same standard of look at things the same way and we're trying to determine whether or not the district has been hacked. As opposed to deliberately dispersed what what what are the guidelines for that the terms that they used at the conference were packed and cracked okay and those were that the terms and we have the opportunity here from some groups as well as the NCSL conference and it's typically the same against very highly fact driven information it's very difficult to compile a list of everything the marks of looked at the in state challenges and federal challenges to make those determinations this act also guided by intent. Yes all of the lands are all of these traditional redistricting principles or criteria they're all used if there's a challenge based on an equal protection challenge or voting rights act challenge that's where that has been that's where the case law demonstrates that they're talking about these criteria and how the legislature reach those particular thank you thank you Mr chair thank you. Senator Hammer believes year next thank you thank you Mr with the length of time that it took for the numbers to get down to the state given past history how quick we got him before what are the safeguards are in place to make sure that the numbers that have been given are accurate as far as where they're being located with the software company that's being used to help. Put everything in its right place. That's the process that we're undergoing right now we met with the software vendor specifically at the NCSL conference and they said that they perform a series of checks even down to the block level they're not going to audit the entire file however and Mr James White Morin who was you had to the census bureau was also at the conference and he assured everyone that the data that was released on the twelfth is the exact data that is going to be released on the thirtieth it just simply did not have the same tools and search mechanisms built in because the databases so incredibly large it basically holds a lot of information because of that they indicated that the software vendor would be doing this quality checks to ensure that blocks reporting based on the information they had I don't know the specifics I do know they're going through a quality control process before it's turned over for us for usage I would we get access to review the quality control measure that they're using just put a set of a legislator I on it. I have to give that some thought Senator we can follow up with you on that I'd like you to do that you would I'd like to know what we can do just to keep an eye on it to make sure you know what processes are for where the numbers are actually going to be and just being be aware of that please thank you. All right members any other questions on this topic. Seeing other questions Mister chairman you have anything else we thank you for your presentation thank you for preparation should be given a committee I don't know how that we can be better prepared when it comes time to start in the numbers so thank you for being here today all right. Members will move on to the next topic on the agenda and this is representative Stephen Meeks discussion of election technology study that we all took up during the first part of the general session. Make sure recognized Sir thank you Mr our colleagues today what I thought we would do is I would give you a refresher of all my two proposals relating to election technology how we can improve the integrity of our elections how to improve election transparency and then. See what questions you have kind of talk about how I see this going for because this is gonna be a multimedia study for us to undertake so first off let me go over the proposal and out what precipitated it probably like you following this last elections I received a lot of questions concerning the integrity of our elections I also had questions concerning transparency I had members of the public who wanted to know if they can even look up their ballot to make sure that was recorded properly nation on our current system they can't do that so I did some mulling over look at how we might can use technology to improve our at and these are the two proposals that I came up with so let me go over the the first one I'm the first one deals with using biometrics to replace essentially voter ID the alternately with voter ID what we don't necessarily care who the person is what we care is that one that they are citizens of Arkansas that they are eligible to vote the next thing we care about is where they live out so we make sure that they're voting in their correct prop precinct and then the last thing we care about is we want to make sure that only vote once right and so what I'm proposing is that instead of using voter ID that we switch over to biometrics so imagine us time in the future when a citizen goes to vote actually we could set the citizen this system up so a citizen can vote anywhere in the state. Citizen walks into the voting booth and instead of pulling out their ID they place their thumb on a scanner scans their fingerprint and to ensure that we've attacked the right person it pops up there photograph so that the poll worker can verify that yes indeed that thumbprint belongs to Stephen Meeks once that verification has been made the system will then go out to a longitudinal data base grab my current correct address or not relying off of old old voter databases or Obsolete data we're looking at the the live current correct address of that person then based upon that address then the ballot is then populated for that individual and the benefit this creates is right now as you know our county clerks they have to develop sometimes hundreds of different ballot styles for an election and that becomes extremely cumbersome and the more cumbersome complicated is it opens up more opportunities for there to be errors and problems this does completely away with that we grab the current address we use GIS information for that we populate their current ballot on the fly the citizen can then at that point cast their ballot. Once they've cast their ballot using their thumb print no one else can vote. And claim that there that individual nor can that individual go across town and claim to be somebody else so I can use my thumb print and vote for Stephen Meeks I can't go across town and then claim to be Charlie Brown and use my thumbprint over there one thing print one vote so eliminates all of that so it brings security and integrity back to our elections and of course you know we've all heard the tales about people who have voted after they've died well once I die course my thumb print goes with me no one can use that so all that is eliminated so that's the first part of my proposals to use biometrics in order to secure our elections biometrics have come a long way as you know we currently use it out I mean far cell phones a lot of times we use it for in the transportation board uses it for people to get through airports so I thought it's it's we've got to the place where we can start using that for our elections the Department of information services is currently working on a longitudinal system the address system that I've talked about so that's actually currently under development for use by our state agencies so also be statement government members if you got conversations would you please take him out because it's echoing across the room thank you thank you Mr. So the pieces that would allow us to build this system are currently being developed and will allow Arkansas to become actually one of the four runners of this Of this technology. The second part of our proposal deals with transparency how do we improve and grow the transparency you know during the last election there were allegations of everything from ballot harvesting to ballots being run multiple times I even heard stories about how ballots were produced in one state they were taken to other states and how do we guard against that at the same time create more open and transparency in that kind of comes the second part of our proposal what I'm proposing is that a system be set up so that after a voter casts their vote and there are ballot is printed out that on the ballot the bottom of that ballot a unique identification numbers is printed and it would be a unique ID number or that rotates every election cycle so for example maybe for this election cycle all the machines in plastic County the ballot number begins with the letter P. and Faulkner County they all start with the letters out and then the next election cycle that it changes so it makes it hard for bad actors to understand what sequence they have to have to to hit. Once that ballot ID is printed on there I as a citizen can copy that number down that balance and fed into the machine and then after the election is over I can go to a website as a citizen of the state I can type in my ballot ID and it will pull it up and I can look at it to see that a my ballot was received and that was counted properly and it would allow the citizens of the state to do it Furthermore to bring transmitters transparency to our elections I as a candidate could look at every ballot for my entire race