Senate Judiciary

Sir Clark you're recognized to explain the amendment to Senate bill five five five. Yes of. Mr chairman of after we had sent this bill to the house of Senator Ballinger actually. Brought to my attention that someone had brought to his attention that it. Here to the way it was written that possibly that the the sign at an employer's parking lot that said that you couldn't Kerry could still prevent you from having a gun and in your vehicle which was the whole purpose of the. The first bill and of so of the bill Ryder agreed that that could be the case and so we fix the language. And to the original to get it back this is that uh you can not prohibit. An employee from having a. Of farm in their employer's parking lot as long as it's in a lot vehicle and out of sight. Okay you for an explanation amendment any questions. Anybody here to speak for against the amendment or the bill. Okay your clothes to amendments yes I would closed the and I make a motion do pass card concur in the house amendment got a motion to concur with House ma'am Senate bill five five five any discussion going to second by Senator rising discussion all in favor say aye opposed motions carried thank you Mr thank you members of the committee. A number of bills that there are people here to testify for and against Senator Garner or you're ready to run it Senate bill six thirty three yes Sir I have a bunch I'm sorry you'll just run this one and come back whatever you want of yeah let's just run this one and we'll go from there. Ready when you are Mister chairman. US senator garner you're recognized present your bill this is Senate bill six twelve six twelve right now we have in the provision that if a child is basically uncomfortable that is under the age twelve because of the nature of the crime and who the defendant may be they allows a closed circuit Garland. He's. Six. These will that was the first in the General responded at. Well I think we both got the wrong bill Senator Garner I think it is six sixty eight that we've got people here yes yes we do the are you prepared to run six sixty eight yes Sir I am okay can have you got Senate bill sixty eight six sixty eight yes Sir I do but let's do it because we've got people came this morning for it in some other bills. We'll try to get some of them out if we can perfect time when you're ready Mister chairman. You are recognized to present Senate bill six sixty eight Senator thank you chairman this bill. It's something a topic we've already dealt with this committee not too long ago there is a very good idea and well intended bill ram five representative Fite and Senator Ballinger dealing with a hit and run incident. But I thought there was one big fundamental flaw with how that we actually passed a law it has to do with the men's raha element that is excluded what we did is create a strict liability crime with a class B. felony forty if you. If there were you don't fall the law specifically and the person has a serious injury or is injured let me tell you what this means if you look at the section a coded references which are required to when the law is you're required to pull over within a certain amount of time. And then actually go back to the scene and and you have to do certain elements at that time stay in there for a time no less than thirty minutes and other requirements. The way we set up the law is. If for any reason. I'll say it again any reason you do not fall that you are guilty of a Class B. felony. There is no defense that you can bring up there is no argument against that. That means so much think about hypothetical. If on the way home you drop to a populated city. And completely unbeknownst to you you accidentally injure somebody. If you ever bylaws committee will deport over immediately. You would have done that but if you do not know you have no way of knowing. And I can prove that you're the calls that serious injury death you're going to jail up to twenty years no matter what you cannot hire a lawyer to argue otherwise you cannot bring up a defense there's nothing but you are guilty. How to think about one other scenario this come up as. State Capitol there's a lot of protesting riots in other situations happen here the State Capitol. So you're leaving one night and there is a violent riot outside of the state capitol. And you in the middle that started your court tacked. You drive away. Worried about your safety of you and your your people may be in there which if all your way drive now you accidentally hit somebody. You had in which your mirror your back tire barely clip some and I can prove it physical injury or death. You're required in order not to be a failing to come back to that scene of that crime in wait for at least thirty minutes until the law enforcement shows up. If you do not you are guilty. When there is no defense to it. This is a very very very tough legal standard that we do not apply to a lot of cases with this severity of punishment there are few or no statutory rape if the person is under certain age and you commit the sexual act with them there's no real defense that is well enough they were holding a ID saying they're eighteen years old and they are buying the world tell you that the secretary you commits sexual act you're in trouble so I want to act like it's not a complete waving of the hand of criminal offenses don't you think about something. Under Arkansas law. Manslaughter is a lesser penalty and we gave for this hit and run scenario here. And that's a horse penalty is something we need to fix it's not because we don't care about people who have hit and run it's not that we don't care about making justice we need to add an element so they purposely or recklessly you knew they were leaving that crime scene which I think is easily provable get the facts on the ground can back it up and then you move forward with a better law to a very good idea without take any questions. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr that I I feel bad because you know I knew that you were doing this I salute to this bill but I don't think it at the end and sometimes a bill to maybe does something about the best way to do DO something or in my opinion doesn't mean that I'm that that you know honestly it it opinions are just pinions but in this case I think that it it does more than really what you want to do because if you look it says you know persons involved in the accident who knowingly or recklessly causes serious physical injury or death so you actually increase the mental state before you can ever get to this point you have to you have to actually knowingly or recklessly causing injury rather than knowing your reconciliation of the crime right so so the so the the concern that we had in committee we discussed this is that you have this crime that is a really high standard that you have a I have a a that has no mental state with so you can have no clue that you committed a crime and leave and still be mailed with crime because of strict scrutiny when and and we've discussed that it's possible that be thrown out of court which so if you don't want to be trying court you may want to mid. But I think this bill actually makes where you you have to have knowingly or recklessly injure the person before before you'd ever be guilty of that crime. And I think that that I think that that really does back up and do sort of what what was the what was accomplished previously. Marty would that would be is if you are any kind of hit run situation where you know that you did it. Either you knew or you should know because you're high on pills or or drunk which reckless would cover. Then that is de facto saying you should have known you calls that physical injury you yeah I I'm I'm I think we're on the same page as to as to what you're trying to accomplish a lot like I said I don't know if I like the idea of doing it now but I understand why you're doing it but I don't think that this is the lead language here is really doing it right. And and that's just they are you know you but some of the attorneys in the room and so you'll end up with three times as many opinions as you get attorneys but yes Sir. Other questions from the committee. Senator I'm wrecked this Senator Ballinger do you. And Senator Garner but mainly you of. So you don't have the same concern I'd like to think I may have been about the only no vote on this bill of. The. If you don't know that anything's happened of so what is the if this isn't a proper wording. What is. I'm not sure exactly but I think that probably probably put in the maybe a separate paragraph like leave everything the way it was put in a separate paragraph that says you know to to get to the level This the Titan level that you put in that are presented knowingly leave the scene and I honestly have not put I haven't done the work to put it together but but I will but this would essentially and to me you have to it can't be an accident that you hit the person and then you leave the city it has to be either knowingly or recklessly is hitting the person and then leaving the scene is what what this bill would do that so I I think there's a mate way to do it it's going to be very disappointing to some people that health care that other bill for to do that much but this really really I think takes it back further than we were before I think I see your point you have to know that there's injury been calls not necessarily that you that you recklessly calls injury but you have to know I think that was intent that you have to know that injury it's been calls. And I think that's right and like I said you know at the Senator Garner had told me he was filed this bill I'd I'd assume the bill would be coming up I should read the bill before right now but it and so that's my fault for not putting it out but I do think it has a tendency to garner's done this all of this will include me on this bill where'd pointing out things that that are flaws here's. So he deserves absolutely. I would argue that. If you know you hit somebody right in any kind of scenario if you know it okay I look up the review I see the guy falling off the bike then you can assume that you knew that you calls it an injury and by doing so it's your responsibility at that time to pull back to how they going to get the facts at that there's a G. in a north western I think South Dakota who's involved in this hit run right in the AG said I hit a deer I don't know I don't know what happened he's currently elected to Republican. And the the police point out that didn't gentleman's sunglasses were actually inside his vehicle his glasses the guy was wearing and how would you not know what you hit somebody right so I think there is clear evidence to show they knew what they heard somebody in that kind of scenario and then that would come back to do it you look at like physical damage to call or was there blood on the scene what's the conditions on the road all this is important because it adds in you thinking about what actually if the conditions on the ground how the person reacted on the law that we passed that will going to affect that is taken off the table you can't bring up any of that defense in your dying as soon as you hit that person and you do not pull over for whatever reason you're guilty you're guilty you are guilty there's no other way to argue it that's