Judiciary Committee - Senate

Bills. Of because we're at that point in the session. Of where we need to get Senate bills to the other end of. And then we will go to House bills with amendments which means fourteen ninety nine so. Because House bills with amendments will need to get back down to the other end also. And then from that we will probably take House bills with witnesses that we don't expect amendments for. And then. The House bills or what. That can't wait till Wednesday. So. Senator Garner. Are you ready was six thirty three. I'm sorry I didn't ask for two minute bills. Senator guard this is not a two minute bill is that it potentially is not solid. Joint secretary just you spoke to me Senator is what the bill do you have Senate bill six eighty five. For by what is going to do and then almost didn't do it Senate bill six eighty five Committee. Okay Sir Sir I read you are recognized to present Senate bill six eighty five thank you Mr chair Committee this bill is concerning sealing of misdemeanor offense of driving or boating while intoxicated earlier in the session we passed acts two seven for which allows officers to look back ten years on prior offenses but currently these particular fences can be sealed after five years so what this bill does is it changes you'll notice on the last section Page two starting and line to a new uniform petition to still a misdemeanor violation of driving or boating while intoxicated until after the applicant will look back period has elapsed so that puts those two statutes on the same page so that if someone's pulled over and they have the ability to look back ten years and they had a prior that might be seven years it would have already been sealed and they would not believe that maybe they didn't have a prior so it puts those on equal grounds the look back in the and the ceiling at both at ten years and I would take any questions questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here testify for against. C. none are you closing your bill surgeries I'm close and I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Stubblefield circumcenter Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. For one I think whole whole posed motion carried congratulations entry to a past due bill thank you Mr chair the committee. Any other two minute bills. Senator Johnson Senator Ballinger. Senator Johnson. House bill seventeen fifty four. Sir. Thank you members of the seventeen fifty four it's a. Procedural changes to the instructs staff and update training materials and the codes that that change in two thousand nineteen barber Williams Morse is here to asked to fill in the blanks. Would you identify yourself for the record miss Morris thank you I'm Barbara Williams DFA off the child support enforcement. As a senator explained this is a cleanup bill resulting from two acts past in the last session specifically ACT ten forty three of two thousand nineteen and acted a requirement that recipients of snap benefits cooperate with the child support program as a condition of receiving the best benefits this bill will go through and in several sections is cleaning up existing language to Provided that those snap recipients what would be cases in which a CSE can properly pursue establishing or modifying child support additionally ACT nine oh seven to two thousand nineteen charge the child support committee of the Supreme Court to recommend a revision of the sub I have my support chart based on the pay or in recipient income basis and again this bill goes through and cleaned up various sections in amending existing code that reference specifically at pay awards so I income when establishing or modifying child support obligation the various other changes for clarity I consistency and to at that terminology and I'm happy to take any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non center Johnson are you close for your bill yes Sir. Good vote not make a motion motion to pass. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Johnson you have passed your bill. Senator Ballinger the of house bill thirteen eighty six. Thank you Mr thank you Mary apple thirteen eighty six very similar to the one that says that Senator Stubblefield passed out is now sitting on the governor's desk it doesn't go quite as far because it only applies to new federal laws or or executive orders my intention isn't pro work with Senator Stubblefield of the other one becomes law this will probably die on the on the Senate floor but we want to try to work it through the process that we can appreciate a good vote and I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing none anyone here to testify for against. See non Senator Ballinger clothes for your bill I'm closed I do meet moved to pass. Motion passed second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion sick public saying aye hi All opposed motion carried congratulations and Ballinger you have passed your bill. Any other two minute bills. Seeing none Senator Garner. Senate bill six thirty three. Regarding your recognize when you're ready thank you Sir your committee what this bill does allow for an electronic monitoring system for sex offenders who fall under two specific sections of the code either twelve twelve nine nine one eight or you could guilty of aggressive sexual offense involving a minor com this will allow the courts parole board division of community corrections they may require as a condition of release and if the circuit court may require this that are personal charge but not yet convicted of a sex offense the section of this as a condition of the pre trial release that'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Rice you're recognized. On the the last part of her talks but. Proboards the C. CA Is there a particular offense now that requires electronic monitoring. Yes Sir I know there's a number offenses I believe in Arkansas it does I don't know them off top of my head movement it's it's good to the top of the serious more serious yes Sir I believe so I'd have to look into specifically which ones that do but this Please it can require it may require okay is optional as kind of a condition for parole or some other kind of status but at some level it's. Use quite a bit I think that. Yes Sir thank you. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Sherman senator garner is do we have some number that would give us how many people are added to this particular list you know Sir there's a registered there's a youth impact assessment from the south so that. And I didn't see any specific numbers are cost on that the beyond what you're thinking currently a defender serving incarceration so I imagine it's it's I can give you specific number but it would allow the court to do that if they want to. All right thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non Senator Garner you close for your bill I'm closer. Motion the passion Senator Stubblefield second second from senator garner any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolution center are you a pastor bill thank you Sir are you ready to runs Senate bill six sixty eight Sir us bill or has just told me they have just sent over an amendment for this I know our staff I just checked her before she may not received it so let's come back to that so we can have the proper amended I have sent copies to present five in a few other parties who are interested as soon as I got it today I got about five minutes ago ten minutes ago and we'll have that amendment before the end of the day so I just want to pull pass over that come back we can Mr okay the next one which shall be eighteen ninety eight H. B. eighteen ninety eight. we're going to wait on house bills okay. For now unless unless it's a two minute bill we would already all we will not be I do have to two minute bills so if you want me to run those if you have to move bills come away okay thirteen twenty three. Thirteen twenty three twenty second find it. There's a man there's amendment to it the house bill thirteen three. Senator Garner would you like to explain the amendment yes Sir centre Gazaway will ask me is foster city Gazaway found on page to represent graduate thirty two to thirty three as it's written right now it actually should be in a homicide case the state has a right to have a photograph this Dick picking the deceased so changes from the deceased person is each person's family to the state he said that was the original Tamils make mistake by BLR. Okay any questions on the amendment. Seeing none. Motion the pasture dry second from centrist overfilled. The discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried resolution center Garner you have amended your bill like present house bill thirteen twenty four yes it is amended yes Sir as Noam homicide cases they're typically pictures of the autopsy or the deceased person in there to see state what this would allow is for the state to be able to use the person as the leader of the kind of a living picture so the jury or the judge or the the audience get a better understanding that person there's certain conditions or how that picture would have to do just allows them to get to see the person as a live rather than as they died which I think would add a good measure to help the poor so you can go policy that wouldn't be a determining factor yes no but it it allows them to paint a better picture of the deceased person that'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. Say none Senator Garner you close for your bill I'm close eye make up and we'll start. No he's he's one. Okay of. Just a motion so twelve okay of the city no one here to testify for against us Senator Garner you close for your bill yet closing a motion to pass as amended. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Garner you have passed your bill okay H. B. sixteen oh five a notice was controversial day bye think we got it worked out we have an amendment and I should explain it fairly quickly. Thirty. House Bill sixteen oh five yes Sir we do have an amendment. Senator garner would you like to explain the amendment yes Sir what this does is basically we heard this bill the other day I know the court reporters had some were upset about how is currently written and how it would affect them this is the amendment I believe that puts them as being positive toward bill or neutral talking beforehand they're fine with the amendment that gets gets all the concern also unless there's any other issues that you may have with the bill itself this should fictive concern they have and that's why I'm on the mend it and I'll run the bill for Senator are represented Gazaway. Was there a motion. Motion to adopt the amendment motion to adopt Senator Garner was. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed congradulations Senator Garner you have amended your bill are you ready to present House Bill sixteen oh five yes I think that here from court reporters and state the one spoke against it's more appropriate for the time so they would like to come up with their signed up I think I'd be appropriate I'll give them my time. Judge for yourself for the record. Yes good afternoon senators I'm Valerie flora president elect of the Arkansas court reporters association I spoke with you all last week about this in opposition today I'm here with the president of our association skyride and we did want to just support this amended bill and really take a moment to thank you all for taking our phone calls and listening to us and they gave us great comfort in knowing that we had a voice in our future so thank you all questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone else here to testify for against the bill. See non Senator Garner you close for your bill close to make a motion to pass as amended motion do pass as amended second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Garner get past your bill. Six we have we have your Amendment first Senate bill six sixty eight Senator. Senator would you like to explain your amendment yes Sir this is actually the catch that Senator Ballinger and the prosecutors from Little Rock call the intent of the bill wasn't to make it the actual calls the accident for the men's raha element what we did now is we amended it so that it references subsection B. which is the point over return to the to the scene part of it so now if you've knowingly or recklessly do not comply with subsection B. which is the requirement to return to the scene to stay there and all that that is a violation not actually the men's rail element of the actual cause of the accident for the best way to explain this and I'll make a motion to adopt the amendment. The motion to adopt second Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations center on or you have amended your bill you're ready to present Senate bill six sixty eight is amended yes Sir we we had to meet this discussion the other day this just clarifies what my original tent was a kind of how to present the bill that whenever you enter somebody nail if you're there's a strip club building if it's not a serious or death but if so you have to know that you left that scene or be acting so recklessly that you should have known to do it is just a very very small protection and law for that. Very rare case but very real case where some I honestly did not know they hit somebody and like I said a prosecutor would be able to show different evidence circumstantial one otherwise to show that you should have known or acted recklessly where you had a bore how much vehicle damage these other factors to determine that with that I'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. I none is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill. See non Senator Garner you close for your bill I'm close I make a motion to pass as amended. Motion do pass as amended. Second from Senator Ballinger. Any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed. Motion carried congratulations Senator Garner you have passed your bill. Senator Ballinger you represent Senate bill three fifteen. Okay. So that I can go to for. Is whoever is supposed to help me run Senate bill six seventy three here. Okay. Of this and Senator Stubblefield if you could take the chair for a moment I'm going to run Senate bill six seventy three. I should. Senator Stubblefield. S. the you're recognized representative Hudson to help present this bill. The representative if you recognize yourself. Thank you Mr chairman actually Hudson state Rep for district thirty two I'm here joining and. Senator Clark today on Senate bill six seventy three and what this does is it amends the statutory foreclosure Act some of you who work in in the legal profession or title may be familiar with the case call Davis C. penny mac which was decided last year and what this case dead it was a request by the bankruptcy court for the Supreme Court Titian Advisory opinion with regard to how to interpret date for closure act under Arkansas law and the questions that was presented was whether mir it knowledge meant that a default has occurred is sufficient for the trustee's notice of default and intent to sell or does the Arkansas statute requiring disclosure of the specific default under the terms of the mortgage agreement so in the case of PennyMac the the problem is that this all kicked off in August of twenty seventeen when PennyMac who held the mortgage sent the sent the homeowner a detailed notice of default and intent to accelerate a year later in August of twenty eighteen back again notify the homeowner that payments had not been made as required under the note later in August they issued a notice of default and intent to sell that included important part that the default had been made with respect to the provision of the mortgage that authorizes sale November of twenty eighteen the property was sold at public auction November twelfth the mortgagee is deed was executed in favor any mac and filed of record on November fifteenth on November twenty first the homeowner filed bankruptcy on January third twenty nineteen so we're now two years past the initial contact any mac filed an amended post sale motion for relief from automatic stay in a bankruptcy court and for the first time in response to that motion so into February of twenty nineteen the homeowner responded that the property must be part of the bankruptcy estate because the for cold foreclosure sale was defective. What this bill is trying to do is to provide some certainty in a situation in which a I home is sold at one of these foreclosure sale so that if you go into the revised part of the bill and Page two line thirty which would be seventy that any claims or defenses for a violation of D. two B. two Y. of this section shall be inserted within thirty days of the foreclosure sale to ensure the finality of sales that substantially comply with this chapter so given the fact that that while the the homeowner was making arguments with regard to whether or not the notice had been sufficient or not the fact that he was making those arguments several months after the sale create a cloud on title that was difficult for and the bank of course he would he would purchase that that the property at auction but would also be a cloud on title for any subsequent purchasers happy to answer any questions pardon me center on your question thank you so this just basically that up so that if you do have this for closure and less that's a circuit within those thirty days the guy or girl can't come back a year later and say actually I served at the display just clarity to law for both the seller or the bank is foreclosing and people on the property is that correct yeah that's right and and you know we see sometimes a situation which had a you know a nice couple buys a property that have been foreclosed from the bank and they find out later that the titles clouded up so this is just to provide some finality said that thirty days after the sale so you don't have to be ready on the sale date homeowner still has thirty days after to research those claims but then after that thirty first St and the subsequent buyers can be assured that there's no clout thank you senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. This is retroactive to March thirty first two thousand eleven what happens in this case you're talking about. Well in in the case that we're talking about I I suspect that what we would see with the penny mac case the Davis case is that that the bank has gone ahead and and done what had to to retrieve that property back from Davis and you know that was an asset they wanted to keep the bankruptcy so that was addressed separately in the bankruptcy so there's not a lot that we can do with that claim at this point this goes back to twenty eleven because this is the bill actually reflects what has been happening with foreclosures but people have tended to do and so this insurance that we don't go back because of the decision of the Pennywise case and create clouds on titles for properties that have been sold in foreclosure and subsequently purchased by such subsequent purchaser you may now be concerned because of the penny decision that there's a cloud on their title. So this won't have a bearing on any thing that's happened to flip flop. Now because that's right because if it if it's thirty days after the sale then the says the date going back to twenty eleven that there's no claim to be brought and there other statutes of limitations to that would have been in effect anyway going back to twenty eleven for example breach of contract claim or other other claims that a homeowner could have or could have brought but in any case this would just for clothes so to speak the opportunity for somebody to try to step in and take advantage of some of the uncertainty created by the penny mac decision in twenty twenty that uncertainty did not exist until the to the penny mac case. Thank you. Senator garner have questions yeah my guess is that's just ten or ten years retroactively from when you probably got the bill starts on March thirty first that's roughly ten years ago correct