so if I wanted to I could or I can hire firm to go through and look at an image of every ballot that was cast in my race to confirm that yes the ID number is conforms to the current election and I could go through and count everyone of those individually so it brings transparency by allowing the citizens of the state to actually go back through and look at ballots which they currently don't have that right to do that would eliminate this whole thought of people taking the same number balance running through the machine twice well once that ID has been run through the machine the machine records that ID's been run through and it can't and won't accept that a second time or if somebody makes up a bunch of bogus ballots and brings a man. The machine won't count because it won't conform to that proper ID that's been established for for that election cycle so these are safeguards that we can put into place that would eliminate a lot of the fraud and to increase transparency and to increase the public's confidence that the elections are running correctly in that the one person one one vote took place so what I'm proposing to propose we do is over the next couple of meetings as we move forward is what I want to try to do is I want to bring in experts obviously we need to have someone from the secretary of state's come in and talk to us about. How we can implement this I'd like to have shall be Johnson from GIS coming to talk about what they're doing that would allow us to generate ballots on the fly we need to have someone who's a biometrics expert come in and talk to us how we can properly use that what's the best way to do that and so on and so forth and have the vendors come in and talk about can we do the ballot ID and of course we do the ballot ID it would have to be done in such a way to preserve the secrecy of the ballot so for example you know you might could tag the top of the the date that that ballot was cast but you certainly don't want to put the date the time because in that can be traced back to a of voter so I'd like to do that and an ultimately if we can figure out the proper way to implement this perhaps start with a pilot project do two or three counties and then expanded as as we go from there some other benefits that I can see from doing something along this line I imagine in the future that Election time rolls around and we allow poll workers to go into say nursing homes or long term care facilities they take a tablet in there the voter scans there saw the pulls up their ID pulls up their ballot. The right there they can get it have a print out have their ballot done it's all done right there form so it eliminates the need for absentee ballots I could even see this application because ultimately all you needs internet connection could we have a future where an election takes place in Arkansas from a general election all the way down to all local special election where our military men and women who are stationed overseas during election time instead of having to worry about an absentee ballot when election time rolls around they go to the designated place they scanned their sama pulls up their ballot they cast their ballots and they can do it remotely I mean these are the opportunities that I see that going to a system such as this could create for us so what I'd like to do is look that I've thrown a lot out there is I'd like to stop see if there's any questions that you might have about how we implement this again a lot of the quite a lot of answers I'm not gonna have right now because this is adjourning we're gonna have to take together to explore is this the right thing to for Arkansas how do we go about doing it and I believe that if we were to implement a system like this and become ground breakers in this technology I can see this easily spreading to other parts of the of the country so that Mister chairman all stops if there any questions and then we'll proceed from there. Right. Representive flowers or believe. Yes thank you Mr chairman of. I sold. I love the idea of using technology To not only prevent fraud but increase voter participation and voter confidence. That said I'm wondering who is is are there any places in the world who are using these technologies right now I have a couple of other follow up questions which is online as far as using from voting there are none that I know all these technologies are being used in other applications I as I said you know by metrics are are used from your all the way from your cell phone up to you know security checks at the airport. And it with with how you see this would this be a primary. Use of the technology or a back up and if you it was a primary use with their PM manual backup. those are all questions that we're going to have to gonna have to explore as to how we implement this the way I see it is it would first become voluntary and then they grow from there. And then finally just as far as security protections protection of one's fingerprint. from hackers and protection of our system from hackers you know we see banking institutions as well as our own governmental agencies having to deal with that right now. all the way to the Pentagon how would we be able to. Create a level of voter confidence when that would you know sort of fees something. That folks could always say the wave motion hearing now people don't believe that the last selection you know was was correct and there's nothing you can do to say to those folks what about using technology and someone always saying well hackers dated and that that wasn't real you know sure sure and and obviously that's always going to be concerned and those are some of the factors that we're gonna have to weigh as we go forward in this ultimately you know when it comes actually casting your vote. Blake said in this example I'm using a a thumbprint you scan your thumb print and your picture pops up to confirm that is that is indeed you now is somebody or to say get into the system and Hackett and scrambler bodies thumbprint in Austin my thumb print a picture of Sally pops up obviously this problem there that that needs to be addressed or if we do the opposite if somebody wants to actually try to pack the vote they would have to have they would have to hack into the system and add the the the thumbprints and ID's of people who are not already in the system. Bring them into the State haven't scanned pop it up then acts actually go out to of a separate system to grab an address so that's part of the part of the strength of this is you're not counting on one system to maintain the integrity of the voting system you're you're calling on multiple systems working hand in hand to maintain that integrity but yes cybersecurity is always going to be a concern when you're dealing with technology. Okay representative Pilkington. Thank you chairman Rapert representative makes so you mention about nursing homes and I'm curious to if you take into consideration and maybe you have about using this for college campuses you know I've got university of Ozarks on my campus I know seems contemplated me about you know that they don't want to vote in the Johnson County elections because they're not really from there you know they're they they go back home and they want to spend those elects for that to happen to you ballots or that drive home you can imagine the colleges could set up you know these kind of sale is and and and have better access to voting so that we would have to but in polling places on college campuses and have to do with absentees and you got to talk about all that sure sure at what one of the strengths of the system that would allow for that is you know under our current system it's all of our elections are County centric you for example right now I can go anywhere Faulkner County but if I am a college student or from working out of the county then yes it becomes challenging words this transition tomorrow state centric system so the college student who is safe from Conway who's going to school in your district instead of having to call it back to Faulkner County to vote they could actually go to the local precinct in there that and then the local from the city were at your college campuses and cast their ballot for what's going on back in Faulkner County so that's one of the strengths of the system as you can vote anywhere in the state for. What's going on in your home precinct so and I think that's one of the the benefits is it reduces the load of the absentee ballots or reduces the need for. Okay is it representative Garner okay Mr. Thank you I just got a couple questions Sir would we be looking at voter registration with this as well is that something that could measure into the system for an and the other thing is that you have any idea about cost no okay that the obviously there's going to be some cost and involved and we'll have to get with the Secretary state our vendors and an outcast like a lot of other programs that's part of why we would want to phase it in partly so we can learn and partly so we can understand what the cost is you know is. you know as we do the pilot projects in say two or three different counties one of the uptakes how many citizens are going to be willing to do this