kind of what we pass a law that's why I think it's of something we really really need to fix this might be a better way to roll it out I can agree with that I think it's serve same effect I'm more than happy to amend it but I think the principle behind it is is so important that we do that. Senator Hendren you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman so it in a couple places in the bill it refers to section B. of this section subsection B. of this section we don't have section B. what is section B. section be changed whenever they pass The New that that Senator Ballinger passed let me see if I had a pulled up make sure don't go away. But basically it's was the previous subsection a yeah the one click on a bill it messes it up so it's basically this the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall immediately stopped the vehicle at the scene of the accident or close their over as possible there shall remain with an immediate return shall but then shall immediately return and in every event shall should remain at the scene of the accident until he or she has to fill the requirements of twenty seven fifty three one oh three that's the point where you have to give an ID get to stay here to make sure their person to law enforcement as a couple other requirements now Bob's bill changed a couple elements that this is the current law that we haven't changed and bylaws but generally that's Baltz bill adding in serious injury and injury that's the the nexus of it so. In in everything but a couple spots as to exactly how I just explained it is the requirement you have to do so basically section B. is the requirement to stop and not hit and run stop you have to stop within a reasonable time go back to the scene of the accident did you have certain requirements on this on the ground of the given ID stay in their form preschool MALOCH time which cannot be less than thirty minutes for certain sections of the elements there that is required under this if not then you're violating that section which then makes this a guilty conviction. But you basically added the knowingly or recklessly to what we had before yes it is I'll talk about changing it for just any like any injury. But the current level but as I explained before allows a strict liability do that one court case which I'm working on the name of it. I can live with that even though it's not perfect I don't want to do too much with this but when it's such a more dramatic penalty I thought we had to have a mental element in there okay thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none we have some folks signed up to testify against the bill Stacey Baker explained. We had representative fight but she. Texted that she'd give her remarks to some of the other people in the. She was fine not testify just to be clear on the record of. This section can you identify yourself record. My name is Stacy Bankston. You may remember me from my testimony in support of house bill fifteen of five which is now ACT five fifty eight. I'm here today in opposition of Senate bill six sixty eight which would amend ACT five fifty eight to include intent. Adding intent would open a loophole. In the law that we sought to close. When I started advocating for this law change a few years ago even a few months ago. I have to admit my a. I'm not an attorney. I'm a mother. The mother who spends every holiday and birthday at a grave site. I get out of my car. I lay on the ground that covers my nineteen year old son's grave. And I clicked blades of grass. As I cry and scream and asks the dear lord why. After the tears will come anymore I get up dust myself off I take a deep breath and I move forward every day with a mission. My advocacy for ACT five fifty eight was to hold drivers accountable and to send a clear message with any traffic law that is unacceptable to leave a human being. Either dying or dead on Arkansas roadways and not stop. To render aid. The impact on victims and their families is extensive if you survive you may lose all previous cognitive functioning ability to walk talk or function productively in our society. There's mounds of medical bills in hours of physical occupational and mental health therapy. The impact of loss is too great to calculate in dollars in tears. As a mother I have been denied a future with my son. I will never witness who graduate college. Get married or have children. The impact is permanent. The man who killed my son and left him on a highway has been able to spend the last two Christmases with his family. I've missed the last five. With my child. An average of fifteen lives are lost per day due to hit and run incidents that's five thousand four hundred and seventy five human lives per year according to the US department of transportation. And that's to committee. My mission today is to be a voice for countless victims who no longer have one due to someone's heinous act. Act five fifty eight is about valuing human life it is a human issue. Life is precious priceless and irreplaceable. Hit and run incidents happen in a moment but the consequences to victims and their families last a lifetime. If you hit something in or on a roadway you stop it's that simple. I'm respectively respectfully ask that you vote no on Senate bill six sixty eight and I thank you for allowing me to speak here today. Questions for this witness. Thank you misspoke scent of. Kimberly. Mondale. You would identify yourself for the record. Kimberly Mendell. And I'm here to speak against Senate bill before you proceed Senator Hendren they distorted that House Committee of and I'm gonna go present that bill so we're going to change chairs here and then you you