yes for any other questions from committee members. Anyone in the audience wish to speak for against the bill. You saying none Senator Clark you. I am close to make a motion to pass present a good vote are we have a motion to pass Senator Clark second by Senator Garner. A discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye All opposed. Graduations Senator Clark you will pass thank you Mr chairman members of the committee Mister chair I have one other bill while I'm out of the chair did not not sure what the number is. House Bill Fortino five Mr. And I was really was just a minute brown to come to the table. What to recognize a representative brown of to help me present the bill. Our you're recognized to present the bill. Thank you Mr chair representative Carolyn brown District forty one House Bill Fortino five Is an actor create Quincy's law and to provide for consideration of a differential diagnosis in an investigation involving abuse under the child maltreatment act. And I want to thank the CFS and the chip Arkansas children's hospital for providing this amended language for house bill fourteen oh five and I honestly do not know I've never presented in the Senate Committee if I have to if we pass as amended or. R. as C. as this bill is needed to address a growing concern amongst our constituents that children who may have underlying genetic and therefore heritable connective tissue disorders are being diagnosed as abused when indeed they have a rare connective tissue disorder that needs to be identified to allow them to receive appropriate medical care I'm sure you all would like to know why a title this bill Quincy's Law Quincy's parents brought their concerns to me over a year ago he ended he had been diagnosed by a local position as abused other doctors who examined to Quincy and or his medical records determined that he had been born with rickets and possibly one of the other conditions listed in this legislation long story short Quincy at the age of three months was discovered to have eighteen broken bones in various stages of healing and the hematoma which she was born with children with connective tissue disorders can suffer broken bones before birth during labor and delivery and and then with just regular handling. In fact both Quincy and his mother were recent were discovered to have extremely low vitamin D. levels vitamin D. is critical to the development of strong bones in his parents ongoing struggle to search to find out what's wrong with Quincy they recently learned that Quincy does have stickler syndrome syndrome a connective tissue disorder which the physician told them as a close cousin to Ehlers Danlos Quincy's mother was diagnosed with Ehlers Danlos earlier this year and his father exhibit strong characteristics of a different connective tissue disorder known as Mar fans syndrome and is undergoing testing to make that determination all of what I'm learning about the failure to diagnose connective tissue disorders until adulthood or maybe never is consistent with Quincy's parents either recently being diagnosed or just now exploring a likely possibility of a connective tissue disorder. When seeing this mother's recent diagnoses cast doubt in my mind I whether Quincy was actually abused however we will not be able to resolve that in the legislation. But by passing this bill we can hopefully protect other families from the type of financial social and emotional devastation Quincy's family has experienced additionally the proper diagnoses of a connective tissue disorder means that children who have their have them will receive the care they need and receive it more quickly. This bill passed out of house Judiciary Committee and off the house floor with no dissenting votes with that I'm closed and we appreciate a good vote her art center Garner thank you so the additional examination is surely to determine if there is an underlying medical condition it's not to make a determination about if it or where there was abuse. Is that correct well the. The second opinion and I and and I really don't know how we're going to handle that and we're going to be working with DCFS up following the passage of this legislation to see how we how we're actually going to implement this but. I would believe if another doctor familiar with these types of disorders examined the. The victim the child and determined that a connective tissue disorder of existed then that would have to be taken into consideration yes ma'am it looks like there's is specifically says is not you. Victim of sexual abuse but it is my question is. So the doctor second opinion can be done says don't two three weeks later it's gonna be hard terminates the abuse. Was legitimate weeks later if there isn't like some substantial score tissue or any other medical condition my question is did determination will be by the medical status they have they have to underlying condition that can be evidence that they actually were not abuse but that that would that person be determine whether they were abused or not there's that there's a distinction between those two do you understand what I'm saying not exactly but I'm gonna try what what happens like a child with the or an adult with a connective tissue disorder of say the Ehlers Danlos I has very hyper mobile joints and A baby with this condition I I forget the Turk technical term might just lay there just kind of Just. Not like a typical baby yes there's there's the way it. From everything I've read the way these of conditions are generally diagnosed as by the physical appearance just want physical manifestations and so then once you see these physical manifestations you dig deeper or any and and but you can do genetic testing but the genetic testing is not that the diagnostic tool that you want to rely on because a lot of these conditions have not fully been identified yes ma'am I understand I just wanna make sure there are rare thank you senator garner would you like me sir Martin come up elaborate. One that better served. If you would like to have the other table for yourself for the record okay. Good afternoon I'm Mr Martin on the Director of the Division of Children and Family Services Senate senator garner if I understand your question correctly you're asking whether the second opinion would determine whether their child abuse so to answer your question the second opinion they would be determining whether there's underline it condition and they would be recommending like saying yes I believe this is child abuse now I'm not but then that would be taken into a holistic approach of of DCFS or crimes against children talking with the first opinion the second opinion and then I ask making the determination of whether we believe the evidence supports child abuse but we would definitely take that second opinion into account in making the determination or the finding as a child abuses ensure questions it does I'm just I'm going it's two points one if they say if I get the second payment there's no time line on this so if I got it three months later. It be hard for doctor determine whether is be useless so long term injury or something that you could look at say if you know second part is only just having a lot to say aye. Select expert witnesses sometimes you can get him to sway you one way or another and I would hate for. Certain doctors to make opinions that necessarily that you could bottom Pena sale the gonna be rare but I think it's possible but you're saying that it would just take that if they diagnosed a condition that we're going to the overall finding is going to act as a check and balance to initial one that's right and then ultimately depending on whether the child enters foster care or whether there's a finding and there's a court proceeding and I'm at the office of bills and hearing then that judge would have to weigh the evidence of what the primary opinion was a secondary would take that weight take the credibility of the doctors their credentials what they saw timelines of that senses hearing and then make a finding of child abuse or not thank you that's when you thank you. May I speak to that is provided by a for instance with the Ehlers Danlos a child and I I'm sure the big pictures taken or or no to the medical records of the original doctor examining doctor diagnosing Dr however you can have broken bones but no visible bruising so those if it's Ehlers Danlos the bonds can be broken with simple handling and no no physical trauma. If any other questions Committee. Seeing none is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Per se. We have a cerakote to speak for the bill. Or if you recognize yourself for the record. Hello I am Sr call the scope if you would if you don't mind and remove the I'm a hard to hear you okay I don't know if I. Okay. My name is Serra call. What you're recognized okay. A I am the mother of Quincy who this bill would be named after. When Quincy was ninety five days old that's when we work use. A Quincy had been to the doctor somewhere between or other medical professional somewhere between two and three dozen times. I have a lot of faith in our medical professionals particularly since this pandemic. And I don't believe that they messed. What would have been signs of abuse. As a representative brown said that some of these present with broken bones that have no visible trauma no bruising around them no obvious signs. A there was a fracture mentioned by one of my sons surgeons a couple of days after we were accused that was on his right elbow and it was dated to be. A three and a half to four months old which was older than Quincy was at the time. This leads me to believe that most likely up Quincy's injuries at least some of them were before he was born. And others from things like changing his diaper or picking him up. A one thing I've noticed about the records is that. I had when they did any history on. Our families at all I was supposed to answer whether I had had any surgeries. And I had had a wisdom tooth extraction which is normal I believe for most people and I had had it eight laser surgery to repair my redness. Which is a much rarer secretary. The doctor who initially diagnosed by Senate to be used. Aw. Did not note the secretary even though I am quite sure I told her about it. And I think that if the doctor who evaluated the records and gave the initial opinion had had all of the evidence in front I believe that the final diagnosis would have been much different. The later the geneticist at children's when he heard about my surgery on my eyes he said that it was likely that he had a connective tissue disorder judging by the single surgery that I it has a about ten years before this. A. Now Quincy has received a diagnosis at least clinically we are going to follow up with genetic testing for that of stickler syndrome again this was because of my secretary and a known family history of retinal detachments and retinal problems. Our experience has already helped other families here in Arkansas I recently found out that one of my cousins. Of was it used after his granddaughter adopted so it's not a genetic thing running in my family died of sids. A. Because of our case he knew what to look for. And I'm hoping that our experiences while. What happened to my family can't be corrected fully. Will help other families here in Arkansas. A. I would appreciate a good vote thank you thank you Mr call for your testimony. A senior everyone else in the audience that wish to speak for against Senator Clark closed. I'm closed I would appreciate a good vote I make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass Senator Clark the second by Senator Ballenger I am discussion. All those in favor say aye. I'll close. Resolution Sir Clark thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. Representative clown. House Bill sixteen forty six. And then we'll get house bill fourteen ninety nine. Written quote you're recognized to present House Bill sixteen forty six. Thank you Mr chairman representative Joe clad District seventy one with the chairs permission I provided Arkansas code annotated five dash one dash one oh two to be distributed to the members so they don't try to look it up. Okay represent go. Thank you Sir. Of the one of this bill sixteen forty six Arkansas code annotated five dash one dash one oh two deals with definitions of the Arkansas criminal code in five dash one dash one oh two thirteen the one a the code states As used in five dash ten dash one of one and five dash ten dash one oh five. The definition of person includes unborn child in utero at any stage of development so in current code that deals with capital murder cases and it deals with negligent homicide. What this bill does is it adds that code in that definition two five dash four dash six oh four again the already existing definition to five dash five dash one dash one oh two five dash four dash six oh four has to deal with aggravating circumstances the one of this bill comes to me basically first off from the Supreme Court actually in November of twenty fifteen cherry St Albright inform her boyfriend that she was pregnant within less than one month he had devised a plan to murder cherish he enlisted the help of a couple of friends and they carried out this murder in in a gruesome fashion Josh what brown lured cherish to a field where Smith and another accomplish were hiding behind some trees waiting to ambush cherish as she exited the vehicle Smith shot her in the back with a crossbow bolt. At this point she was still alive and tried to escape he then took a baseball bat and hit her twice in the head crushing her skull and killing her. Cherishes body was then taken to an area behind Smith's home and they buried her in a shallow grave. On December the tenth twenty fifteen churches body was recovered by investigators and that's my honor to tell you that churches mom miss Melinda Ashcraft is here to a Speaker in a moment. And the resulting trial Brad Smith was convicted of kidnapping abuse of a corpse and capital murder he was sentenced to death in twenty eighteen Smith made an appeal regarding some of the aggravating factors that were presented during his trial. The appeal was decided December the tenth twenty twenty just a few months ago and the death sentence was overturned. Associate justice Courtney ray Hudson writing for the majority stated that the unborn child could not be used as an aggravating circumstance since it did not meet Arkansas general assembly's definition of person. She went on to state the question presented to this court is not whether Smith committed a particularly heinous crime or whether he deserves death for his transgressions rather the question we must answer is whether the Arkansas General Assembly properly provided for the unborn child definition of a person to be applied when an aggravating factor in capital murder sentencing is being considered. The answer's no she said. The legislature did not permit this section five dash one dash one oh two thirteen B. definition of person to apply in the determination of an aggravating factor for Capital murder sentencing. She finished by saying in fact the Arkansas General Assembly specifically restricted the use of this definition. Justice Rhonda K. would who casted dissenting vote stated I submit it is absurdum in in a harmonious to hold that when the General Assembly to find a person to include an unborn child for death in a capital murder statute that it did not intend that definition to apply the death of a person in the capital murder aggravating factors. House Bill sixteen forty six clarifies the law contained in five dash four dash six oh four four which states the person and in the commission of the capital murder knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim or cause the death of more than one person in the same criminal code. This bill is not about defining person it's already in the code this bill is about the placement of the already existing legal definition and aggravating circumstances. In closing house bill sixteen forty six will clarify the law. For the Arkansas Supreme Court if prosecutors choose to use this statute of the aggravating circumstances than they will be able to do so be glad take any questions. The question for the committee. Social I just have one question thank you Mr chairman but club you can do you know of any other cases like this it's been ruled on in this fashion I do not this actually I saw this in Arkansas Democrat Gazette and it upset me that are Arkansas legislature had been called out and then I started researching it and then reached out to churches family and that's what brought us here today. I appreciate you bringing this bill thank I really do. Thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee. Senator Garner. Okay make this retroactive family snowshoe. Yes Senator Ballinger. Okay I believe we have a. Witness that has Been mentioned. My correct yes Sir. Of I think of. We could bring her up to this point. The name is Belinda Ashcraft the mother of cherish all blurry in the case that you spoke of. Mr Ashcraft you're recognized. I just want to speak for the bill and I'm here to support it because I don't want anybody to have or what I've paid for already. Sorry I can't. I understand. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you Mr chairman. Appreciated your brave coming up here we're gonna fix this we're not gonna let that happen again. We appreciate coming up taking time to do it I don't think a lot of memories coming up but we're about to fix is not let happen again sledging NO. Any other questions from committee. This Is correct is there anything else you'd like to. Not at the moment I can't. Thank you. Thank you for being here of we also have Adam Jackson assistant Attorney General of from the attorney general's office. Thank you senator Clark Adam Jackson system Attorney General we support this bill of largely here just actually help answer any questions if need be but it doesn't appear that there there any questions but the attorney general's office supports this bill and we were over in the house so it's authorize state prosecutor's office looking at Bob man a sports this bill as well. Okay any questions from the committee. Seeing none representative clarity closed for your bill I'd just like to say Mr chairman that this is our chance to do something for the Arkansas Supreme Court I appreciate a good vote. Action from the Committee. motion do pass from center Johnson second from Senator Ballenger any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried congratulations represent cloud you pass your bill thank you senator Tucker has come in here is a two minute bill he was another committee president of bills Senator Tucker. House Bill eighteen twenty nine is that correct Senator Tucker yes my share. House Bill eighteen twenty nine. Thank you Mr chair thank you members this is a bill that really clean up some language from another act that the legislature passed either four or six years ago I believe this allowed someone to designate an air I even though that there was going to be conceived after that person's death there were really two issues with the legislation that was passed several years ago. One is required the required that a doctor to be a party to the agreement between the person who in all likelihood has a terminal illness and then the the person who will be carrying that. That does see this baby that require the doctor to be a part of that agreement and this changes it so that the doctor does not have to be part of the agreement it's it's just the two parents that have the agreement with each other. The second problem is that in the original legislation required to the child to be conceived within twelve months following the death of the decedent or to be born nineteen months following the death of the decedent a problem with that was it only allowed for seven months of of just station if the child was conceived twelve months after the death of the decedent and this changes it just to have a clean two year period so that's really a those are the main two things the bill changes I'll be glad to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Seeing none anyone here to testify for against the bill. See non Senator Tucker your clothes for your bill yes Mister I appreciate a good vote. Action from the Committee. Motion to pass from center Johnson second center garner any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations introductory of pilot your bill thank you Mr thank you members. Senator Ballinger you presenting house bill fourteen ninety nine. Yeah the. That's why stored say who and then so where you're sitting there so I'll just ask you. So whether to represent a fight Senator Dismang. I know that Senator Dismang is is in a committee has asked me to text them if we get up so I'm going to text him right now. Probably one of a lot of the people in the room. Infers there is an amendment for us to adopt and I don't have a copy of the amendment maybe. Senator Dismang has to sign an amendment okay so. It in the committee go ahead erred begin a member I'm sorry staff going to pass out the amendments of people to look and see the but the amendment is. And then. Welcome with the. What. Okay we'll we'll we're gonna work on trying to get in contact with Senator Dismang I do we have other business to manage to take care of. I believe the. Seem like Senator Garner had another bill he was running for maybe representative Wardlaw. Well it is it's up to the committee if you got some other business obviously we can we pull out and the other thing that alternative I know that there were some questions for other individuals DCFS and other people we can go ahead and start working on running that bill get those get those and questions answered and then deal with the amendment when Senate does make you get here so I'm good with whatever that the committee wants to do on that okay what would like to get it moving but let's see if we can get cold Senator Dismang. Well so there are people who've been reaching out to me is in city county local so I know that that's but I don't know that I once heard from yet. It looks let's go ahead and go to House Bill eighteen ninety eight if you don't mind and so when you get Senator Dismang. Senator Garner you're recognized president house bill eighteen ninety eight when you're ready you me one second for trying to find that there is. Okay so we are constitutional carry states right now the lawyers of I would argue you kind of a. Badly written kind of code as far as what a journey is so currently in the code ways written in order to have a journey you have to actually leave the county or intend to leave the county right hand under accent forty six there is an unlawful purpose to deploy the weapon on the language might be a little bit different so the order would be that it unless you left the county you actually wouldn't be on a journey intensely that could be considered unlawful not there's parking that there's an intent in there I disagree with but this is clarifies that if you are a journey what that actually means that explains that an offshoot protections you would have similar to your home on that journey when you're out and that's just kind of clarify what that means and allow you to have greater protection while you're in the car. And that'll take any questions Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr hi so I I know that I'm an in a hundred percent agree with you in and policy and and on up probably the same with represent Wardlaw the one concern that I have an and I'm hoping that you can address this is we have constitutional carry now what out what I've told people when when I've asked me before about journey also on a journey is irrelevant that matter by because we have constitutional carry if you are if you are outside of your your home if you're doing whatever you have the right to carry that the journey even dealing with attorneys are K. can you can just ignore. I'm a little bit concerned about coming back in defining journey. That they could and I feel like that's fairly established like tapped opinion since that have to be and I don't know of any law enforcement officers that that are going back and looking at looking at the code it any other way besides for constitutional carry permit was Kerry. If we come in we are defining journey does give a tool for somebody to say okay so what that really means is if you're on a journey you have the ability of the Kerry but but only within these these limitations. Our our you know here's what I think okay the. This important languages with the purpose to intend to unlawfully employed the weapon right right that's what the the the crux of the matter is then they defined journey in this section has means travel beyond the county in which a person lives right it's for initial inspection C. is permissible to carry a weapon under this section if at the time of carrying that active carrying a weapon the person is carrying a weapon appoint when a upon a journey so the order would be in that section it says what a journey yes outside the county if you don't go outside the county are you covered as being protected. As actually the section a journey and if you're not isn't that by quote unlawful which could come into costume should carry which is the way to say it that's what I would make its argument to counter that. It It so who are you know in the world in two thousand fourteen two thousand fifteen in a back back after after some forty six in two thousand thirteen it is that was a very things were confusing however I feel like things now have been pretty well established and I'm just I'm afraid that by going back in and dealing with journey which honestly since since you know except forty six two thousand thirteen has been relevant it hasn't mattered and now we have a legal opinion even though it's not binding all the courts it still is is basically been it is the accepted jurisprudence. It in then are we now in interjecting journey is being relevant again I'm not you know I eight this act I can I'm just I guess it's the thing is I'm saying this just in case that happens and I can tell you I told you so right I mean I'm not necessarily against it I'm just afraid that were were were taking something that is now pretty clear and muddying it a little bit out organised inverse Nash's one disagree on this because I think the definition we put attorney now is so broadly defined that would be almost impossible to say that you're born on the journey well before if I want to really get technical if I'm traveling from Colorado to Smackover and I'm pulling over that's not a journey defined by the code and if I pulled over with the weapon is there an argument that I'm unlawfully carrying that weapon because I'm not on a journey which is a requirement of the law it It and what I what I mean at what I'd say is it's not a requirement of law if you're not carrying with the intent to commit a crime right is it a de facto body intentionally driving the car not to leave the journey M. I. de facto haven't shown intent I'm not on the journey which does not cover that with the market well the lawyers are ordered here today I know that's it's so easy it's. It's not here nor there but but I I mean I think the the the argument it like I what I'd prefer is distracting out the whole section dealing with joining all together because it because frankly it's irrelevant it doesn't matter anymore because we have permit let's carried you have a right to care with your manager and I'm on a journey and now now you it makes it look like maybe if only from the Joint House maybe we've defined journey brought up the covers everything so it doesn't matter it It but just a little bit we'll anyway I I think that I think it's probably probably fine I just hate go in the start up of a massive area that we feel like kind of discuss tree thank you. Other questions from committee. C. none is there anyone here to testify for against. The Arkansas state police behind that mask. One thank you. Okay. A clear if you could. Identify yourself for the record. Mary Claire McLaurin staff attorney for the Arkansas state police Senator Ballinger you are one hundred percent correct. So I don't know what to think now. So that if this bill passes we might as well just repeal five seventy three one twenty all together it It will have absolutely there will be no circumstance in which someone will be carrying a weapon with unlawful with a purpose to unlawfully employed it against a person as a weapon against a person that you could be found guilty of that the call as you are now under the this bill you are now permitted to carry it in your home. With the purpose to unlawfully employed it as a weapon against a person. Or in your car or on horseback or walking around you can can't you can carry with the unlawful intent anywhere in the state if you if this bill passes so that is my big problem with that and honestly as as we've discussed this and we discussed all the kind of Issues with five seven three one twenty and how there's difficulty clarifying the Farmall and what exactly is criminal I think Senator Ballinger you may recall one of our kind of back and forth about it is why do you need all these exceptions if it's just a crime to carry on lawfully we are with the intent to unlawfully employed even a law enforcement officer should not be permitted to carry with the intent to unlawfully employed it as a weapon against a person so once you say. Anybody on a journey can carry with unlawful intent the purpose to unlawfully employed it and any moment you step out of your house you're on a journey I can. Kerry I can say I'm gonna walk across the street and rob that convenience store with my gun and and I might be charged with you know armed robbery but I'm not gonna be charged with carrying a weapon because I was on a journey when I was carrying that weapon I think the prosecutors are going to have some concerns about what happens to with the Fourth Amendment search and seizures when you extend the protections of the home to your vehicle there are based on United States Supreme Court law and Arkansas Supreme Court there are You have more protections when your inner Hiram as far as the Fourth Amendment then when you're driving around in your vehicle and I know that defining your vehicle as an extension of your harm could cause problems with that so I will and I will take any questions but I will leave the Fourth Amendment issues up to. Department man. Senator Ballinger you're recognized thank you very much so if you would agree that currently we have permit less carry an in Arkansas so long as you do it can with the with no intent to a crime I think that it is the totality of the circumstances question as to whether or not someone is carrying on with the unlawful intent and one of those circumstances could be as is eliminated by one of the exceptions that they're carrying a concealed weapon. And I don't have a concealed Kerry license however I don't think that in and of itself is sufficient under the current law what it said and that actually kind of surprised me so so you think of a person is carrying without a permit that could be considered unlawful intent and so they're if they're carrying without a permit they it they could be violating the the the law honestly it makes a difference that you know if that's the case then what's going to find everything is journey that will rip it out but it if it what you're saying is that currently we don't have permit was Kerry because of you care without a permit you're committing a crime well you're gonna have to it's gonna be depending on the circumstances at the time are you it can a prosecutor or can an officer articulate that they had reason to believe that the person was carrying with the unlawful intent to employ it as a weapon and they're gonna have if there's not going to be just one thing they might use the fact that they were carrying concealed and I didn't have a permit as part of that but I'm not aware of any circumstances where that has been an issue now I do know that once it once if this bill passes and I am charged with carrying a weapon my defense attorney is going to say. She was on a journey she left her house so do you you don't hold to the interpretations of fourth and half an. I mean I know somebody law but I do my understanding of half is that they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him but they saw the weapons so I think there was a and I'm I mean I I read that case in a couple years but minor she was at the weather wasn't concealed because it was visible to the officer said that I don't know that that. Is. Reflects on concealed carry at the if I make it what what this shows me is that I was dead wrong even the use that I was that right and is not nearly as clear as I thought it was because I thought everybody at this point was there was an agreement that Taft was was binding law and that we had permit lesser constitutional carry in the state but if you are telling me that one of the factors that a person could consider is whether or not the person had a permit and therefore was unlawfully caring and taking us you know back into to that that to me is just well I didn't say that they would be unlawfully carrying I said that there. If you are going to prove that someone what someone's mental state was the with their purpose in carrying the weapon was unlawful you're going to have to have you're gonna have to prove that by the circumstances and last day are telling you that they're going to do it with that they're trying to commit a crime with the weapon so what relevancy is there and whether they have a permit or not. It it could be one of the things that an officer at the time uses to articulate that I don't know of any cases that have come forward like that okay. Senator Ross. Your definition of everybody that carries. As a journey now. Is what. Based on this bill it says if you leave your home on foot on horseback in a car by any. Method Man if you're on a journey. And that's different than now. Now you have to leave your county but I don't I agree with what Senator Ballinger said at the beginning is that journey is irrelevant under current law. If. Okay thank you. Warren the. Your understanding I mean these are the questions we've been trying to we've been trying to ask is right now I'm on a journey. Because I'm outside my home county secretary. I thank you I've thank you would have to be in your vehicle for journey to apply. So then. Or to the Arkansas state police I'm not on a journey the moment that would be percent to it Arkansas Attorney General opinions. Okay but until we get that opinion I mean the ones that have already been issued. K.. But the thank according to that opinion in by from the AG's office here. Thank. You think according to that opinion that I'm currently not only during. And I certainly wouldn't be if I was in garland county. No you would not but that would only be relevant if you were carrying a firearm with a purpose. To unlawfully employed yet again as a weapon against a person. They were talking to exceptions we're talking the the Johnny. Subsection is an exception to the criminal act which is in subsection a of five seventy three one twenty so what you're saying is. When we. Past. That act. That said if you do not that you can legally carry if you do not intend to unlawfully. Use it. The the journey was the exception and that if I'm outside my County when a car I can be intending to unlawfully use I believe that is the way the current low rates and if it's continue and if and if it continues to be expanded to this extent then the statute might as well be repealed in its entirety but you can well no not that part. Not that party says that if I don't have. illegal intent of. The. But you can charge me with anything else armed robbery the. Terroristic threatening with a weapon except for a. If you commit crimes yes the but not just for merely having the gun. Okay all right thank you. Other questions from the committee. Anyone else here to testify for or against the No we've got the. Prosecutors says information. Do you want to offer information regardless of whether we're asking questions or not you look like you do so come on. I with a dinner for yourself for the record. I mattered prosecuting attorney for the fourth judicial district Bob man prosecutor coordinator thank you Mr chairman. Still recognized. I guess I'll go first out of I'll start by saying we think that both of you all are hundred percent correct because because we're here to comment on another section so so and in and out again we are here to to to have to answer some questions if you have them for us but center are our main purpose here was to talk about we surveyed the prosecutors in this particular bill the comments we receive back we're not concerning the journey issue it was concerning the possible extension of your extra expectation of privacy that you have in your home into your vehicle so those are the concerns that we received from the prosecutors are Mister direction maybe give a few examples but those are the concerns that we had and I mean we understand that your idea here is to make sure that that definition that applies to the vehicles I mean the weapon section of the criminal code five seven three one a one if that's the case we had a suggestion is to mine that language you may want to use to to clear that up and I I understand you know there's arguments on both sides of that but those of the comments that I had received the prosecutors after doing the survey. They are issue generally is defining a vehicle as an extension of a person's home because there are there are distinct differences between a person's home and and a vehicle there is a that case law going back years from the Arkansas Supreme Court U. S. Supreme Court probably record around that there is a lesser expectation of privacy in a vehicle for a number of reasons first of all you're out of your home you're not in your home you're on a public roadway the vehicles or readily mobile they can they can be taken away evidence can be taken away so their number of exigencies that apply to a vehicle that don't apply to a home and when you pass a statute that states in the statute that the by a an automobile is considered an extension of a person's home we believe that's going to create a myriad of issues for law enforcement for prosecutors that every time you have a vehicle regardless of of circumstances you're going to have to to get a warrant in order to search that vehicle regardless if it how however much probable cause you have I think that there's going to be issues there that you're going to stop and get a warrant and I don't know that you'd be even be able to seize the vehicle to to hold and he can get a warrant so those are those are issues that I think that if it passes I don't think that Mr Rosenzweig is going to come up here and testifying I don't want to put words in his mouth or or try to read as mine I don't think he's going to testify against this bill because if a a smart defense attorney like him would try to use this to say this the the the General Assembly has passed this statute which redefines vehicles as an extension of a home and so therefore this dead body that you found in the trunk when you have probable cause is no good because you didn't have worked so I think that the Bill. Creates more problems than it solves because I agree that my analysis. I keep in mind I'm just I'm just one prosecutor my analysis of five seventy three one twenty ends in section eight that the possession of a weapon or the carrying of weapons on a lawful only when you have the purpose to unlawfully employed against another person and so I think that the journey issue is I for from any analysis that I have is irrelevant and as Mr McMahon pointed out really in order as it's written which I agree that that it's oddly written the the statute as is because Mr man pointed out you've got to you've got to break the law to comply with the law because if you can care when you're on a journey and the journey is outside the county got to break the law while driving to get outside your county so but never the less I personally think that that section is a relevant because I secure doesn't have the evidence to show that a person is is intending or has the purpose to unlawfully employed against another person I think that you can't you you can't of. Program and with that you mean you can't you can't make your evidence so those are essential our concerns I can provide almost unless anything else you want anything else I think that's all we have Mister chairman. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr I I appreciate that clarification but I wish it was rules more universal so that what and and what I thought it was I thought your interpretation what is at this point after Taft I have heard zero people making the argument that there is any requirement to have a permit to carry it until until today and and also what let me just cut starter have different questions bill may start with the question is if either of you would you see if if you had a person was pulled over would you see whether he had a permit or not as even relevant to whether or not he was unlawfully carrying. I don't I mean I have to. the analysis that I would go through as I said earlier is is do I have evidence that that person possessed that weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person whether not they have a permit and I mean this is with this with this statute it's it's it's it is open to interpretation and so you're going to get with twenty elected prosecutors you get twenty eight versions of whatever and that's not to mention those city prosecutors who handled District Court cases but nevertheless It's it's hard for me to say that I I I don't know having a permit might that eighty one might argue that well listen I'm trying to comply with the law I'm trying to be a more more law abiding individual as opposed to I'm trying to be more responsible I guess you can make that argument I don't know but I I guess theoretically could come in the mind could come into play but for me I I don't know simply because a person has a permit you know if I had evidence that they were that they were still planning to to take that gun and and and go shoot somebody with it that matter they've got a permit or not right to may so it could factor in but at the end of the day it's it's really just kind of come down to whether or not I can prove whatever purpose that individual has okay so so getting back to what you guys your ultimate concern is we use different words all the time and and different code sections and and the best way to do it is to make sure it's clear that it it a it is only as used in this code section yes in but I would say this code section at at the start of of one one says As used in this chapter and then it goes into the definitions and so I'm I'm a little bit like are you what are you all afraid that this the vehicle may go to other places in the code defined this way or maybe you live that way or you just afraid that in the dealing with the the possession of weapons that you don't even like the definition being interpreted the vehicle be interpreted as a continuation the home here that makes sense it does and that I would I think we would be certainly be more comfortable if if there were clear language that it applies only to do. This subsection in only to this subsection some but it says so it doesn't say subsection but is that I'm sorry in this chapter yeah chapter yes section seventy three I mean if our concern is there a. Of unintended consequences and that's why when that I'm I'm a type of person I look at a statute and I don't I don't just. Trying to figure out what an individual intended I I look at what they said and so that's why before clarity in language the more clarity the better because I don't it's it's it's hard getting and Legislative intent sure so it so if you don't mind what you're what is the what is the. What is the clarity that's missing because I feel like you know it is is chapter seventy three it says as used in this chapter boom now we're going to define vehicle and we're going to do it is that how vehicles defined or is it that you're afraid it be used after outside of this chapter or you don't like that I'm so so I don't see I mean you have to help me but it only it says as used in this chapter right about criminal law I do not see the I just don't see how you can how how it could be used any interpreted any other way then only as defined in this chapter. Well again if you when when when we had our survey we had enough people contact us with that concern about great no one one thing that was pointed out and in this may not be the best argument for but I did understand where they're coming from and I know we don't use of the entitlement after the subtitle to interpret meeting in statutory construction I mean if they're unsure they can go look at that and it was a language someone had suggested and the subtitle you define vehicles an extension person's home into the fund the term journey across all applicable laws did the definition of vehicle and the definite your any applied all applicable laws or is the journey just the all applicable laws in the vehicle was in its own and and again I didn't really have a great answer that other than we could clarify that by making making it real clear that vehicle was Justin the weapon section that definition so again it's it's open to it like I said when I first opened up its open to to interpretation there we just ought to make sure if that's really all we're trying to do here is to make sure it is in the weapon section we can clarify that you know we think fairly easily and I'm so you gotta make an amendment to that if you do that but it but again what purpose of being here today which is to point that out because I've had enough people express that concern that I felt like I had to come at least let you all know and as we so we don't have an issue with that with the bill itself it's just with with concerns with the word. Senator Rapert you're recognized. For a touch base on something you said. To the fact. Is if somebody has a concealed carry permit. It shows there. Are trying to comply more. Is that kind of what I heard you say well it did I said that day some people might perceive it that way did not present that way but which that is the constitution not good enough yes I mean I I think that that's what I want to buy a soda wishers would constitute right and what the question was is that something that that a person would take into account if they had a permit and somebody might take that into account that that somebody is is wanting to to get a permit to to say that they're lawfully carrying it as I said before I believe that the statute that's a required so I don't think for from a personal standpoint I don't know that I would consider that as evidences as to as to a person's intent Senator if I can dress up I think the ultimate it is answerable ultimate decision for most prosecutors going to be whether there was some type of legal intent yes without that without the legal intent I don't think you're getting to the concealed Kerry is that all right now I would agree with that and and not having the not having a permit does not I don't think that goes to the legal intent I would think I thank the legal intent is is the unlawfully employing it against another person thank you thank you Mr. So. According to what I heard a moment ago. If I'm leaving my home for little rock. You're not sure that. I'm covered by a journey. Until I get to the county line. Well I think if I think that's the that's the issue that senator garner wants to clarify I personally don't think it matters because as I said I don't get past subsection Hey where regardless if you're on a journey or not there's still the issue of whether or not as the statute is written there's the issue of whether or not with if you're in your county or not if you're on a journey or not a prosecutor still have to prove that you possess that gun were carrying that gun I with the purpose to unlawfully employed against another person I'm just taking the laws as written now sure the because I thought what Senator Garner and represent Wardlaw we're trying to. Of. Work out was if I was staying within the county not. Not if I was because you had alluded to that you were if you were left your home leave in the county that you actually had to break the law using your words into you work breaking a law when you cross county line and that confused me a little bit I thought a journey was made to be so sure well that that was that that was more I I'd. That was something that Mr McMahon pointed out when the statute was was re written several years ago that it didn't make the the issue or the definition of journey didn't make sense because you would have to break the law in order to to be able to comply with the law but as I said earlier to me the definition and I understand that the point of clarifying that but I still think that the definition of journey is a relevant because if you're carrying a weapon. I cannot prosecute someone for carrying a weapon in less I can prove that they possessed it with the purpose to unlawfully employed so whether not there on a journey to me I don't think it matters in the back to current law and and and what the state police had to say. Is me being on a journey after a leave the county. Is that a loophole to. Illegal intent. I've never had that question come into office with the things we do in our offices we do research for prosecutors throughout the state and we have not had that question commence we've never looked at that I've I've I've never even thought that that would be a problem but I understand where where the Speaker was coming from but I I I have not done any research on that not thought that it had not had that question come in from any prosecutor from from anywhere else agendas and I always support for to be a four to come up problem and this bill it would already have to be a problem and current law it would yes it is and if I saw you I think that's correct we just sit stand in the problem yes Sir I believe that's correct okay all right thank you. Other questions from the committee. Thank you gentlemen anyone else here thank you Mr to speak for or against the bill. Saying no one Senator Garner would you like to close for your bill yes Sir Legislative intent this video prime portents of prosperity this is not dealing with all the other sections of code defining vehicle all right of I think it's fairly clear that is only dealing with the definition of a weapon not no the sections of code I think this was a guy could clean up to kind of what we want to happen and if it's overly broad that's probably a good thing allows more people to carry a weapon with that I'm close I make a motion to but. Second from Senator Rice any discussion I'm going to say Senator Garner that I thought maybe was a necessary until her distance question of sometimes witnesses can help you out more ways than one. Hole for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carrying resolution center or your pastor bill Senator Dismang represent five. Mr chairman we do have a an amendment to the bill. It's. So you have this amendment and the amendment. With the other one engrossed so it's hard in the bill so this is just the latest we're not clear on that okay. The I remember the engrossed in it now yes Sir. Appreciate you letting us do that and so I can walk to that quickly of a mind Page three line thirty five delete the word advocacy on page four line fifteen elites and advocacy it also then the leads Page eight delete line eighteen and substitute with the following co concerning the powers and duties of child abuse rape domestic violence section is repealed And and and and Page ten line twenty eight then line ten I'm Page ten line twenty nine this is the part that deals with the MDT oversight committee that adds one more position and that's the executive director of the domestic rate can be used by the okay or is aye any and eleven the chair of the amount treatment child maltreatment investigations oversight committee who shall be a non voting ex officio member of the multi disciplinary team oversight committee I'm not not sure who that is the current moment. Questions on the amendment. Motion to the top second from Senator Garner. Of any discussion none all for the motion signify by saying aye. Regulations Senator Dismang you have amended your bill thank you Mr chairman committee members member S. I'll discuss this bill may I know you all hi I try to go back and watch as much of the veto I could the other day one of things I just want to get back to the nuts and bolts what this bill does as opposed to the current stance that we have right now it provides multiple layers of oversight that does not currently exist in regards to these funds and a lot of that has been accomplished and through I think some good amendments that have been adopted through the yeah I I guess this bill's journey but just real quick I'd like to go through just kind of some of the more important sections that I think apply to the bill section to provide for new definitions related to implementation also outlines the duties of the multi disciplinary team facilitator section three through seven removes Arkansas child abuse rape domestic violence commission and the authority of EMS in places DFA in charge of the grants related to the program additionally it outlines the duties of the CA scenes related to the NDTV's ensures that there's extensive oversight of the funds which is something again that does not currently exist section eight requires an annual audit budget and the bylaws of each CACD be presented to the board of the child's advocate children's advocacy centers of Arkansas section fourteen allies the NVDs responsibilities and establishes the multi disciplinary team oversight committee and I can go through the listing those just a second and then section fifteen outlines the make up of the MDT oversight committee again I'll go through that now that can be paid found on page. Yeah Page ten of the bill. So the members the way that we set up is the commander of the crimes against children division the arrests designate and that'll be that for each one of these the director the Division of Children family services the department Human Services the executive director of the Arkansas prosecuting certain attorneys association of mental health provider with specialized training in trauma focused evaluation or treatment a medical provider with specialized training and evaluation treatment of child abuse issues the executive director of the Arkansas sheriff's association number seven the exact Director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police number eight the president of the board of directors of children's advocacy centers of Arkansas number nine and a representative from the juvenile justice system and then ten again would have been the chairman of the legislative oversight committee. With that again I mean I think this provides some of reside to does not currently exist I think it's a better situation for the state regarding related to the county building use of the funds and and rules old and better outcomes for these abuse cases instead of Arkansas with that be happy to take any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing none of I think we're ready to go to form against then we will start. With the guest of merry Medlock. His. If you would identify yourself for the record Mary Beth long and I am the entity coordinator for Jackson Lawrence Randolph sharp counties. You're recognized. Thank you and I live in hardy and I coordinate the rule for rural counties Jackson warns Randall for short which comprise the entire third judicial district I've been meaning to the court NDT coordinator and those County since their inception I work with station Burke who was a project manager at the Arkansas Commission on child abuse rape and domestic violence and we started those counties in two thousand nine. There is not a CACD in any of those four counties I think it's I think at some point time you'll were given a map maybe and you can see on the map where each county who served which advocacy center serves which counties for my for rural counties are actually served by three separate advocacy centers Jonesborough Batesville insurgency. and and I'd like to point out just income for reference our entire judicial district does for counties have less population in the city of Jonesborough so we're very world. in rural communities who often wear multiple hats in our rules often overlap because of this the team the entity is more than a meeting I work as a victim witness coordinator for the prosecutor's office I survived once served on the board of Kasson was a past president I coordinated the Northeast Arkansas Inc and child death review team and. The reason we do so many things role counties is because often times there's just not enough people to do the work that needs to be done. Because of this the multi disciplinary teams a rule counties or more than a meeting. We live and work alongside each other we see each other throughout the week the courthouse for the prosecutor's office the county jail or a local restaurant. One of my concerns were taking funds from the state agency which is the Arkansas Commission on child abuse recognized balance and moving those funds to the CA sees is that there's only seventeen in this state and as I mentioned none of those are in my for rural counties. The species of Arkansas have a tremendous important responsibility thank you provide medical exams for children in a safe and child friendly environment and they can offer supportive services to families but likewise the entities have a local responsibility together our team of professionals in each county will work together to make decisions in the best insurance of the child and to pursue justice for victims of abuse. My concerns from the beginning have been hello this proposed model better serve our rule children what we're currently doing and how will this proposed model improve services in rural counties that do not have a child advocacy center I'm happy to answer any questions. Senator Garner you're recognized. But yeah sure some concerns about the struggle I have is that ultimately DF in a which is a government agency will be the ones who actually distribute these grants and they should be the accountable function with the legislative work more oversight to make sure that your MS teacher not to disturb so I think in reality if they try to pull the funds or try to play some games you can come to us and say we're not get what we deserve compared to before and we have a now oversight kind of way to kind of put teeth behind that one currently I don't know if we have because we don't really hear that oversight from this actual commission would are you concerned that the D. F. and a being kind of the one to distribute the grant told me the personal response for the money given to levy and concerns well I certainly would trustee FNA to handle funds especially of this announcmenet I think they're quite capable of doing that I guess my primary I guess my primary question would be we have a commission the commission is appointed to serve professionals in their field in the appointed by the governor so I I think my thought would be if there were problems with the empty tea programs throughout the state or with the project itself could does problems not have been addressed and taking care of what the current commission. Thank you. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr chair but I think that there's the the point of the bills to try to create a I don't know maybe more a little more uniformity and so forth in the process but you know my my preserve what I'm wondering is like hello but I know that you have concerns about about The work that you all are doing now I mean I I I've heard almost nothing but good about you all but but my question is how is that going to change like one of the things that some amendments we did and and the debate was to make sure that still the entities had a were local made the decisions what what is going to change under this legislation well so the way I see it now is because it's through the Arkansas Commission child he's recognized violence each county is separate and individual this would have like I said there's three in my four county service three advocacy centers that serve those four counties so potentially there could be three separate coordinators kind of doing three separate things for for what is what I'm sensually doing now for one judicial district so I think my concern is that there's only seventeen child advocacy centers in the state and they will be making decisions for outlying counties. It but there still is going to be in the eighties in each county right that's my understanding and so the and they make the decision of who the coordinator is correct that's my understanding through maybe one of the amendments correct at that was that was my intention through on the. so I said I just from a practical standpoint I just don't see how how functionally it makes an he will make Amendment clearly you know the whole thing there will be some sort of trickle down effect that will do it but the structure of it in fact one of the one of the amendments included Legislative intent that basically said the structure is going to stay the same. And so I just don't know how it's going to make it harder for you to do your job. Well I think because right now I'm the coordinator and I live and work in those communities and like I said I live and work with the team I think that's just crucial to our rural counties having a local team these are people that live and work in the counties are invested in these children so there's a possibility of someone coming in once a month from an outline city to coordinate the team from but those corners commits like to buy the T. that was my understanding thirty. So so that that should happen right it lets the team decides that. That would be my understanding if I'm reading it correctly okay. This would work of my questions or long same one. How's the funding how does this bill change the funding for role in the peace or potential changes. What I'm not sure how it will change the funding level like I said with the commission each county currently is separately an independent so I'm not sure what that's gonna look like since for my for County still be three separate advocacy centers that will kind of make those funding decisions so I don't know I don't know if it will look much different or if it may stay similar. But that's a concern that is a concerning and how about the make up of the in the taste is this change those in anyway I don't see anywhere in the bill that would change the team members currently like on my teams it would be crimes against children division of state police DCFS investigator mental health the child advocacy centers the prosecutor's office juvenile probation I'm probably missing some but I don't see that that would change that the anything in the bill's going to change those attendees and those team members how about how they work. It is the same thing that would change how they work. I don't see anything off. I'd probably have to refer back to the bill. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would change like the the meeting functions for our for our meetings that we have I don't see anything specific to the bill that would change the meeting functions. Okay. Other questions from the committee. See non thank you miss Matlock we have Jennifer long again of. From a. CAAC. Speaking for all Missolonghi within apart yourself for the record sure I am Jennifer long I'm the executive director of the children's protection center which is the C. CA that serves Pulaski County. and I just want to speak and relation to the intent of the bill and that is why I think there's been many concerns voiced from R. NDT coordinators around the state regarding the fear of our teams becoming regional that was a rumor that started out as well as that fact that CA sees the local species are going to control them duties and the fact that they're only seventeen CA sees in the State. And what we heard earlier to is that the commission is is the one that kind of oversees the funding and the project of the M. D. T. and I just like to point out that there's one Commission in Arkansas and it's located in Little Rock so by by bringing in the CDC's and aligning this a little bit more the local entities are gonna have actually more support more local support the idea there actually and duties or on the State or someone from outside of the community does drive more than an hour to to oversee or facilitate the functions of the M. T. team. Every community is so different in every community deserves an opportunity that I'm due to deserves an opportunity to really define how they want to be structured and who coordinates their team. And as miss Murdock said that's it the the ability to for that those team members interact daily is incredibly important and I can be in person I can be over the phone there lots of ways that can happen especially rural communities. But again when the commission supporting that that's one agency from the center of the state we're C. sees are uniquely positioned to be able to provide the kind of support for these M. D. T. partners that's what we seen in little rock and were very different to in plastic County but we've also seen that and more rural communities as well. White County for one is a good example. I'm happy to take any questions but I just wanted to talk more about how the M. D. T. in the CDC aligning closely will end up with better outcomes for our teams and the children that we serve. Questions for the committee from the Committee. Syndros. Thanks for coming back today. You may start off by saying aye after. Testimony the other. Evening late I don't think I did then I want to thank the CA cities for what you'll do thank you and I didn't want any questioning the other day we're all tired twelve are dating at I want you to know I think ever member definitely appreciates what you do Richey what the entities to. But what we're used to hearing. From Iran from being here few years is that word intent. In the words support. In the words. I want to make it better. And then we look at this is not a y'all's organizations I'm talking about government in general. And then we find out down the road. That it wasn't anything like what we were told or leased outcomes or may even make been good intent. But we we we can cite plenty of things that don't come out that way. I'm concerned about rural Arkansas. And I hear what you're saying about a localized of localiza central. Rule right now and then. That's intended to be what I have seen. In a. Very large state agency. Where the organization organization may be set up right. But you get these personalities. In places in your I'm guessing. A close eye governmental agencies going to be just like government likes you got some in there that. Don't do as good as others may be very small percentage. But what I've I've had sometimes is a get these regional people. And they they they just tend to overrule local control. And I've had plenty of it in sometimes I think it just comes down to I'm going to show you. That local control doesn't control we control it regional. And sometimes that needs to happen. But one of my concerns in this you know I'd love to thank everyone is going to work. harmoniously together and everything's. You know. Good but it sometimes it doesn't and I just got I look at where we're at now and and we're trying to get I. I'm I'm having trouble getting to the Cup for. And I cannot open for anything okay. I respect that and I think something that C. season I'm duties work so well as collaborative decision making and disagreeing often but still finding something common that gets us to the good under assault and with an MDT the entity oversight committee and those are going to be the heads of the agencies or the words that are directly connected to the entity partners in the rural areas of the state so that it's not going to be an agency that from the sound that centralized in Arkansas late in Little Rock it's going to be making these decisions for them duty only they're gonna be taking the input from the local entities which was introduced and that amendments that we made last week so that the local entities have a real say in who they are where they're leadership is coming from and that's in the bill and that the MDT oversight committee would make sure that these local entities are meeting best practices as defined in nationally when it comes to the purposes and the functions of multi disciplinary teams. I don't know if that speaks to your fear but I do understand and I appreciate you sharing your concerns on that. Other Senator Ballenger did you won't be recognized nope. Other questions from the committee. This long of. On the concern of funding changing parole in the two days should be a concern. No in my mind there's going to be more opportunity for local entities to proceed from being. You don't see funding being cut not at all how will the How will this. Affect the make up of local and duties. Not all not at all but the relationship was CA six. Between I'm duties and a lot of areas those relationships are great and some areas they need help and so there would be support for that. Any other questions. Okay thank you miss all of thank you K. E. bill of. Speaking against. This bill if you would identify yourself for the record my name is Kate Beal. Receive. Well and first I want to clarify something from the last committee meeting and we didn't get a chance to talk very long so I want to explain that I did work with the state of Arkansas for thirty five years before I retired I have been an MDT coordinator for eleven years almost eleven years I did work at CHC as a forensic interviewer for over four years and this is where the question came in at the last meeting I stepped up to save the center in Jonesborough when the former executive director left it and I worked over three months with the list but the pulley and with a few board members to get the Senator back on track there at the current director been working about a year when she became angry with me over forensic sexual abuse exam it should not have happened with the child back interview she fired me over that so this is not about vindication but I I do have self respect and I want to clear that up for anybody who heard me speak at the last committee meeting there was not a problem with my job performance I did not appeal that because I did not wish to go back to work there after that happened so I want to clear that at the beginning so And that leads to something it was not necessary to have any input from the board or from is fully who have worked hand in hand with me and get that Senator plant a clear that so this kind of issue will be exacerbated when the MDT coordinator works directly for the C. A. C. there's no longer a buffer if there's some kind of problem with the protocol between the C. A. C. and members of the local team then there's not really a vote for the MDT coordinator can't stand in because they always run the risk of being terminated and some of the questions that we had for some of the. there's not been any input here I said that the last meeting there's not many in an input here or explanation from our supervisors Nancy chambers or polished stone because they were unable to testify they have to remain neutral not only remain neutral but unable to come here and testify that have the commission currently runs and what we would like to provide all the answers to that we can provide some answers but not all of them so the other thing is disturbing is there was no collaboration no stakeholder meetings no meetings with any of the M. Beaty coordinators or any of the local entities to determine if this is something I would like to see happen. And we became of the draft bill right before it was dropped so And one thing that. And nobody here's been able to explain is why would the FNA have more oversight and the commission does that something's been said repeatedly but we can't determine how they do have more oversight and they also the FNA this is they have no program expertise in this area they don't have any expertise in the child abuse area they don't have any expertise in the in the T. the seller tater slash coordinator areas so they have no program expertise in this area at all And it's also we're not sure how DF and they can be involved in contract and employment decisions of the nonprofit. The and there was something mentioned about the commission being in Little Rock and the centrality of the commission but that's because it's a state agency just like the CFS is located in Little Rock the main office see ACT is located in Little Rock with the state police most of the DFJ is in little rock all of the state offices are in little rock and that's why the commission is in Little Rock. But we did have access we always have access and I've always had access to our program coordinator one of the station Burke and now this Nancy chambers we've always had access to them with any kinds of problems or issues we have had in my county had a meeting Thursday we had fifteen people in that meeting fifteen people who represent fifteen different agencies in Craighead County. And we had a core team meeting which is the supervisors for those agencies we had a core team in not long ago there were no issues there were no issues in that meeting there were no issues in the core team meeting we had before that there's never been any issues expressed to the Commission and no issues expressed to the workgroup meeting that comes out of the commission and There are two people from the CACD to I have seats on the commission and the committee In regard to the amendment the CA sees can write the job descriptions there's the there's kind of a thing there the team can select the coordinator they can hire the coordinator they can fire the coordinator but the problem is how does that how does that applicant get to that. team to be hired CSCs can write the job description so those already in place can be eliminated from applying if they don't meet the job description there's nothing in the amendment that says that the team will write the job description for their team coordinator or that the that there be a chair of the team who will bring them together to discuss who will be hired for that position. And So those are just some of the things that had you've all received emails should have received emails from us I'm not sure anybody's been reading though since it's been very very busy but I know I've sent emails to everybody on this committee everybody in the Senate at more than one email to some people and even ask for personal contact from some of them I didn't have personal cell phone number so I've had contact with two people on this committee the others I have not personal contact. You had a pack of information that explains why this bill should not pass in why a few amendments that have been put in there but not correct the real problem with feel the real problem is that there's no reason to move this from the commission which is a state agency and it takes state money and move it to a nonprofit organization there's not been anything expressed here as a real reason we review they in CA standards there's been reference to that we reviewed the NCAA standards and discuss those and we do meet the NCAA standards currently so. that's all I have. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr if this so I I mean I totally get it like honestly like change and disruption can be kind of scary right so like the one force that I've seen down here this more powerful than any other force the status quo that and and and I honestly that it is probably a shame that your voice wasn't brought into the the process and more MBTs weren't talked talked to Senator although I do know that some of them were were brought in and and talked about but some of your concerns have been directly address like like the entities don't work but who does the hiring and firing of entities well currently there's an MDT project coordinator and they apply for the job through the MDT project coordinator and she brings those applications to the team and then they discuss they discuss who they want to hire as far as being fired date when people are fired it's not a team decision because it's based on work performance and whether they did something they should not have done okay so you're saying you don't support it being a team decision I support hiring being in this team decision but at this point there's no real plan for that I know the amendment was put in place with the assumption that the team would make the decision but somebody has to get it to the team to make a decision the team has to get those applicants and make a decision based on that. And there's no real plan like for example I have six people who come to my meetings from the CHC I have four people who come from four different mental health agency so would you have poor mental health people making of the voting and then one CACD person or would you bring everybody who works at the CACD vote there's no you know there's no real plan you put the amendment in there but there's no real plan that okay so so what you're saying is what is the the the question would be the structure of the team that right I mean that's what you're concerned you don't have from the team making the decision no I don't have a problem with the team making the the local team making the decision at all right which which is what it is required in the law if this bill passes right right. K.. Senator Johnson. And to that The Amendment I had was a structure stayed the same. So you put those two together. Nothing changes. Is that right now they're not really correct. We have you say the structure does change and you and I have had this discussion the structure does change I am a neutral up facilitator I am there for everybody I'm not a CACD employee I'm not employed under the CHC I'm employed under the commission and everybody on that team has an equal voice in what we do as far as meetings and in discussion and if there's a problem between two agencies it's my role as the M. Beaty coordinator facilitator to work out those problems decide who wants to do what in. I to figure out how they want to move on with that like the in a buffer between the agencies A voice for each agency so for example here's another example here you're an independent contractor now then this would put you under somebody that's what you don't like rat I don't really know and I'm not an independent I'm an independent contractor but I am under somebody Nancy chambers is my is the project coordinator and she is my supervisor or you are you a contracted employee or you are you a salaried employee I am a contract employee all right here in the contract right like you. And I don't know that these are sick I mean the our the salaried positions or these contract positions as anybody in this room know the answer that other than you know that. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. But the first. So it makes it pretty clear legislative intent of the structure we wouldn't change and and that would be I guess the question I have for you is is there anything in here that you see that would even change it how your employment works are you you you talked about you know getting terminate or not be able to be independent what in the bill makes it makes that so. I'm sorry I didn't understand the question so what so you're you're worried about you you losing this this independence that you have now the ability to work between agencies what in the legislation and I understand that there is there there's been a lot of concern a lot ideas passing around is what the bill does but actually looking at the language of the bill what in the bill actually takes that away so you won't be like that anymore okay there's not any language in the bill that takes that way and I apologize if that sound argumentative because I certainly don't mean to senator Johnson's from my area of the state and I don't want to be argumentative with him especially but there's not any that I don't I don't see anything in the legislation the issue is that the MDT coordinator position was set up by the legislature and that's in that package way back when it was said it was intended for the MDT coordinator to be a neutral party who could work at issues between different people on the team this way the MDG coordinator is actually an employee of the C. A. C. and they are a part of the humidity. Could you point to that in the bill where you where they would be an employee of the CC because I think that is that is actually directly contrary to not only what what was said but also the the intent of the amendment well they are an employee of the way I understand it there an employee of the CDC's of of Arkansas and that's why that said that I would be an argument with him about the contract I don't know that that's addressed in the bill whether they'll be a contract at I believe it does say contract. but I know they'll be staff. It depends on whether they work with the C. AC or if they work outside the CACD whether they're considered staff I suppose I don't know. I mean and you have people here from the CSCs of Arkansas they can probably address that question better than I can I don't know. This. The central bank you may come to the table if you can ask questions. So that's actually dressed on page nine towards the bottom of the page you start the new language here but it was specifically not mentioned employee because they're not employees now all this does is actually set up a little bit more structure the hiring that person worries you may have someone that's in the entity coordinator position right now that we're for the prosecutor work for the jail works for the whatever and maybe doesn't have all of the guidance and all the you know knowledge that they need and so what this all this does allow is it allows the local in the T. team. To hire and fire that person in consultation with the C. A. C. the local CACD or the adjoining CHC when I say hire and fire that means on a contract basis one thing to keep in mind in regards to contractors and. We talk about oversight and accountability and everything else if you are a contractor. There is not very much oversight by law there can't be or you'd be an employee. And so when we talk about independence and we talk about accountability in you know how this is shaking that up but maybe it's going to lessen it I I mean I don't believe that to be the case were actually honing in on that process of when that contract signed to make sure bodies an agreement that we hire the right person to have the knowledge needed that are able to follow through to make sure that we have the best results for those jobs the you know the child or children involved in the in the best when they can handle all the different components there so that's that's the way the bills written and I I think that addresses the question. Thank you senator. This bill you said you work for the state for thirty five years yes Sir of one department multa. How different departments supported when you retired were working I work for the state police I was the court Investigations administrator for the crimes against children Arkansas state police I also worked with DCFS within special investigations unit when they did transfer over with the legislation that brought the hotline and they special investigations unit to the state police to investigate child abuse I've also worked with DCFS I've been a child care licensing specialist also worked in the economic and medical part and DHS to currently I'm a casa volunteer I continue to try to help the children where I can the court sets and non paying positions so. The I don't wanna make you uncomfortable of but. Can you of briefly share of what led to your termination. The specific by animation I mean with C. A. C. right yes I've never been terminated from any other position I managed to work thirty five years with the state never have a written reprimand or an oral reprimand or any other kind of reprimand so I think the position I was in with state police at the time I left speaks to the fact that I was a valuable employee because that's pretty far up there so what happened is that I interviewed a child in when we interview children I was a forensic interviewer when we interview children we tell children that this is a safe room you're safe here with me and So as I interviewed this little boy he was about nine or ten he was very backward he's from northeast Arkansas very backward and reluctant to talk and we also show children and a timely anatomically correct drawings to elicit information from them and to discuss safety issues and he did not want me to even get the drawings out to show in those I got those that and he said I don't want to look at those but those that so of course I did and then we continue to talk he continued to tell me that nothing had happened to him he didn't want to talk to me so I left a little boy a lot of times what I would do is say you know if you decide you want to talk with me later I'm here just let somebody know you want to talk to mean you can come back and so we ended that it was my lunch time when I came out of the room so I went to lunch and left him with the advocate and I got a call that the little boy was having an exam and that he was screaming he did not want an exam. And. He did not make a disclosure there was really no reason for him to have an exam so I had to road this is where the problem comes in I had two roles and the MDT coordinator. I'm also the forensic interviewer at the center so I called the CACD supervisor and said. Are you aware that protocols have changed or have protocols change for doing sexual abuse exams that we discussed and she said they had not and then she had correspondence with doctor Karen farce about those exams and some correspondence back and forth and back and forth so. about a week later The committee the board met and I I don't know what happened I just know that I heard comments that the director I'm not saying a name that she said that she was humiliated and then another week and a half I continue to work another week and a half so apparently wasn't that bad so I continue to work another week and a half and then she called me and told me I was fired with no notice so. what she told me she didn't tell me I was fired over this she told me I was not a good fit at the center. And that was probably correct I was not. Okay then but overall if you believe in the goals of the CA cities on the way that they work I definitely believe in the CA sees I worked there for four years I saw what they do there are some employees there that are the best employees in the state I see people sitting here who are some of the best advocates for children in this state and definitely they do good work I just don't feel like this is a role that the CAAC should have I'm I'm not now not talking about them at all I think they do valuable work and I think that was just a mistake that particular day they had a visiting nurse I think that was a mistake that was made and I probably should have gone back to the office and addressed it with the. Director but we had we been kicking this around there were some other issues before that one came up so But I just want to clarify that issue because that came up last time and then they didn't have time for me to clear it up so. Senator Johnson you're recognized. Okay the. Right now are you working with the commission. Which is centralized in Little Rock and this would be with those seventeen CA sees around the state. A resident at one Commission centrally located can you see some advantages there there might be in that structure. Over that centralized structure haven't having those having those satellites close to you well actually from what I understand there will be one centrally located person in Little Rock to oversee the teams and I don't see that the coordinator would be working. Should not be working directly with the C. AC's as far as doing they M. Beaty coordinator position. Well my understanding and and the last the. Meeting that we had that each one of those C. sees would be grant granted. Right they will be I mean I guess they will be granted the money to pay for the position but I don't have I don't know if you'll have to ask them I don't know exactly how will be set up. I'm just trying to get clarity so it would seem to me like that would be a good vote better structure the centralized structure well we like I said we have access I have access to Nancy any time day or night I mean I have a question ten o'clock night and sent her a text message or caller and she answers so email text messages phone calls and any time I have an issue she's available. Thank you. In one thing that we've been doing that I didn't mention is we have had We've had Meetings like every. At two or three weeks every four weeks we we have a database that we keep all this information stored in and during this entire year we have been having meetings to work out how that data base can be better improve the working with the people who set up the database so I don't know how that information on how that will transfer over what will happen with that but but we've been doing that so That's just another way that they've tried to improve things so that we could enter all the information and all the statistics that the CA season eight. Other questions from the committee. See non thank you miss bill. You of robin Connell child advocacy centers. Speaking for. This call if you will identify yourself record I'm robin Connell in the director of the C. AC in White County. You. You're recognized thank you I just want to say that I've worked both with K. and merry Medlock for a number of years and not very highly respect the work that they do I just want to speak to to Mary's concerns I know she has said that there's not a C. A. C. and her area and she is right there's not a physical C. A. C. located in her area but there's a C. A. C. being mine that served her air for thirteen years I deeply care about the kids there and I will continue to part of the reason why I'm here today the resources at that community needs to help those kids in Jackson County I have the ability to give um those children there need access to trauma mental health at services I can help her get those if her law enforcement officers need help with forensic interviews or met medical exams and they can't drive there I have the ability to help them with remote access to things like that I care about the kids in her rural county just like I do and what your county that I served in Cleburne county that I served a light County. We're doing this because we want to serve children I understand there's a lot of things that we have to talk about and get worked out about contracts and money and oversight and all those things but the bottom line is that we're here today because we want to serve kids well and that means the kids in Jackson County also I also want to point out that in the situation in case spoke about in the center in Jonesborough when she had to step in and be the interim director for awhile that CHC was having some issues there but the commission was aware of they did not step in to help with that our agency did the chores advocacy centers of Arkansas as you heard Kate speak about they help they stepped in to help K. remedy that situation there we are dedicated on a statewide level to making sure advocacy centers follow best practices that are in duties are falling press practices because when we all do those things again more children are served. As far as the database that case spoke about earlier we have been working as a long for a long time with that database I have spent countless hours myself personally talking to the commission about how to better account for the services for kids. I'm the one that recommended to her that we keep track of if kids are getting mental health services of kids are getting advocacy and follow up services so again that is some of the input that come to the children's advocacy centers looking out for the best practices stick more kids can be served. I don't know if you have if you want to ask some questions about the grant process there is other things I'm happy to answer but I do want to to explain I'm also an MDT coordinator I'm a director of a CHC I will the way the bills right now right a grant to DFA with the input of my team Leding Leding D. F. and I know the best way that our team sees fit to serve kids in that county there are entity facilitation and they'll have the oversight of that they'll also see that I have the input of my team as well. Questions from the committee. Senator Johnson. I'll go back to the question that I have okay Sir Johnson could you pull your might close. I go back to the question I had okay just a minute ago. Rather than that being a centralized in Little Rock and her and communicate with. Little Rock AR whoever's there then one of those seventeen. Satellite is to that coordination would come through or at correct right thank you. Ms call the of I've heard both in testimony and behind the scenes of the compliments from the it. In the tees for C. A. C. M. for CHC for them these days but also the hard lots of mistrust of maybe may come from the process but the job. The the latest questions to be raised was the while it's been bills been amended to words they can still select and how are of the coordinator. The. Do you see K. and can you speak for CA cities about of the possibility of writing job descriptions the to manipulate the process. I think it would be the entire team's input on what they want the job description for the facilitator in that area to to be for use in a local. Absolutely okay. Other questions from the committee. See non thank you must call of speaking against Shane west of within the takes. You identify yourself for the record. Okay mine now sort order my name is Shane west I'm in the two coordinator for Conway County also worked for the coming county sheriff's office I worked there for nineteen years. I was a member of our MDT team from two thousand eight up until I took an ad administration job within the sheriff's office. the last. Five years I've been the coordinators I was asked to coordinate our team since I was no longer a part of the team as I needed somebody to coordinate and so I've been in that role for about five years my county is I guess kind of unique and I know we've touched on this before on the other committee I'm survived by the CHC of Conway and so This Is Your Conway service Faulkner County. On my County Feb your county and parish council. That's our catchment area I guess is what you would call. about a year and a half ago it was brought to me that we were going to be a part of a pilot project I know there will be some some disagreements on this but the pilot project Intel basically what this bill is due and our local team decided that we did not want to participate as we were told we would not have to participate if we didn't have to some of the things that were in there that we were told by the commission as I collaborated with the CACD to come up with this pilot project was that there would be one coordinator coordinating the four counties so when that is discussed In saying that that's not gonna happen That was one of the concerns that we have and I believe that that that is been backed away from that we know of at this point One of the Since since the in we were put in the pilot regardless of our local decision on what we wanted to do in our county. And so some of the concerns that we have is when we're now being told that our local team is going to have the decisions and have and be able to choose things. We were told that before I believe that was in a zoo meeting with our team the CACC and the commission on child abuse The main talking points people that we're talking about the polit was the CDC's on exactly what we're gonna do and how what was going to work Like I said to go back to it even though that we were told that we didn't have to participate somehow we still ended up in it We are currently about ten or eleven months I believe into that now of course with COVID and everything we've you know what's called strings on everybody But I believe that the commission was almost to the point where they agreed with what we had been saying from the get go that this doesn't work in rural counties you can you know. The cashier that we have has three different judicial districts and what works in Conway may not work in Conway County or Faulkner County. So We didn't see any change some of you are asking would there be changed well. We've been a pilot I am actually a contractor through the C. A. C. right now. Nothing has changed for our team we have continued to work just like we were supposed to be more following the practices that the commission has set up for us to follow. When we talk about oversight. When I see it when I can send something to the commission and the CHC and the commission is the only one that sees issues with documentation and media or the send back correspondence for me to fix it and resubmit it. To me that's oversight as far as how we the coordinators operate and I know that the racism of the coordinators here can attest to that one of them has already we mess up they they tell us to fix it and resubmit it. We are just a few coordinators here that have concerns about fallen under the CHC We've done a pole with our coordinators and we were over twenty plus coordinators that oppose this they represent over forty counties out of the sixty five to participate or that have a team I know those numbers vary depending on who you talk to as I'm sure that some people are telling others one thing until the others of the other so but we we made sure to reach back out and ask even with these amendments that are being made once again to touch on the Amendment I mean I think some people are are happy with that amendment that was added in there that the local teams will be able to chooser coordinator. But the problem is is that who is going to decide what those Qualifications are going to be I know that we keep harping on that but. One night when that's done you know how many people here under coordinators that may not meet that ensure the local teams going to be able to pay but but it is the poll. You know a lot of us here I've been doing this for years or been involved with our teams for years. Man if that comes to comes to qualifications that they're deciding for the local team sure the local teams going to get to make that decision. But it's going to be about the qualifications that somebody else sets. But I don't see anything yet but that that anybody has told us any differently that because somebody has to spearhead this thing and if if it can't be me before I'm chosen then who. So I know we just we've been kind of talking circles around the same thing but I can answer any questions or try to if it has anything to do with what we talk about Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr thank you Mr is there can you see anything in the bill that gives anybody the thirty to the to establish the qualifications limitations on who's hired outside of the entities himself the the members of the entities I was going through it and I was trying to find exactly where Where we talked about that issue of. So I'm still going through when I got called up here but There's nothing I don't think this is one way or the other. It's kind of a what I call is a of a loophole is a way that I see and I hope it's not enough and you know and I want to say this to real quick. I work well with my CACD We may not agree on this issue but the director there we've had several conversations and. And with my team as well in Conway County in we set out we said many times that we. We have to have RCA sees they have to be