my bet is that if we show the citizens that yes by participating in this you are securing. And creating a more Securing the integrity of the system that we'll see a lot of voluntary participation of this because you know honestly there are some people who will be a little reticent about giving their thumb print to the government and that's one of the things we're gonna have to look at is is if we collect this biometric data are we gonna allow law enforcement to have access to it or and if so under what conditions so I mean those are some of the questions that we're going to have to explore what guardrails DO put around this biometric data that we're collecting is a state to make sure that our citizenry feels confident in a giving it to us and knowing that once they've given it to us that there will be secure and that it will make sure that their voters on or belong to them and nobody else. Senator Elliot. just one question representative makes up. Will there be how will it be determined whether or not we even need to invest in and some of the options that you're talking about like who determines. There is actually an issue. since like in Arkansas for example we just had almost no for online. So would we just invest in something because somebody said things were going on or is there something that would help determine that. Well I think we I don't know that we necessarily invest in it. From what happened in the past this is or how do we want our elections to go going for. How do we increase the public's confidence in what's going on how do we increase transparency and how do we make elections even simpler because as you know voter ID's been controversy been and ever since I've been down here with this system we almost eliminate voter ID an entirely because you can show off to allow your polling location you don't need your ID all you needs and you know what I'm using my examples is my thumbprint you show up at your polling place all you need your thumb and ready to go. And so I think in a lot of ways it makes our system a whole lot simpler we don't have county Clerk seven to come up with six seven hundred different ballot styles because those are all generated on the fly so eliminate all that confusion so there's a lot of benefits to going to the system regardless of whether we've seen controversy in past elections is how do we secure our elections going for. You know you don't ultimately that's a decision we'll have to make as a body. Well Represent Wardlaw did you decide not to ask questions Sir. Okay all right representative makes of course I don't have anybody else in the queue and I will do one reminded committees and I think chairman Taschen should have a discussion and maybe have a chance to converse with you representative makes because this does require report that would be rendered to the Legislative Council on or before November thirtieth of twenty two so we've got a lot of time right but next thing you know we'll be so busy in here we will be so what I would suggest if you could tell chairman Taschen about a proposed schedule maybe of taking up and what you would like to take up listless visit about that to make sure that we're proceeding with the obligations under the legislation because it's obviously an interesting topic I I will say is we're closing off this mission and chairman Tosh may have something to say is that using thumbprints is not new actually a lot of countries that are even you're very young democracies usually utilized fingerprints and thumbprints but they do it physically right on the ballot so that if there is a challenge they could do that I as I listen all the questions definitely we get back around to the question of whether or not you trust technology and all of that and so I think it would be interesting as you proceed forward on it not only looking at the options on technology but also looking at the safety in the efficacy that might be used because it's definitely interesting we want people to have confidence in our elections chairman Tosh do you have anything on this members if there's nothing else then thank you representative makes we appreciate this I look forward to this day thank you and college of course if you have any other thoughts or whatever please get with me in the in the meantime thanks to Mr thank you very much. Members next up we have item if this is a issue that was brought to us that has had some issues is been brought forth even in national news about the renaming of the law and public policy professorship I would like to direct you that you do have a letter that is been submitted from looks like. Christina derail the chancellor about this issue and it's an exhibit F. in your packet and I have first on the list here to reset binder it with the dean I don't know if you're staying binders there and we have also professor Stein book is well so. If you would both like to come in you can take a seat there and distance yourself if you'd like There is. If you would both if you don't mind just introduce yourself stating your for the record and then we'll proceed. I'm Terry binder on the dean of the UA little rock but one school of law thank you I'm Robert Steinberg I'm a professor at the U. A. L. R. Boeing school of law and my views are mine and not necessarily those of my employer okay thank you very much well I just want to recognize you of course of got your letter excuse me chancellor's letter as well really all that I know about this situation is brought before me and I know there's been some Washington times articles written about this issue and so would would you mind explaining to us that yes I think your letter the letter that was given by the chance for basically capitulate on the item but I would appreciate your presentation of the issue that we'll hear from professor stamp certainly Mister chairman I'm always happy to answer any questions that members a legislator had about what's going on the U. A. R. Little Rock Bowen School of Law so thank you for the opportunity to talk about this so what ended up happening here was that way back when in nineteen ninety nine bill Bowen who had been the dean of the law school made an agreement within the day and dean rod Smith to endow a professorship on Mr bone actually gave a sizeable amount of money to law school he wanted to have a professorship in president Clinton's name at that time that the professorship was agreed to by the by the two gentlemen both of whom the house have now passed away and the board of trustees had signed off on this professorship for whatever reason and I was not present at least initially and this the name was never actually used by the person who got the professorship who was denarius now John Pippin who's retired from our faculty come July twenty twenty and I my. Jean for external relations of I'm now that in a law school I became the team was honored to become a dental life two thousand eighteen my do you for external relations was going through her files updating all of the information she had about our endowments including Mr Bowen's announcmenet for this professorship I'm sure requested documents from our main campus and in those documents was a letter from the White House in nineteen ninety along with it eight eight a gift agreement indicating that this wasn't the the Clinton professor of this professorship did have Mr Clinton's president Clinton's name on it she for that information to me and so looks like we actually did get approval from the White House for this there's a White House the White a letter from the White House approving our use of this of Mr of president Clinton's name and at that point I notified the holder of the professorship I do depend by that he could use the client name as part of this professorship. so that's what we did he started using that name I was on his signature line and that's how that went forward for quite a bit of time in January of twenty twenty one. Mr in the paper decided he was going to retire and his professorship along with two other professorships that were resulting from retirements became available for the faculty I announce those professorships in an email to all the faculty in I think was January fourth of twenty twenty one and included the Clint professorship as one of them and that non Smith a six of my professors who are very very wonderful people applied for those professorships and sometime in may one of my faculty members. Professor Sullivan raised an issue about how to basically about the substance of the clan professorship whether there should be one as well as the process that was used to arrive at that professorship none of my faculty members really responded to those issues that were raised eventually professor Steinberg said how how did this professorship come about and I explained in an email exchange to both professors Sullivan and Steinbach as well as the rest of the faculty that we became aware of this letter from the White House in July of twenty twenty that approved the court the name of the clan professorship and that we went ahead and will elect do you depend on that that was a change in the name. so that's how that went along we actually got a for your request from Mr Masterson who I know is written