can proceed. Service. Sorry. The substitute in so if you take your name one more time for the record you're recognized thank you very much Kimberly Mondale I'm the widow of John Mendell he was a cyclist who was killed insurer would in July of twenty nineteen as you recall when I was here just barely two weeks ago speaking on behalf of house bill fifteen oh five we had only been married fifty eight days. When he was tragically killed by hit run driver the person is as just agree cap is in Pulaski County jail awaiting trial and the effects of House Bill fifteen oh five which is now ACT five fifty eight would not impact our case because our case is already working through the court system but I testified it just two weeks ago on behalf of that piece of legislation because it would help others. When I was here just barely two weeks ago I had no intention of being back here again especially so soon. But one with this bill was filed just last Friday I feel the need to come and really advocate against this we were overjoyed when House Bill fifteen oh five passed both the house and Senate judiciary committee's. Per with flying colors it passed the house in the Senate and it was also officially signed by governor Hutchinson this last Monday we actually had the bill signing event at one thirty today the official ceremonial bill signing event where we were able to have a picture made with the governor as he ceremoniously signed the bill. Just four days after and he signed the bill officially last week this bill was filed and we were absolutely devastated. By this this bill will literally on DO everything we advocated for with ACT five fifty eight by adding the words knowingly or recklessly into the law you are adding a level of intent and it would be basically impossible for a prosecutor to prove. That the person did knowingly do what they do to cause serious injury or death I'm not an attorney I'm not gonna pretend to be one but that's my understanding of it last time also when I was here we heard a lot of conversation around the Stivers Court cases servers versus state court case and I actually again look that up I'm not an attorney but I read this Supreme Court's opinion on that and that actually is more in our favor. It in in just alarming ways in that case we had a a person who was convicted of a hit and run who was appealing his case to the Arkansas Supreme Court and part of his argument was that the jury should have considered intent whenever they made the ruling in that case in the Supreme Court actually over width over did not overturn his conviction and stated very clearly that the intent was not needed I'm not going to read you this six page summary but I'm going to read you a few sentences out of this again this is the state supreme court's ruling the language of the statute itself does not explicitly enunciate any particular mental state rather it states that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or injury to any person shall immediately stopped the vehicle at the scene of the accident this mandatory language is a clear indication. That the accident causing drivers mental state is your relevant. The Supreme Court later so goes on to say finally we add to the trial court was correct to refuse Stivers Pro offered instruction because it was not a correct statement of the law. At five fifty eight was a great bill it was a much needed overdue bill and it's a great bill that needs does not need to be touched at this point. As a victim we are very upset and very disheartened that were here again trying to advocate to try to prevent something like this from occurring. Over the last twenty months since my husband died I have been blessed with multiple opportunities to share his story and I've been more than happy to do so as I stated last time when I was here that my hope and my prayer is to not only keep his memory alive but to bring about a positive change. That's what I did when I sat in this chair just two weeks ago my mission today however is the total opposite of that instead of advocating for a possible change I am here to try to prevent a negative one from occurring. I read a lot of different things about grief and a lot of different things about a victims over the last course of the twenty months and there's one quote that really stands out and really sums up my whole purpose for being here today. As follows master be hold and it says quote the dead cannot cry out for justice. It is the duty of the living to do so for them. I'm here representing my husband who cannot be here. I am here representing all the other victims and their families who have unfortunately pave the way ahead of me and I am here representing those victims and their families who were tragically find themselves walking in my shoes after this. I'm asking you guys today to please vote against this this is an unnecessary bill our bill is perfectly fine this is a bad bill and the only one who is going to benefit from this bill is the criminals at the very expenses of the victims and we have been through enough already thank you. Thank you as soon Senator Garner you're recognized for a question thank you ma'am our service chairman. I remember when you came test file I was moved by that and that's for the reason I didn't fight harder for the bill to be changed originally because I thought to be the home. You had good intent. But in your husband's murders case there was enough evidence for them to charge me negligent homicide is that correct in addition to a D. S. yes ma'am so in that case there was enough to show that there was enough to a repeat that criminal requirement of negligent homicide based on the evidence they found