a part of this when I was an investigator they have to be a part of what we're doing. they're very important and I encourage it to the investigators that that work now in the office that I worked in when I see them they're working cases or I get reports I make sure that that they're utilizing R. C. A. SIS for for what what we can use them for. Other questions from the committee. Mr was I know we all had this concern before you came and testified but you did hear best call saying the that it was our intention to have the job descriptions come from the local. Of. Teams. yes I did hear her testify to that like I said I still go back to the beginning when we had a pilot project and we were told by them as well that we would have to participate less we wanted to so somehow or another Amon of of contract with the C. AC instead of the Commission now how that happened I have no idea. Okay any other questions from the committee. You're not thank you Mister west thank you chair and thank you committee of tests Fletcher with child left C. centers speaking for. Would you identify yourself for the record please test letter the director of the children's advocacy alliance and calmly splitter you're recognized I wanted to address a couple of things Senator Rice you asked about rule in metes and that you're really worried about the real communities for three of my four counties are rule I'm in the the catchment area that Mr west was just talking about. R. M. D. T. identified a need in them during County and we ended up opening a satellite in that community so that services could be provided there and families could come to their own community instead of having to travel a conflict. Excuse me. Several of those families that have the gas money if that they had to choose between paying for food for their family or getting to SEAC to get services they're going to choose food for their family which is rightly so. So we looked and we worked with our entity and we work to the county judge in that community and opened a satellite. Our board has looked at the possibility of other services or other areas in our service area that we might need to open an additional satellite or alter alternative alternative interview location Cullman county being one of those. Mr west talked a lot about the pilot project and just want to address that pilot project is under the commission sought under the CDC's. And he is correct to some extent there will there was misinformation misinformation given about this project by the commission not R. C. AC's. It went back and forth what we did not include. A regional model like what was originally discussed with the commission for calling County because those team member said they did not want someone outside their County coming into to be the coordinator we chose to keep it the way they wanted what they identified in their service area that was needed for services they lacked mental health services there are other services identified that's what we wrote in our pilot project when we wrote that through the commission which we were told because Conway County is in our service area it had to be included in some way. So it and I know that he says things have not been accomplished in the tender of ten to eleven months but what we have done is met with several of those in B. two members individually to find out what else is lacking in that community what else can we be working on and helping with. Excuse me one of the things identified was working with you for probable problematic sexual behaviors and I know that the team hasn't seen a lot of progress on it yet but our agency has met with an individual in our community that is looking to open a mental health service there that work specifically with you for problematic sexual behaviors because that is a need identified from that team. We've written it's you know it's time to write our vocal grant I wrote in a position for another mental health professional for our agency specifically to go two to three days a week into Conway County because that was another name mentioned by members of that team so I just want to reiterate that the pilot project is under the commission under the chapter information was given before I had an opportunity to talk to all of the entities we didn't talk to them at that point because it wasn't that project wasn't even approved by the commission so there wasn't anything for us to discuss with the teams. M. and at that I'm happy to take any questions. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Thank you I appreciate your testimony of. You said you you cover how many counties four four Fortner endurance or C. are not thirty I'm sorry commentary can have any judicial districts in those four counties. Three okay do you have any problem with. With that. We do not. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Miss what you're if you can speak for the CSA's. One of the things. Of. The. One of the concerns I have heard. Of moving forward it will lead to my next question of is. Also retribution of toward coordinators for. Being against this bill and testified against this bill that's on anything they should be worried about is it no and I've been asked to civically by members of the common council in DC if this bill passes is changing according to continue to be our coordinator and my response to every single person has been if this team still want Shane as the coordinator then that's what is going to occur. In the that leads to my next question because of I ask you and and Senator Dismang can. may want to touch on this is closing. The up. trying to listen to what people are saying and of. The end like to. It seems we got to see cities within the taste of and both are saying the others great people are the do good jobs but the. Very much divided on the subject. Of but what I'm hearing as a begin to put it all together. Is now we have the commission. What the and no opinion whether they're doing a good job not doing a good job. But right now the they're the independent third party and what we're moving to. Is. One of the parties kind of being the boss. Verses the independent third party were neither once the boss. Can you see the problem there. I don't see a problem there because we have in the C. coordinators are already currently employed by CDCs and have had very little to no issues in their communities we have coordinators are employed by the prosecutor's office employees employed by the sheriff's department and there has not seemed to have been issue with that up into this point but you see the theoretical philosophical issue Sir thank. Senator Johnson. What will the commission's role be in all this structure one forms. Think of the legislation passes the only piece that would have going forward is to be have a seat on the multi disciplinary oversight committee. And from there they say they're still responsible they they still provide training opportunities mandated reporter training things like that but they also provide domestic violence and they work with domestic violence and rape victims as well. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you misfortune thank you of questions questions for the chair yes Mr last meeting. The management touch tone and testimony not I I ask. If. DHS or any of the. The Y. S. whatever was going to be able to testify and and. I understand from what somebody said. There that clean neutral but it's also been brought out that you know. They could have given. Some basis for some things here did you ever get an answer to that. Of. I have talked to various people off the record. Secretary Ross I spent a whole lot of Monday Thursday trying to get comfortable with a lot of these issues but we do have both of. The they're not signed up to testify but I think they are here of sensible if anybody had any questions we both have DCFS and CACD both were not if anybody if any of the committee once asked them anything. I would the issue's going get go through your witnesses but I'll reserve that I might want to okay. Of and it. I'm we've got three more against from the NDTV's I want everybody you've come I want to be able to say what you want to say for more from them the taste of please keep in mind what others have testified to since this is our second meeting on this of and if you guys I don't want to keep you from testifying of. If you have something to add please do if not of. The consider of passing again but don't feel pressured not to testify Liz Wagner of NDT against. Would you identify yourself for the record please. You are recognized. You need to turn your Mike on police okay is it on now yes would you identify yourself again yes I'm was Wagner and I'm the entity coordinator for Fulton Izard in Poinsett county here in Arkansas. I want to take just a small it's just a different approach I know you guys have heard all about funding and structure and and all that and I want to talk to you. About my teams I have been I'm here on behalf of my actual in the two teams the people with skin in the game boots on the ground and. They're can they're very concerned there is absolutely no trust issues anymore between my teens and the CA cities they feel like they this was done behind their backs nobody came to them at all period Hey we have this idea we you know let's can we work together this is what we're thinking this was brought on and and just lay down the table for them and the only reason why they are even aware of this legislation is because I brought it to their attention our local CSAS have not reached out to our teams they have not said one thing about it so when I found out about it I took it to my teams they are one hundred ten percent opposed because. They don't feel what they feel like the C. sees are just as an equal part of the team as they are they're not any better they're not any worse they do not. Actually my teams have there are glaring issues within the CACC and the entity teams actually it's law enforcement but and there they they have we've discussed the medical exams forcing that still going on and I have actually had a and director and advocate and scold my law enforcement in a meeting or not partisan the participating the way they fought that the CC thought the law enforcement should I actually was in a meeting with my prosecutors last Friday when I had an investigator from a sheriff's office come in and he was so mad he had just gotten an allegation in he was trying to investigate it was not a clear cut allegation and all day long Friday he was hammered get this investigation done get this investigation done we want it done right now so he came to our prosecutors and was complaining and the prosecutor said you know the CSCs can wait we're not going to rush an investigation that might possibly put someone in prison for the rest of their life expressly if they are not guilty and. I'm actually going to facilitate a meeting tomorrow between the prosecutor and law enforcement in one of my counties to try and get them back to using because they've stopped and this is what's going to happen if this bill passes the law enforcement is going to stop using the C. A. AC's it's already happening in some of my counties but tomorrow I have a meeting to try to facilitate that relationship again and get them using the CI sees again and. I do want to ask one question that I believe Senator Ballinger would touched on so because the bill so vague that's why everyone has questions is so vague it doesn't point anything out we can't go to the bill to ask questions or to get our questions answered because it is just extremely by so my question is so we'll wait or will we not be CACD employees how is that going to work our teams or wanting to know but we can't answer those questions That today I mean I just don't I just feel like. Are the team's not worth it I mean as my law enforcement my prosecution in my mental health and my juvenile and I have I can't on my team as well and are they not did they not get a vote did they not get to say so how come nobody came to the team the people on the ground nobody came to them and said a word and now we're here and we've been presented this bill and pretty much saying take it or leave it well I can tell you what is going to happen if this bill passes they're going to leave it in the C. A. cities have to have law enforcement and prosecution they absolutely have to have them to be successful in I mean the damage that this bill has already cost I don't know if it's ever going to be fixed I don't know if it can be fixed I'm certainly going to try I'm trying to Morrow morning I'm going to try with my other counties as soon as I see what kind of. Congress I make tomorrow and there's there's just. My teens feel like there will be no neutrality if this bill takes place they feel like that this is being crammed down their throat and. There there I have I matter of fact I had a meeting in Poinsett county mental health was on I believe they were somebody from a mid south. When she found out in the meeting as we all did that and her kiddo who she's been established within set up with and and and however they had their insurance paying her kiddo was not only seen heard but CACD said set them up for more mental health therapy in cricket council and did not notify the originating therapist so she what we were just like right now what I don't know what to tell you you know so she took it back to her boss and I don't know where they're at with that we've not had that second discussion there's just so many unknowns in this these teams are running scared and my fear is no matter who the coordinator is whether it's me or the person next door. If these teams this band then there's going to be I can't tell you how many children that's going to fall through the cracks and yes they will fall through the cracks because there are not see a season every single County and the rule counties can't get to the C. AC's there are not mobile lab set up in my areas yet don't know if there will be there's been mention of it but right now who's going to take care of these kids if this bill passes and. the teams this band. Because it is ultimately about the teams as well as the children of Arkansas and that's my main my main concern is keeping these things together so that they can help it doesn't matter who's coordinating. It matters what the actual teens want they don't want this Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr so what in the bill makes for the teams to spam. No no nothing in the bill makes the teams this band but they're going to they're going to disband and stopped and it was hard to get all the players to the come to the teams to begin with when we were building these things it was not easy Senator Ballinger was not easy at all and the fact that they feel like they're being railroaded now and they don't have a good relationship with RCA six now I'm hoping that will change but it is not good right now so you expect people to to to bold because we pass legislation yes I do who is going to be I expect law enforcement to fall off I expect you to about like local police won't show up and what won't work with these teams anymore because we yes even in bigger counties we have trouble getting all the players to the team as it is I mean I believe that's one problem with the C. A. season cricket council was getting prosecutors to show up for their meeting I mean yeah these. This is not. Something that's taken lightly. They are extremely upset they would be here today but the teams are so rule they can't afford to be gone you know we only have a handful of law enforcement officers they can afford to be gone DCFS and and CCD I can't they're not allowed to speak out. Other questions from the committee right to draw us. Sure I don't get this with the soft but I I've. Director Martin DCS a if not like I said DYS while ago. My slip. But I would like mission Martin DCS I have come up because she's got a leave and shortly. Yes Mr Warner we're going to dismiss you temporarily because I do have I know I have one question for you maybe the only question we have left but we're going to dismiss you temporarily and bring of. The director Martin a pair of. She's on the schedule on. Okay thank you will get a. Dr Martin if you would identify yourself for the record. Yes Sir thank you for accommodating I'm Mr Martin I'm the Director of the Division of Children and Family Services. And I'm happy to take questions. Senator us. **** art. If you follow this did you get this. I know you're busy busy busy did you get to follow any the first meeting there enough about it I definitely heard about it my phone started blowing up last week at you guys were meeting I did not go back and watch the entire thing I didn't expect you to what we didn't know. Concerns and I'm sure you've heard does you heard it here today you know I greatly respect you in your work along with other people. CDC's. And in the days that I didn't know what they were before. You know rattling off because you work with them every day I can tell you about a lot of the seventy two that will now. You've heard. With this the last testimony concerned about. No neutrality. About vague language in the bill. You for concerns that I have also. About rural counties. And concerns that there doesn't seem to be some some have. There's a problem. I thank. That probably might be not widespread and it may be widespread you've got to have a law enforcement by. Wrecked that's right can you address what I've just laid out in your professional knowledge in please be is direct I've said this before when you ask the right questions you get shocking truthful after some time. I know you work. For government. But I would appreciate any help you can bring on the subject this is serious Senator I thank you for the question I in my working closely with the CDC's I do believe that they are very committed to a statewide continuation of NBC and I do think that they are very committed to strengthening the MBTA's I do think because there is local control of the entity's whether I think there will be local control whether it's current or moving forward with this bill I'm specially with the entities having oversight of hiring it's that a majority vote by the local team M. either way there have been issues and I think there will continue to be things that have to be worked through with the C. A. C. to make this work so I don't think we have the perfect system I think that this ETC's will face some challenges and and creating local teams and making sure that they still have local control but those are some of the challenges that are currently faced with that having oversight and the commission but I do think the species are very committed to having in the eighties and every county and I think they know that we need to M. duties I'm not worried about law enforcement or prosecutors not participating because the species are contracting or employing the term contracting is in the bill for the MDT coordinator but frankly we have some areas that struggle with law enforcement involvement or prosecutor involvement so that's it challenge that is faced by some indeed he's currently that they try and work through so I. I don't have any reason to believe that the CEC's are not super committed to making sure that there is an entity and that local control still still happens. Again I'm not questioning C. A. sees. Passion and then go to do the job but. I'm looking at something that is just does not seem is seem to be as defined tell me this because I hadn't been on in on any of this. And I should have asked Bill sponsor and I appreciate bill sponsors and and those carrying this plans. As this had any work through before how how long before this session I understand I have got the deal were former senator Williams you Senator Dismang and and my friend represented by or on the boards these but how much legislative work is been done on this. The air some of this out before this session do you happen to know well I know that you're used to me being super involved in all things child welfare but on this particular bill because the species