about it and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette at that point we really skeletal the files in the law school and we produce those in the course of producing those we actually found a letter from the dean that succeeded rod Smith who had agreed to this professorship that dean was chuckled there to Mister Bolan that suggested that basically the Clintons had decide Mr president Clinton had decided he did not want to go forward that professorship at that time this was the first I saw as well as other people to law school so all of this letter basically taking back that they had given that approval on that White House approval all of this information and set up going to the chancellor on she refuted all and as you can see in her letter that she provided to you decided that because president Clinton eventually decided not to go for this professorship that we would no longer be using that name and that's pretty much all that happened I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about that okay. The professor Stamberg. Thank you for the invitation to speak here here's what we know twenty years ago a proposal was made to name as the dean said a position for Bill Clinton the Dow professorship he approved it initially and he retracted it a short while later all of that was known at the time at the law school in the records. Twenty years later the dean in the holder of that position John Cooper we name that position after Bill Clinton there was no authority to do so. What's further clear is that twenty years ago John depend by himself new. The Clinton removed his approval for the use of his name in the paper himself suggested someone else's name for that position. So there can be no ambiguity that at some point they thought Clinton's name was attached to it Clinton's name was attached to it for a hair breath and then it was retracted your the details as the dean points out Tom Sullivan who is a Democrat. Inquired why after twenty years to the contrary an endowed professorship had been named after Bill Clinton and he raised the following statement made the following statement a policy that this is a policy that may have significant consequences for the law school in terms of our mission and reputation and should not be dismissed by expediency or political interests of a dean or group of advisors supporters answering only to the G.. When we did receive an answer from the dean to that statement I ask for I pointedly asked for comment and then as the environment says she responded but here's how to respond the Clinton professorship needed approval from president Clinton as far as anyone knew the law school never received that permission we realize that his name when we recently realized that his name has been approved John the people began to use the official title as a donor intended no great mysteries here just place misplaced mail. Now. The New at the time the Clinton withdrew it there was a memo at the time that said Clinton withdrew his approval in that memo it says John the people recognizing that Clinton withdrew his approval suggests a different name for that named professorship. I shared a memo from the Vendi M. us saying that they had Clinton's approval and I said quote bill Clinton's name was intentionally removed from the professorship at that time that locution that I used in may is almost identical to the locution that the chancellor used in the letter to you. the D. then followed by saying she didn't by my argument and you said where did I get that memo from and why does this matter anyway. Well. I'm not sure it matters where I got the memo from and why does it matter because this is the politicization of a position at a law school that has never had an endowed position named after a politician. Diviner father wrote to me if the title of this professorship is of concern to you feel free to withdraw your application. Feel free to go away and shut up. Finally the dean wrote I'm not going to continue to respond to this line of discussion because I've made my position clear I didn't want to point out to both of you meeting me and professor. Sullivan. What should be obvious at this point your colleagues are not interested in the naming of this professorship. Rob says the dean my understanding is that you inquired about teaching at the Clinton school of public service as an adjunct I find it odd that you would be so concerned with the merits of president Clinton and any honors directed at him by Boeing when you've asked to teach at a school named after him your motivations for taking up this issue are unclear. Finally this discussion will have nothing to do with my discussions regarding the awarding of the name professorships that the D. referenced let me address those briefly. She said her position was clear what's clear now is a position was incorrect. Second I can testify. Under oath if need be that many well at least several professors were interested in but just Sullivan I with the ones that comment. Third I'm not sure why if I had offered to teach at the Clinton school and I may have I don't know it would be nice if they actually had a conservative teacher from time to time. I don't know what that has to do with whether this position was illegitimately named. Fourth and finally notwithstanding the dean's statement in that email that the name professorships would be given out based on merit they were given out based on cronyism. Finally let me sum up by saying the law school this is not the first instance of a law school in which we see in politics plate too significant a role. You might recall that a previous team got in hot water when he bemoaned the election of president trump. More recently a student of mine who was a police officer was told he could show up to school anymore in uniform and he dropped out of school. And if it wasn't for me call him to find out what the problem was you would never graduated I called and I said what's the issue is he said they told me I can't show up in uniform. Even though he called under the law they said otherwise Senator Ballinger had to pass a law to ensure that he could come back in uniform Senate Senator Ballinger passed that law that's student graduated that's student is a lieutenant in the little rock police department several years ago I volunteered to teach constitutional law I would be the first and only conservative to teach constitutional law at the law school the dentist told me no. I would not only be the first conservative I would be the first of June to teach constitutional law dean is tell me no if you want to adversity at the law school let's have some diversity of thought. It sends me to say but the law school is no longer an environment for unbiased legal education it's a hotbed of crypto leftist woke is a unwillingly funded by the great people of this state being used by select few will pocket a drastically disproportionate share of the resources to pursue their political agendas. I hope that this body will continue to provide oversight of the law school and I thank you for your time and ask that god blesses this body the law school in the people of Arkansas. K.. The manner do you have anything to say we do have some questions Mr chairman actually I'm happy to answer any of the points that the that members of this committee find compelling about professor Stein Bucks presentation I will say one thing about the student who was in uniform he was not denied the ability to come to law school in his police uniform he was open carrying in court class and at that time the laws of the law school actually entire University of Arkansas little rock had a policy of not permitting open carry on campus I believe Senator Ballinger is law that took care of that allowed for members of the police and forced law enforcement to open carry on campus and once that law came into effect he was permits open carry on campus that had nothing to do with him being in uniform city on a regular occasion question any police officer that appears on your campus if they have permission to have a weapon. But not anymore at that point in time students were not permitted to open nobody was permit all students were not permitted to open carry and if nobody was actually permitted open carry on campus except university police officers. Well that this would be that would be a discussion for another time you're welcome to university I was a decision by university council Senator so you know well I will ask it since your sins of engaging with you on this you know this is an issue that is been stern for several months and it was brought to our attention and state agencies here to ask questions because it seem like that it was a policy just it was very odd how that this is rolling out then you have a national article about all of this and then now I see the letter that you get in given which is basically a capitulation towards the end that seem like could have been handled much earlier what in the world we get to this point this whole discussion and then suddenly you've got this letter dated in August which is by the way we now have found we really don't have permission. Why are we at this point I guess I would say dean it's it's it's obviously a very strong