is that correct and that's the charges that are on the table right now yes ma'am in assuming that I put this element in there in this happen in the future to a. Thank you thank you with in your same situation when the evidence in your husband case be enough to prove intent. I'm not gonna argue that I'm gonna leave that up to an attorney who better knows the law again I'm not an attorney but I do know that there have been hit and run cases since mine and the only charge that the person is charged with is this very one leaving the scene and the worse they get is a D. felony they don't always in a lot of hit run case is how the extra evidence to secure other higher level charges and in those cases the worst that they get is the leaving the scene and if you tie the hands of the prosecutor who is not going to be able to prove the B. felony because their hands are tied because they have to also prove intent the worst of that person is going to get is going to be a D. felony we would base that this law this bill would basically undo everything that we advocate for and everything that the governor signed into law. With respect we disagree on this point if you can't we can't argue that a prosecutor who. Would only be able to the Class D. felony because this law doesn't exist within ten or otherwise so it's an honor towards something you can't charge currently we've changed a law so from here on how you can but I think there's numerous cases where the you can prove the intent whether recklessly or otherwise based on the physical evidence and that's when you see other crimes happen I think with this within ten element they would have another tool to be able to go after what so a respectfully disagree with that assessment. Just one other thing I'd like to add. I know when I've had a squirrel. I've unfortunately been driving down the road in a school charts juts out front of me happen to be a couple years ago I actually pulled over to check on the squirrel I know when I've had a squirrel if I know when I've had a squirrel I know when I've had a person on a bicycle and I know when I hit somebody and you pull over and you stop when you strengthen this law or we can this law by adding a level of intent you are protecting the criminals and your harming the victims. Okay. Any other questions Senator thank you for your testimony we have a representative call. You take your name you're recognized thank you Mr chair my name is Tippi McCullough represent state representative for district thirty three here in Little Rock and honor to be with you here today thank you for hearing my testimony I'm actually wearing two hats today I was as a legislature I helped work on this bill that went through and and past as we have said through this a this is steam to Committee passed through the Senate. Yes through judiciary in the House and passed through the house and we are with overwhelmingly positive votes and you know in my in my experience as a legislator the time to stop these things when you have problems is that that at that time as we're working it through their lot of attorneys in both ends both chambers there a lot of smart people that could of I think. Done so if if there was a problem with this I think they would have seen and done it so I think this has been well vetted also wanted to make remarks about representative fight but as you said was here it is as a chair said was here this morning and and she would have been here but she's chairing her own committee so anyway I would think Senator Ballenger and representative fight for for working on this bill I want to thank these witnesses who so courageously are doing the work to help close this loophole my other hat today the reason I'm here is because I'm a family member of a victim of a hit and run driver also. I'm against what this bill will do and that's to and do the work that's already been done this session. Some of you are just. Just this session have been hearing a lot about this issue but for the last three years I've studied a lot. My brother Brett John McCullough was killed twenty eighteen may twenty third the reason I remember may twenty third so clearly is that my my first election I had a really hard fought primary that was on may twenty second at twenty eighteen and I won that race and that not of course as you do family and friends we replace celebrating so the next night I was really tired I went to bed pretty early and the next thing that I knew someone was about waking me up saying that there were state police at the door and so I thought it was about my brother and you know when state police show up at night at your door it's probably not a good thing and I found out that my brother had been hit and killed earlier that late late afternoon and they had had just figured out how to find me. I'm part of his the the defendant part of his defense was that he thought he had hit a deer but his family a sh assured prosecutors actually that that he was drunk. And as you will know when somebody leaves the saying you can't do a test or anything if he didn't get arrested until a year later even though a witness at the scene. Saw him do it and her rear view mirror followed him for seven miles talking to dispatch and it still took a year to rest and then another year to actually you know go through the whole process in court. on our bill. Get the loophole. What about if you're drunk or high are you hit someone you're better off if you do that you you're better off to run you're better off to run so that you can't get tested maybe nobody saw you in the car just the car. And and what happens is all the all of our stories say is that our loved ones are left on the road or the