have a strong partnership with us I did trying take is Baxi on this particular bill and so I haven't been as involved in the weeds on every word like I normally am a child welfare child welfare bills but I knew that I will say that the executive director Elizabeth fully did reach out to me before the bill was filed to ask for a quick review of the bill it's changing a substantially I think there's been three and maybe today is the fourth amendment on it but I was not as involved as I normally am and that was by my own choosing not necessarily because of the C. AC's or anybody else involved. Thank you in register our dispatch somebody if they can give me that answer that what do we do about four because again as an amended bill. How much time was spent on this to see about these problems or hearing about now my work smoother. That was other questions Senator us I would just like somebody to answer that before we get through testimony okay. Other questions for director Martin. Dr Martin of miss Wagner brought up a something that I will ask her about but it's was one of my concerns as good as all these people are no neutrality we think she meant by that. So I think that she meant because that CA seeds are a member of the M. Beaty that and that we would then be contracting or facilitating I have heard concerns that because their employees of the C. AC or contractor that maybe that would take away their neutrality since they also sat on the MDT I think it could be mitigated but they answer your question I think that's what she means. So trust. One other quick question the testimony she gave and other things come down sometime when she's said she they were tow. To get that case done. One in the best interest does that surprise you I think what she said and maybe I missed heard was that DCFS is told not to speak out and if you saw my face it was like oh my goodness I'll be finding out who's on her team in addressing because DCFS from say office does not instruct the CFS that they cannot speak out from it on the NDTV's in fact we encourage local partnerships and we would encourage them to speak up and speak out and participate so I had already planned on going back an interesting as in making sure that staff understand that they should be a valued member of their MDT team that speaks out about cases in advocates for kids thank you. Other questions for director Martin. Hearing none thank you record thank you. Bring Liz Wagner back up. Miss one what did you mean by no neutrality. And she she was right I mean the fact that they are in fact teammates they are part of the team. Me as a coordinator I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm just the coordinator I don't have a dog in the hunt other than facilitating the team and making sure everybody comes together and can get along and get their issues worked out and bit if I'm eight and that goes back to my question that I asked a few minutes ago are we employees of the C. A. C. R. you know I we're not for sure how that would even work but if we are in fact employees of the C. A. C. I'm going to interrupt you Sir at this point because I didn't let Senator Dismang come answer that question a moment ago I want to get Dr Martin appear but of. Let him answer your question on that about if you can about. That relate or relationship so Page nine there is no employer employee relationship these are contract contract workers I mean that that's the way the bill stipulates that's what you are that requires independence when so that C. A. C.. Was over injecting themselves an employee relationship that B. five is employees but as a contract labor there's only so much that you're allowed to dictate to a contractor I mean that's just the basic line because once you blur that line the we come an employee mean one things I'd like to. And also I mean so as far as independence in collaboration and all those sorts of things that mean the bill may be wrong first and I think I want to send the stuff that's my son's medicine. I'll touch on some of this is just a little bit when we awfully do make a close but. Again this requires so much integration is hopefully building a better NDT unit one that's more cohesive because you requiring it to be the legislation dictates that it shall be and I think that's a good thing that is something that does not exist right now I mean. We can make the same argument that. The M. Beaty coordinator that is also employed for the prosecutor's office where's the independence the record under that were sent to prison. Surjit local jailers the independence I mean we can make this argument over and over and over and it's with every scenario so this bill right now Senator is that the majority make that decision let's say that for the closing up a book unorthodox and bringing you to the table well that act to answer the the simple question but and I don't you know I'm not trying to cut you off what is that is closing arguments Sir. Mass is about terms but. Of this. Is anyone else have a question for miss Wagner. I'm gonna ask you will miss one or what did you want to say and about him saying you know we work for the prosecutor's office the difference is is the prosecutor's office we're not contracted through them so and if I was to lose my job at the prosecutor's office I would still be the MDT coordinator if I was to lose my job as a coordinator I would still be employed through the prosecutor's office the my prosecutors show up and they or their voice on the team I'm strictly the facilitator strictly the facilitator that's the difference in the way it is now and another thing MDT now there's never been one complaint regarding your two thousand nineteen server that you guys ask for last Wednesday it's in your packet. Great response we were doing everything great we are practice and best practices we are going we are up with national standards. There's never been an issue so if there's not if it's not broke why are we fixing it and if we are fixing it why are we fixing it with the input of the actual MDT teens the people who matter. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you miss Wagner thank you next we have run to Thomas speak against them duties. Your identify yourself for the record Rhonda Thomas. And the Greene County entity coordinator thank you miss Thomas you may proceed and I'm against this bill obviously I have a really unique team I'm actually a law enforcement officer as well I have been for twenty six years in Greene County our team started out is the Greene County child abuse task force in nineteen ninety two. And that team has had three coordinators over the course of nineteen years so we're all very familiar with our team members and we have some of the same team members that were on the team back in the nineties our team merged into the grand council NDT standing we've merged together when I started dandy tease. And. My team was not consulted nor warm most of the teams in the state to my knowledge we had contact with almost every team in the two coordinator the only coordinators that were contacted were the ones that work for the CAAC already and that is why the teams are so upset about this legislation they were not talked to they were not ask about any of it. We are concerned about the neutrality because at this point I do work for the police department but if I get fired from the police department tomorrow I was still be the entity coordinator and so it's a very unique situation. We don't know how that is going to affect our teams. Also about the pilot program the pilot program nine been run by the commission but it was brought to the commission by the CAA season Arkansas and I can't talk anymore about that because I wasn't involved but I do know that they are the ones that brought the team or the commission the pilot program. And wanted to do that pilot program. And I lost my train of thought so I can't think of anything else I need to say any questions for the committee. Some was or was not trying to follow but not to. Okay thank you miss Thomas of. Lindsey Shelton MDT speak against. All right okay thank you miss Shelton of Theresa Johnson N. B. T. speak against. Slash. She left okay that brings us to Jeff Rosenzweig. Speaking against. He is the last ones under Jefferson so I Arkansas Association defense lawyers and I'm not going to say anything about and the ETC's but this bill as it is as I mentioned the other day this bill is really asking for trouble in the crew. In the area of criminal justice and let me explain to you some Trojan horses that are in this bill first a yeah Hey you have a situation where when you have a criminal investigation if you outsource it to a private agency which is what this is a private agency has no obligation necessarily to comply with criminal discovery requirements and specifically a private agency has no Brady obligation Brady versus Maryland which imposes on the prosecutor's the duty to provide exculpatory evidence I'll give you an example of exculpatory evidence the lady who testified before about the young boy who was saying nothing happened that's exculpatory evidence that's Brady information of the prosecutor has the duty to provide exculpatory exculpatory information to the defense will law enforcement agencies in other words a public law enforcement agency the of Washington County sheriff for instance with referred dealing with Mr Derek he can ask them and for a for the discover for the Brady information and that and anything they have is imputed to him in other words he's responsible for that but outsourcing this to a private agency messes that up completely they test they said the other day that they were doing up part of investigations and then what I mentioned when I quoted them as saying that then they denied that they were doing investigations but if they're doing so called forensic interviews if they're doing so called forensic medical exams they're deeply and. Filed in the investigations now what now with that in mind let me point you to if you have a copy go to page six this is important because the shows the the an example of the Trojan horse that's in this bill with regard to criminal justice okay section six starting at one twenty seven a Page six it talks about the children instead of the Commission waving the requirements of what subsection a they're allowing the C. A. cities to waive the requirements of subsection may now they don't have subsection a in the in your bill but what is subsection a sense among other things are just as a public entity or nonprofit entity is eligible for a contract under nine five one oh seven if the entity has that lists the number of things one of them is of has a signed memorandum of understanding as provided in nine five one ten you don't have one ten there let's go to one ten. One ten says before a child safety center may be established under this chapter a memorandum of understanding regarding the agreements on the levels of participation shall be executed among DCFS CACD represents of law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney now what you're doing here is you're allowing CACD. Because they can waive under under one oh nine Hey which includes one ten you're allowing them to cut the prosecutor al the person who has the Brady obligation to hand over exculpatory evidence the C. A. SIS can just say we're cutting the prosecutor out because we're waving all this requirements of understanding under one oh nine a in one ten and we're just you know we'll just hand over what we want to hand over this is a recipe for trouble and I can guarantee you you'll have the trouble. And you'll have all sorts of hiding of evidence and because you're cutting out the person the entity the prosecuting attorney who has the Brady obligation and they can freeze them out you couldn't freeze them out or before but this will allow you to do so. I'm happy to answer any questions. Garner. Thank you so before the commission could waive that. Correct the Committee but the commission is the commission is a state agency okay and they have all sorts of stakeholders in the process and I'm not aware of a of any waiver of that's been done because they're too many there there too many people who got on that commission who got obligations to the system and to fairness okay but instead you're outsourcing this to a a private group which you have almost no control and then saying you and allowing them to waive all these requirements thank. So Mr Rosenzweig. What you're saying is the same thing. If done by the the commission. Is not a problem and if I'm not if what I'm saying is wrong to strong straighten it out. Is not a problem because. There. The Commission over saying they're not doing investigations except for the is that what you said that's what that's the that's part that's part of what I'm saying now someone's if someone's gonna cheat which is what a Brady violation is cheating of your if they really want to do so you may not be able to stop them but you can make it hard you can make it harder and the more people you have to have an independent obligation to the truth and the proper functioning of the of the law enforcement and judicial system. The the more likely that cheating will not occur like Mr during hero citizen off on the side he's I have the fullest admiration for him he is not going to allow a Brady violation to occur under his watch okay but if he's cut out. Then there's not anyone there who's got the Brady obligation. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none Mr rose what we appreciate your testimony. Senator Dismang. I just for a quick response to that cece's cannot cut out the prosecutors because if they did they would lose their accreditation and cease to exist so I don't I don't believe that to be a possibility there is one circle back some points actually Senator Rapert said I think he was spot on But what we're really not talking about there was a lack of accountability and oversight in really true structure to both the in the tease the CHC involvement in a number of different items that existed that's why this bill was created but I think the bill's progress to become better through time I mean I think there's because I'm additions to this that provide the correct amount of oversight and coordination with ever fo the other folks that are on the into the local boards and then also have with the C. AC's just having oversight capacity for instance on the hiring or the selection of the contract the usual for the court enters position again I think it helps and we this thing was parked at UAMS you MS and not ask for this they didn't seek it out there was really no other place for to go so whatever personal loan I'm assuming set this up he knew you a message over there and they have some stuff going on so I'm report this over it UAMS there is no real reason for that this bill then takes it moves it to DFA again through amendments in discussions with members that's why that happened partially DFA who actually handles grant applications on a regular basis this falls right inside of there will house in addition to that there's required reporting that does not exist into I can member whose point earlier. If there's something happening or one of these local indie D. coordinators bills violated in whatever way or whatever is happening there is a place to go now there is no where to go and we talk about balance in this court enters position and with the heavy hand of the CA season they're going to be the guys that are you know really in charge of these folks and on and on and on well what we say about the heavy hand right now. If I'm an employee for the sheriff's department and the coordinator who has they have a hand in that situation if I work for the prosecutor and I'm contracted with the M. Beaty quarter who has so anything and in that situation actually I think this levels the playing field large and again lots to do with amendments that were blocked by the members of this committee I actually think. And and and also from the props prosecutors but again I I mean I I think I'm generally close but I think that through the discussion that we've had we have a much better bill then was even originally present and I think it strikes the right balance increase oversight again that has not existed to this point with that I'm closing would appreciate a good vote. The motion to pass on Senator Ballinger. As amended second from senator garner to discussion. you're recognized. Thank you chairman I know I ask for your heartburn I know there's a person here in grand county was for my district I sincerely believe that the entities feel like they were left out the process they feel like that there's issues with this. I it's more burn about. Allowing the nonprofit can have control over this. The thing I think convinced me to support this bill was the fact that I had no idea this commission existed before had discussions. I had no idea if there's accountability element to it or not it's appointed by the governor which means we were completely left out of that process who got to say in that and more importantly it was going to this Quiles ACT government organization rather D. F. and day. I thank now assuming we passes and becomes law I know how the process works I know who's accountable and I know that agency I can go get in their heads if this is going bad okay we'll know that because bring us information by reporting. What I think is very clear is that other states do this and it seems to be a better system but I will make the cabbie out that if this doesn't work and entities have these issues bring to us discuss it with us will be able to hold them accountable will be to go D. F. and ES and say these grants are going to on their independent contractors you can't treat him like that or self Arkansas within getting the help they need to protect children hopefully that doesn't happen but we will be able to do that and ultimately what don't think this is the perfect way to do it it's a step in the right direction you know I understand share some concerns I think for limited or something Mr. discussion. I would add that. I appreciate a. The the sponsors of. Amending the bill of making it a much better bill I think there are still problems of but with the amendments I'm committed. The we've also created a video record I don't know which way the vote will go we've also created a video record that identifies the problems and the answers that were given as to what this does we certainly and you know we at work with this every day forget that others are novices but of certainly a better job of by in it could have been done and I'm not talking about the sponsor of the and will have to be done going forward if this passes of any other discussion. Syndros. We've got a core mayor and and we've got three members. Not here I'm. I suppose this would go through. If we had other members here anyways I'm I'm not gonna stand in the way of it I I. I would go what you said I think it's still got warzone it is my term. I sat on a jury trial one time it it and by the mid much as this one has I wish I could get you with I'll say this. If there are. People who. Don't do the right thing and it's already been said. Come to us and I'll I'll be one and. That will do everything I can to correct it I don't like changes where they're not absolutely necessary we're told they're necessary. But the. I thank the state should have had more by and I think it should read more time on the front end but I'm not the expert. Any other discussion. I think Senator Rapert said that will. And I know that The sponsors will be watching it to. and the Tom this is confidence in them. All those for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried congratulations Senator Dismang a pastor bill thank you Mr chairman. Okay. Of. The representative Gazaway our apologies of we have to balance between drive in this committee so hard and the needs of everybody else will sue you first thing Wednesday if you're. In the the right away he'll he'll wait of we'll be back here nine thirty Wednesday or a phone call of the chair we're adjourned.