internal. Abate with a lot of contention that's risen to the point that it was thought to bring before us and and be honest with you with a lot of the things that we've had to deal with at the university level the past few months we do have an interest in making sure that things are done appropriately the furnaces is being is raining true and that we don't over politicize things and so wine are with this point and then suddenly we get this letter which again is is congratulations that yes a professor Steinberg is correct or maybe per pressure Sturch Sullivan was correct Sir I mean I'm just wondering about the timing of it to be honest with you ma'am so essentially it just took us awhile to figure out what was in all documentation so. The initial decision was made based on information from our development office both the main campus and my development office it wasn't until we actually had a for your request that we actually scoured all the law school records and quite frankly it wasn't until we actually brought it to the university system counsel's office that we looked at what was in the board of trustees that was at the university system level so it took a long time for us to to cobble together all the different documents related to this I want to assure you that there was absolutely nothing political about this this was really just trying to make sure that the intent of the donor. Mr Balan and the agreement that was made by the by the law school some twenty some years ago was carried out and that is what I explained in my emails repressor Sullivan Steinberg and that's exactly what I was doing when I know that you know honestly I could I could foresee it's very interesting that nobody complained if they were can interested in carrying out the wishes of an owner before this time in the reverse that why haven't the wishes of the donor being carried out of center is just it just a lot of it seems pretty silly to me and I agree and it seems pretty odd though frankly that it that when you had information that clearly stated there was withdrawal of that name usage that it was almost like it was being forced until somebody had to hold someone accountable say no we know that the document exists so at the time that I made the decision we did not know that this that that there was actually it's just the letter in a paragraph in the letter between from studying Golder to Mister bill and that says in a throwaway sensor to look in eyes you know the Clintons no longer want this to be named after them at this time and after president Clinton this time so I did I didn't see that letter until this summer so in other words if somebody had been more diligent to begin with and it done a full investigation of the matter we would not even be here discussing it at all yeah actually my associate dean for academic affairs sat me down and said you did everything you could hear and I said no I didn't I didn't look at my records and make sure that I didn't have anything that for on whether or not this was the appropriate naming of this professor K. I own that absolutely Senator thank you ma'am first one on the queue is represented flowers. Thank you harm I'm just wondering. if the endowment is still in place and if the professors ship exists under a different name yes the indictment does indeed exist and per the chancellor's letter to law we've decided to she's decided that the appropriate name at this time would be the professor and constitutional law. Can I add to that the letter from the chancellor says that it's going to be called the professor and constitutional law because that's what it's been called all along it has not. That statement is incorrect it has been called the public policy professorship the word constitutional law the term constitutional law has never been used in the title for the twenty years of John the paper held that position until late last year. Mister chair I'm. I don't know how to say this because this is the first time I've heard all this fleshed out with the people involved in front of us and I appreciate that. But without professor to Kappa team the paper he was my professor being here to speak to what he knew and when I just I guess wanted to make that point that he's not here to share what he knew and when and I guess. It's important for us to know and understand what happens especially if something was in the paper and naming and and it's a state institution at the same time the the professorship is in place the endowment is in place its name something else and clearly the team here has expressed her responsibility but I just want to be clear that we all make sure that we don't run rampant. With the credibility of someone else is not here to speak to what they knew and when thank you well represented flowers I think there needs to be a little sit down amongst the folks over there take your some business it sounds to me because it's obvious when they did the full investigation the records this could all been settled that a rising this cation but thank you senator Hammer here thank you Mr the minor let me ask you did Mister dipa NO at the time that he made the decision about the letter showing to withdraw consideration from the White House. So the letter that that knowledge is the withdrawal from the White House is actually between the dean of the time whose chuckle Miller and Mr Balan I don't have any reason to believe that Mr to that the independent new about that letter I have not had any discussions with him about whether he did or not. Do you know fifteen to pepper had a discussion with anyone before he proceeded to make that decision that Hey this is something we need to investigate before I go forward and start using it the manner in which it was used that's entirely on me sent okay that's entirely I mean I was the one who decided to change the to notify him to change the name because we thought that we have finally got that the approval from the White House was in the files and it just didn't make it to our files for some odd reason okay and then with regard to the selection of who's going to actually hold the position mmhm regards whatever gets name. What's the process for deciding who actually gets to hold that position what's the application process the qualifications just advocated son that please sure so that our policy is is actually online but our policy for the distinguished professor positions or somebody who furthers the mission of the law school it is in the discretion of the dean who gets these appointments when I was when I put out there that these three appointments would be available I made it clears all the faculty that I was going to look at all three things that faculty did I want to I wanted excellence in teaching excellence in scholarship and excellence in service and Advait everybody who is interested to apply for those positions based on those criteria eventually of course six people and that up applying for various aspects of these professorships two of them had donor intent issues one was the constitutional law aspect of the the professorship that the independent had held and was also in Arkansas bar foundation professorship that I was looking for somebody who had some Arkansas law connections but aside from that it was excellence in all three aspects of what our faculty does there was a committee of faculty that I convened to take a look at the applicant's to give me advice I also opened up to the entire faculty the process and ask for anybody who had a comment or thoughts about the candidates who applied whether or not they were put who is who they thought was good for these professorships or have any comments on them I open that up for the entire faculties comments and based on that I made a decision about who should get each of the three percent professorships. Okay and I'm sorry who did get the professorship of this particular one the constitutional law on a professor under this confocal thank you teaches criminal procedure has expertise and in the fourth amendment specifically of the constitution just as a side from professor Steinberg that is a constitutional law class and my understanding is the professor confocal is Jewish. He's professor comfort was not Jewish. Okay. Just last question. The. The property. Applications the whole process are those available to the general public or they protected his personnel records to be to be able to review the qualifications so that's that's a question for university council they are evaluative in nature however and most and it when not when personal records are valued in nature they are generally protected from disclosure under FOIA. Okay sure these protected as personnel records and are they available to the general public legislators to look at personnel records that are evaluative and some of these are because there are you know obvious that some of them are for example you know notes of committee members or myself that would be looking at comparative aspects of each of these candidates are I'm not sure the applications themselves would be that would be okay I'm I'm not licensed to practice here so I would I would refer that's university council about whether those would be the kinds of records that would be disclosed all right thank you not. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr but. Professor thank you you mentioned the memo that the developer at our festive of the defense actually had his his you know it said something about being aware of that is that something that you the dean has possession of or you've been made aware and is it something you can provide to the committee. Yes all providers records right now bear with me for one moment. Committee members now have those records the letter says from then dean to the donor bill borrowing I have announced to the faculty that John to Pippa has received the distinguished professorship all by the way I'll mention that there's another memo in this file that says John the people with this we'll get this name professorship and that was before it was even offered up okay but putting that aside it says I have an ounce of the faculty John to be best received the distinguished professorship as you know at the request of the White House we have not made this the William Jefferson Clinton professorship right now John meaning John to people would very much like to have your name associated with the professorship meeting today but now after bill vote okay so this is the proof that John the people knew from the very start that this was not named for Bill Clinton okay so that that is the letter that is referenced by the chancellor and so that was in the possession of the of the law school it's not something you have that it now. This is from the four year quest right that's the whole point went to professors asked the question we were told that it was was lost mail but sort of like the old saying the checks in the mail but I'm one of the most senior professors at the law school I don't charity committees but I'm one of the most senior professors at the law school and I was dismissed and ignored. That's not true just as an aside I told him what I did at that time which was a we had a letter from the White House and its professorship had been approved by the White House at that time I did not know about the letter of between that was chuckle Miller and Mr bone so I told him what I knew at the time. The minor I I have one question for you is something that to consider and I'm I'll ask if you'll consider it so this is the same question I asked at the dean at my alma mater you have a favorable but where we're at in our and in the jurisprudence in general so right now we have a of the old federal courts that are full of federal study judges right there there are conservative judges that are probably not majority still in the courts but there's a bunch of them up there there is probably a majority of those type of judges on our US Supreme Court it It my law school we do have a a a professor stomach right with like like they had somebody who will will come to be the sponsor of the federal society even though he doesn't agree with the federal side at all because they have nobody so at least you have a press the star about even if you just keep around kicking over once while at least you got somebody right but the from my standpoint the element that is joke. But it would be a. It will you know if we aren't actually pro actively going out and looking for people with the diversity of thought you could graduate somebody out of your law school that is never really even been exposed thoroughly to some of the teachings of these federal society to have judges right of of the texture was released people really believe in that and you are you're producing a inferior I might even if they don't agree with it to be challenged by some of these thought will make them better lawyers in the end and so you know if for me the whole point of a of a university is where all these variety of thoughts come together in that conflict in the game you know you have to struggle through them in order to get through. And so you know I would love to see you commit to being concerned about that reality in seeking opportunities to either promote new even if it prevents Starbuck is proved himself too much of gadfly to to do that go up there and find you somebody who who shares those type of thoughts that can can be part of the system in order to be able to let that that thought be legitimately representative so that students have to deal with it before they get out Law School with me would you be willing to do that. So Senator Ballinger we have a diversity of perspectives on her faculty of Mister professor Steinberg is not the only conservative on the Law School factor faculty we have a variety of perspectives we have libertarians we have actually he's not even my most conservative professor on the law school faculty to be honest with you all right so we have a diversity of perspectives we're not looking for there's no there is no political litmus test for being a faculty member at the bone School of law I teach common law and the first thing I teaches sexual is. They're getting they're getting the whole panoply I actually assigned my students in con law justices to go back to go and research justices and find out their political and judicial philosophies and come back and talk about that with their classmates to get that diversity of perspective that's actually on the court and implements the justices were making decisions now I haven't talked come on a number of years since I've been dean but I do believe we have a diversity of perspectives and there certainly is no litmus test when we're trying to recruit faculty we're looking for people who have a track record of scholarship and who are interested in teaching we are largely a teaching faculty we care a lot about our students were very hands on I spent a lot of one on one time I myself is the dean teach students I taught a hundred twenty seven one else last year and I met with most of them one on one so we really are about our students and teaching and I I do think we have a diversity of perspectives. We're not we're certainly not looking to to to eliminate anybody because of their political or G. or jurisprudential philosophy yet what ends up happening in institutions of the service it's old and I would say it's the numbers may be increased by something like ninety percent of university professors in general you know voted for I think at that time was broken promises in two thousand eleven study someone and the problem with that is not that they did I don't care the problem is that when you create and that's the whole reason why why the thought of affirmative action brought in this is not a question of whether or not it's just that the circles that you you travel and are much more likely to think like you the not right so when the recommendations come when that I mean if if you don't if you don't actually proactively look for people that have a different idea about how to apply the law you're not you're going to miss and so I think that especially law school in particular it's it's fundamentally important that those ideas are representative or else you will in end up with like a lot of other areas which I think frankly the laws one that that's happened where you end up in a fish bowl without having those and. And frankly where people were students and even other other faculty members are fearful of sharing their ideas or else being ostracized and treated and not being given you know chairmanship positions not being given endowed chairs not be like you got to keep your mouth shut or else of those things never happen unless you purposely start looking for those opportunities to ship mmhm I understand that and I if professor Steinberg feels like that's the case I I'm sorry that he feels that way that that really isn't the case it has really nothing to do about his scholarly ideas. Thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman I will be very brief of. The minor and I've probably last fester the same kind of thing of I have followed this more as a news story than reading your documents. it appeared to me and I'm certainly would sit here and be corrected if facts were different that. To avoid the controversy after president Clinton was disbarred that this decision was made by someone that we're not going to name an endowed professorship for an disbarred attorney. And so everyone let's kind of let things lie and then it seemed again this is perception from the reports that a former dean to paper for personal reasons professional reasons I don't know but seem to want to associate his name with the Clinton endowed professorship and even though technically and may be legally that was not what it was he wanted to call it that and then when for lack of better term he got caught then everyone had to scramble and point out no we didn't but was there any discussion within the University about the fact that by following through with this that the university laws naming an endowed professorship after an attorney who was disbarred which I would think within legal recruiting circles she say why you look at you a little rock law school they've got a chair named after a guy that was disbarred now whether that makes a difference to some people it might not and I'm not in the academic world but do our our my fax incorrect. yes just a little bit okay so I don't know what. I