ditch or wherever to died there's a lot there's three of us here today but there's a long list of other folks that they could have been here today to testify about this I don't go to bed any night without thinking about what happened to my brother and what went through his mind that night. And I don't ride my bicycle without having great apprehension when I hear corporation from behind. So today I speak as someone who's worked on this issue and I speak as a heartbroken sister. And ask you to vote against this bill thank you. Thank you representative will call you Sir any questions from senator garner your question yes Sir two one from the fax you describe it wouldn't clearly be able underneath this bill take effect the person who hit your brother for the recklessly driver purposely driving. Because he said they were people said they were drawing their witnesses on the scene they followed him after the hit there's quite physical evidence on the core of it hit the scene very clearly that under this change they could easily get a charge against that person to do that. When he was charged we could we could use any there was no way to to prove he was drunk honestly in all these cases there's no way to prove he was in the car if the person the witness could not identified that that was a person driving she saw the car and followed the car and could not necessarily identify who was in the car so it's almost impossible to prove that that part of it if you can't can't prove using the core then you couldn't proven under the law we just changed the right because you could actually. Making the calls ation of the tax he was given convicted in a plea deal for several reasons not being able to prove that he was drunk or high not being able to prove that he was the person in the car what's the things that you know go into this and he he had lots of defenses at him his lawyer had lots of defenses at Bayer you know to use for for any anything that we push through there is always lots of defenses and there's also the prosecutors can can a they also have great from what I understand they have great a great range of what they can do also and this is what we had to do that's a decision had come to this this guy that you know killed my brother said about six months in jail we ask for drug treatment alcohol treatment a lot of other stuff that went along with that but I know that we've done some bills for it if you publicly the face property Class D. felony. And that's that's the same thing you get charged for providing over somebody and and leaving the scene and let them die on the side you know alone serve not getting them help second question a representative. If you drive home today. And one hundred percent you did not realize that you hit somebody you calls his physical serious physical injury or death you driving on the day in you from your experience with your brother from your position as a state representative would put over a hundred a hundred times but you one hundred percent did not know. Should you go to jail longer. Then the man who killed your brother because under this you will. I would expect much defense attorney to help me prove that I did not know you can't that's not that's not in there you got the point you can't prove that you did not know that's not you as soon as you called the accident you're guilty there's no defense because there's no mental element to it you can't prove I did not know why hitting that is off the table under this law you start to provided now right no ma'am well what I'm saying is first of all let me just back up a week with their attorneys here I'm not an attorney and I I I I know you are not respect that I respect you yes but I have a problem with and I don't want to argue with you about Bob because the people here that can do that I really that that that's not what I want to do but. I think. Just having been a person that feel like has some common sense be really hard for me to hit someone. And not no. That I hit them and kill them. Yes somebody familiar I mean. If I if I if I run over anything I stopped look back what was that. You know yes ma'am check my car those kinds of things I do the same thing but you can not see anybody we're just in there but just think about serial Bakula highway but if you're in a crowded area was raining like it was this morning and you to actually don't see it if your merit barely grazes somebody and they happen to fall off a bridge in be seriously hurt or dead it doesn't matter that you barely touched him as long as you're Act you calls that accent which led to the injury you're guilty of this no matter what there's no defense to it with the it will I mean I understand the problem I blew the problem for you is that it's a B. felony because the law is the same when it was a D. felony I mean it was it was the same I'm in the Anderson I'm saying yes ma'am there was no there's still no intent yes ma'am so thank you thank you. Any other any questions from committee. Thank you representive thank you Sir. Are we have a barber mayor Rennie. You come to the table recognize yourself for the record you're recognized to speak. Thank you my name is Barbara Mariani I am an attorney I have been a prosecutor for twenty five years I started my prosecuting in Fort Smith and now I prosecute in plastic County I have prosecuted numerous numerous cases of hit run and homicides and so I want to come and speak to you on why this is such a bad bill there is a difference between requiring intent as to your intent to leave the scene verses your intent to kill someone. What senator Gardner's bill requires is an intent as to the actual homicidal Act. To be a B. felony under senator