would be entirely speculating as to the reasons okay I let me let let me see let me serviceman I would be entirely speculating to to try to explain what happened in two thousand you know twenty one years ago that may the Clintons decide that they did that may present click decide he did not want this named after him after we had a White House letter in nineteen ninety nine that said it was okay I have no idea I would you know I was a junior faculty member at the time I don't know what I don't know what the decision making process was there I don't know what discussions were between the at that time chuckle there and president Clinton's people I have I have no idea I do know this John the paper did not make the decision to use the client name ID okay I did based on the White House approval and the board of trustees approval for that named professorship okay so this did go through the regular process in nineteen ninety nine to be approved as the Clinton professorship. Mike what I understood was that the White House had never approved of that name so once I get that letter from nineteen ninety nine that says it was approved. Okay we've that's exactly what I told purpose respond book was my understanding was that just misplaced mail so I was actually the one that notified the to pick up that indeed it looks like we just missed this in in the in someplace I mean are you can tell or file keeping is not the greatest okay you think that's pretty obvious here that we missed this letter some place and that it should have been used along I was unaware that time of the two thousand letter that professor Steinberg just read from between dean goal there and Mister bill and that suggested that the White House had me through his permission I don't have any other reason I do I don't have any reason to know what it would be safe to say that the information that you were working from what appeared to have been in complete that would be a very fair characters okay well I I've and I again I I I just see this as a face saving thing on the part of the University in another I'm saving face but I'll I know professor Stein rock as a four year expert is very interested in actually getting facts and he's obviously Doug Doug those facts out and yeah that's a good thing but I appreciate the fact that you will you come here and and come before us and testify so thank you for coming thank you professor Stein box anything like that well I didn't have the facts the facts were given to me Mike Masterson of the damn gas to get the facts I was told it was lost in the mail also the dean said that she didn't have the memo from the White House that may be the case but this other memo on November third nineteen ninety nine is an internal memo when the Law School from rod Smith that referred to the white house's ma'am it says I was recently received confirmation from member Meredith G. K. associate counsel to the president that bill bones desire to. When dower William Jefferson Clinton festers above constitutes a lot in a university or a you are you are has been approved so the notion that there was nothing in the file approving additionally prior to the withdrawal due to disbarment action that there was something nothing in the file approving the name by Clinton is belied by rod Smith is indeed statement unless you figure I user rod Smith is a lawyer or she imagine that this woman merit is he's here budget not only her name but including the middle initial wrote this letter that went to law school I find it hard to believe well I don't see that. Exception was chairman make the records about to shut this down professor Stein what it is is is your understanding of the timeline that the approval appeared to be given and then of as I recall judge right issued the order in the case where president led to president Clinton giving up his law license I believe for five years was the. Kokkola catalysts that may not be the right for the written retraction of the permission for the letter yes that's what for the past year nine that's right that's what appears that's all I need thank you Sir thank you both thank you Mr chairman thank you members we do have a couple lines to get through so like to wrap this up very quickly Senator Clark you're recognized Sir. Thank you Mr chairman. Of the new you said the this wasn't political When I was listening to the. Letter of we're it was so why would you apply to teach at a paraphrase entity to the Bill Clinton school of if you're against this. That seems political it doesn't seem like a legal argument of because I mean we here in the legislature all the time have. Rules that I will vote for the rule for or against supporting the rule even though it's against my issue because it because it's the legal thing and if so I could be against naming. A chair for Bill Clinton and what a teacher. The Bill Clinton school and besides that I could want to teach the Bill Clinton and be against something the name for for Bill Clinton just because I thought I had something to teach robots being heard there so that that sounded political how is it not. I'm not political but I was just curious so. Both a professor Sullivan and professor Steinberg we're raising objections based on the substance of having a Clint professorship I did not engage that argument because that's not the reason why I went ahead and told independent change them I did that only on based on both on the on the intent of the donor I I didn't have a dog in the fight whether this was a Clint professorship I just trying to honor the agreement that the law school had made in nineteen ninety nine my curiosity about that was that they seem to object substance and flee to president Clinton as somebody who should be looked up to and yet I find it curious that professor salts Steinberg was still interested in teaching at a school that was named after him there was some irony in that to me. By a political just an observation okay of. The end that. In the end that there was a letter that said that the president didn't want the chair named after him. The other issue of course is you can look up to and I think there are people who do I was gonna say same thing you did I don't have a dog and and I don't care but if but did you can look up to president Clinton and still say because he was disbarred the. Perhaps it should have a chair named after him of the law school of. Have you thank professor Stein book in my best for raising this issue when it appears you were headed to making a service error. I have not I've actually not seen professors on books that I since the since all of this arose I'm an you was waiting on the decision of the chancellor about what we would be doing going forward so I haven't had really an opportunity to see him and discuss this with them thank you. All right one more comment or questions Senator Hammer thank you Mr when I mean just obviously I think probably professor Sullivan Steinberg thought they should got that position they didn't when somebody is picked for position and you have other qualified candidates do you share with the other ones as to why they were not selected or do you just make the decision and say that's it it's final and we're moving on. I sent an email to the entire faculty explaining by why each person who was chosen receive the professorship and I discussed separately with each individual who did not receive a professorship why they did not receive it you discuss with them individually yes as for so you had a conversation with professor Steinbach as to why he did not get selected and Sullivan as well yes. The professor Sullivan team I have to go back and look and see what he's got to me I gave them the opportunity to okay Izard appeal process for as far as if somebody disagrees with your decision I know you take input from everybody else but it sounds like the Buck stops with you the US so is there a an appeal or when somebody challenges the decision you make for such a prestigious position is this how do you handle that there hasn't been an appeal nor a challenge but is there the ability to appeal and challenge I'm there is no ability to appeal I'm certainly somebody could question why did it and ask for more information like I said I I think I explain pretty clearly in my email to all the faculty why I chose the candidates that I did. Okay thank you all right members and no further questions and and our state is chair obviously we get things brought to our attention the risk contention happening within the law school over this issue this is one of those matters were it seems to me it should never risen to this level so all I can tell you is is that for all concerned it needs to have a better a better effort made handling some of this stuff and House frankly and it sounds like that there were some missed information and you address that and that's fine and but I do think it's allowed some members to go down the road about just the general nature of some of this the way it was handled I don't I don't have any but anybody else here for questions for you thank you professor Steinberg for bring it I'm sure that that is not been a fun process given the situation for you and I would hope that everybody be treated with respect regardless of their positions and it's just an effort maybe all get along better in the last thing is I've been advised that is bill Clinton's birthday today so this is Happy Birthday for him from the Arkansas legislature so we're gonna move on to the next item thank you senator Wallace thank you senator and I hope this will be a short items matter fact we the ISPs members I want you to glance over those only one that I've been advised that wanted to pull down and it was simply because they're not sure if we're gonna move forward in the future that Senator Elliot on the horizon S. B. number seven you have any other should. Senator Clark. Okay okay Sir Clark was. Okay. Yeah I'm not skipping and I just told him I want to look over it I want to look over it preparation We're not clear on that members just say if you had anything about the ISPs were because we're going to just do these in a batch in just a moment Okay you number eighty. Go ahead senator Hammer then we'll do this Adamjee thank you Mr This ISP is the exact bill that we ran during the session I'd like to respectfully ask that it be pulled off of this month's agenda and I will be bringing back a different one because there has been some movement toward a positive outcome but instead of anybody assuming that all these people are in agreement with this I'd rather pull it down and put one on for next month that I think is going to have a better pathway forward okay Senator Hammer is this five or nine five okay so members of I've been in mass five six and seven are pooled so be ready in just a moment if you have any other concerns will handle those and ask for any nationality for in these here. Really I think that this may be and I think this is been address at this point now obviously wasn't was put on the agenda so maybe if you just give a recap of where we're at on this is members have a question thank you yes Sir Senator Rapert to committee my name is Randy National University of Arkansas they have one with Senator Rapert is referring to the is a you see as a subject there but I've oral history drag project from the Arkansas folk and traditional arts program on the nineteenth of July the Arkansas folk in arts traditional arts program at university of Arkansas fable library sent out a social media requests for oral history stories about the history of the drag show in Arkansas going back to the thirties or whatever whether you are stage hand whether you. Performed whether you watched her or anything like that on the twenty first of July I was contacted by a couple members one directly one indirectly that it heard from people that are normally I would call in the Arkansas for traditional arts be it if you will or things like that. And they did not feel that that. The drag show program should come under there is a had a problem with it asked if we move it I immediately contact the leadership on campus they didn't hesitate they agreed by the end of that day we had moved that to a special collections item which really it belongs special collections is more into collecting unique or rare items or but sometimes you say odd items it fit better into that category and what we did to make sure that everybody understood it went there we actually change the links the press release we change the tweets we did all those because we want to make going back from the community concerned that that was still out there and still issue the. How to add central take any questions after that thank god I can explain more need me. But you Senator you asked me a couple things about special collection I'm prepared to talk about well you know again this is all brought from the public and then some legislators or concern about it so I don't have any particular questions here I think that you I do have a question here Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr. I just wanna make sure I'm on this when we say Arkansas drag Committee is that what I think it is or what is that is that. Senator can you tell me what you think it is I'm not I'm not talking because we talking drag queens and that kind of stuff yes Sir Greg show performance I guess my dresser mailed resting up in a dress and walking down a runway AS one AS Arkansas wonder what what is your view of a even have any attachment at all to their so what this is all about you are disassociate disassociating yourself from this no Sir with the original issue was it was done under the folk introduction of arts park program the University of Arkansas library of the University of Arkansas special collections where we moved it to the end of day which leadership on campus immediately agreed collects things like we we have stories on lynching we've got to register for your my clothes are several hearing it got stories on Nazism we don't promote those things but there are their research topic because we get ask about so would so what you're saying is in fairness of all aspects of what's happened in Arkansas. The university's position is whether you agree or disagree they wanted documented as far as it having a presence in the history of Arkansas is that a fair statement well the for statement as we feel it's it's more than appropriate to document anything in Arkansas history whether it's good bad or you agree with that I agree with it or maybe we disagree with it but we don't like I said we documented gambling lynching all kinds of things okay so we if when when you go to the internet and type in Rancho somebody enter that information from somewhere and that's what we do we collect that information and that information exist in a file it's not taught in the class it existed on file so if you were a totally against Greg shows and you want to do research on you can go to that file in use that file in your arguments about directions because you know everything about and we do that on every subject that we do a special collections so it would be the position of the University of Arkansas anyone affiliated with that that they would never do anything to remove anything about any history that has ever occurred in Arkansas whether staying with Arkansas drag queens or whether steel with the civil war or whether stand with the Arkansas flag or its deal with anything the U. based position is were we're not going to selectively eliminate anything we're going to make sure everything is there is that is absolutely correct and special collections of the United University of Arkansas library okay thank you there's nothing in there that you you can look at all up and and I had a question center you'd ask me if you we have discussed you got me digan I went in and there's forty separate collection on churches in Arkansas seventeen just one Arkansas Baptist and what could end including that sermons letters to ministers photographs pastoral knows list of baptisms there sixteen special collections. The ministry and clergy there's two on conservatism there's two more on just religion as a whole these are big collections there's several anti communist movements and how they were a menace to the United States of America there's a couple on missionaries in Arkansas that that missionary to the Choctaw Indians in eagle town Arkansas which I look up and then also Arkansas minute missionaries in Africa. There's dozens probably hundreds on armed forces on battles on medal of honor recipients there's nine or so on folk musicians there's twenty or more on folklore there's hunting in Arkansas and then on the opposite side Senator hammer kind your point there we ask for strange things because right now they're doing oral history on the five monster collecting stories about the about monster gambling in Arkansas and Nazism doing probation ghost stories haunted houses tales of the supernatural in an all time favorite probably grease paid contest console whether tradition so I. I can understand what you're saying but as a library we've that is the purpose of the libraries a research library okay I just wanna I'm whatever's in there is in there I just wanna make sure that there's not selective process as to what is allowed to be in there or what would be removed from their and the and that's what I would be concerned about so I appreciate your assertion that concern. You thank you thank you members of no other questions ready we thank you for your presentation and you know I think the bottom line is people pretty sensitive about some of these issues going on out there right now we thank you for lease responding including things up thank you Sir thank you Sir members only ISPs the last animal on here for the day for today is there any other I ask fees to any member would have a reason to pull out if not without objection we're going to adopt item one two three four eight nine and ten without any objection they're so adopted. Of members other business the next meeting discussed this with chairman Tosh before we began please save the date September the twenty third at one PM and they will get that up on the calendar for you at that time I think we're gonna be getting very close to getting into the nitty gritty of some of the numbers dealing with the issues about redistricting German Tosh do you have anything else Sir with that thank you membership have a good day we're Jr.