garner is bill you the prosecutor has to prove for instance that the defendant knowingly killed another person. Or recklessly killed another person we already have a charge for that and that charge is called murder in the second degree and manslaughter there is no prosecutor that I'm aware of that would pick leaving the scene or personal injury charge over a murder charge if I have evidence to prove that someone knowingly killed a victim I am charging murder in the second degree because the penalties are higher in the parole is higher and it can't be sealed. So what this bill effectively does is completely eliminate the law that Senator Ballinger has passed. What that law says is if you leave the scene. In other with the result the result. Is death or serious physical injury it's a B. felony I understand that senator garner has issues because of a lack of intent however his bill put the intent in the wrong place in the statute. What his bill should have done if he's worried about intent is said when someone recklessly leaves the scene and the result is death that is the elegant simple fix to this not to to require the intent is to the homicidal act. When the content is required to homicidal Act prosecutors will never be able to prove this and here's why I say that. Hidden runs don't occur because the defendant wants to kill the cyclist or because the defendant intends to kill the person walking with their car hidden runs. Based on my experience always usually occur because people leave the scene because they're worried they're doing something criminal when they hit someone. Almost always it's they're intoxicated so what happens is someone is drunk they don't have the intent they might not have even known that they hit someone because they are so drunk we have a charge for that that's negligent homicide. The problem is that to prove negligent homicide we required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was dropped. If the defendant flees the scene we do not have a breathalyzer tests we do not have a field sobriety we don't have blood all call taken from a blood sample there is almost it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was intoxicated what this bill did is close that loophole so if you're really intoxicating you're driving and you hit and leave someone in the road to die by themselves what this bill said is. You're not going to it's it's a you're not gonna be able to avoid a negligent homicide and just get the D. felony we want to be the same level as if you had a negligent homicide that's what this bill was trying to do is close that loophole because it is a huge loophole farm really drunk and I hit someone and drive off a prosecutor would never be able to prove. But you're drunk would never be able to prove you had intent as to the homicidal act. Therefore you only get the D. felony and the D. felony zero six years or probation. One six four old ability so you hit someone and leave them on the road to die by themselves you're out if you get the maximum if you get the maximum you're out of prison in one year and after that you can still your record that's how the law was so this fix that that issue so again. I understand senator garner's concern however as Senator Ballinger pointed out. It is not. What it does it over expansive in what we'll do is basically eliminate the great progress we just had on the law it completely eliminates it it is not it no longer becomes a tool in any prosecutors back as a matter of fact the best it could be is that tool that never works and you don't use it that's what it terms and to. Senator gonna have a question yes I pretended Greenwood you're not on I mean it's the intent I gave me a lower versus what's on the paper to defines already with that but it sounds like to me that you would be supportive if I change it so that if you recklessly left the scene after calls and physical injury that that would be a proper way to dresses and put them in jail in there is that correct I do think that that's much more property I will say I'd have to look at it because I hate to commit to something without looking at it but yes I think that there's a big huge difference so you think your early the way the law that we just passed Senator Ballinger to create strict liability is it your opinion that's too restrictive and and two damning on the person who would be the criminal the defendant in a case personally know what there's to the issues first of all is not strict liability so in Arkansas there's a statute on strict liability strict liability applies to criminal statutes that don't have intent this is not a criminal statute this is a transportation statute the report is not a strict liability intent statute so I want to I want to be specific on that would be specific on that what what what the intent. There is no intent but is liability me strict liability is a criminal statute without intent this is a transportation statute the real reason I make that distinguishes distinguish ma'am is because there was talk about on constitutionality because it's a strict liability offence there is no constitutional problem here because this is not a strict liability offence per the meaning of strict liability it must be a criminal statute in Arkansas to be so put on the traffic code that if you are outside the road I can give you capital punishment since that's not in the criminal code you're saying it can't be found unconstitutional public strip club building on any kind of traffic violation capital offense I'm sorry what death in their mind so I just want to point out example for move on. If you want example of the people who will be bringing charges against you if you happen to Little Rock here's a prosecutor under the current way it's written and we know that even if you one hundred percent did not know and do not intend to do with that there are prosecutors will bring this charge against you for a Class B. felony we just got a perfect example that I move on my Mr chairman I don't want to miss rose why would you like to go the in the table try to clarify some of his. Gilden five separate. Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers are there's a difference between being a are in the criminal code in being a criminal statute this isn't in the criminal code which is title fire but it is a criminal statute because it involves a if there is assesses a a criminal penalty to air in the Stivers case these the Arkansas Supreme Court held that there was uh that there was no mental state require of the the and there is statutory authorization in the in the in the Arkansas statutes in the criminal code to have a to have a criminal statute with no mental state if there is what is called a higher for paraphrasing obvious Legislative intent to not have a a mental state they held that in Stivers now when I testified against the bill a couple of weeks ago what I pointed out is that is in the end of the inquired there is a constitutional problem the U. S. Supreme Court has held they're all though criminals although it is possible to have a criminal a statute constitutionally that strict liability most of those are in what are called heavily regulated industries of putting tainted food in the circulation of we dealing with explosives things like that the U. S. Supreme Court held in a case called excitement video where there was uh there was no criminal intent in the coat in the statute that they would impute. A criminal intent in other words saying that though the Congress meant to say the worst one because they were concerned that the that punishment which had a maximum of ten years might be it might be unconstitutional because of the problem of having a strict liability no mental state and a ten year sentence this would be a twenty year sent up to a twenty year sentence the proposal and I suggested and I think Senator Garner agrees that the proposal if you put a a mental state with regard to the leaving the scene that you recklessly left the scene for instance that would solve the constitutional excitement video problem and that and I said I think I think I I agree that would solve that would solve the problem the miss merry I mean who I've known for I guess all twenty five years been practicing and we've had a number of cases against each other we're friends but I I've I think that the She's she's right and I think Senator Garner is now right that if you. The what you want to do is knowingly or recklessly leave the scene he's right that if you have evidence that the knowingly recklessly kill the person that second degree murder or or over manslaughter you know you can pass you can leave the bill is currently signed by judge touch Dutch governor Hutchinson as is the problem is you will have you almost certainly have a constitutional problem because of the excitement videoing of the U. S. Supreme Court cases you can short circuit that problem by just inserting a mental state into the twenty year into the B. felony. Yes. and the it's rare but the sometimes I do agree with Mr Rosenstein so the. But Mr rose Wagner was really clear in his wording if if you listened he said add recklessness as to leaving the scene not as to the homicidal act so I'm here to speak against this bill because specifically this requires a mental and intent as to the homicidal act and I would be more than open to look at one that simply has the intent as to recklessly leaving the scene I think that that would be a reasonable solution to to the issue that senator garner is concerned with and and I would also like to point out that I take my job seriously and I just don't prosecute someone just because I can't just because you can doesn't mean you should and there's a lot of prosecutors they do the same thing as I do and so I just wanna make that clear. By senator garner your question just more of a statement our I agree with them under president that when I got bill or draft this and into my reading preparation that work coals of that element is is in perfectly written consent for my ten my intent was was extracted the recklessly a purpose leaving the scene I agree to understand we need to fix that problem I think we need poles building I was been debate listed more people speak against it I want to add that amendment that we can vote on it one way or the other I think the best way to handle it from the kind of the labor to point about a bill needs to be fixed so you want to put down an amended bill yes Sir that work Health Organization and the next meeting will have. Parties agree to put down we if that's the case we don't really need any more witnesses to we say the Bill. Our. You senator garner you have another bill. You will run six thirty three. Yes. Represent. Thank you then the representative gas would be next. Okay I think we want to we can do six eighteen which is the top of the agenda real quick. six. Let me pull it back up sorry served on tension has forced several. Six twelve six twelve six twelve yes Sir. Right when your Mr you're recognized this bill is kind of expansion of existing law currently under Arkansas law if you have a person who is under age twelve and they have a kind of sensitive topic they need discuss it might be you know intimidating or scary to be in front of their defended especially this is crime of like sexual traumatic injury or something like that currently the law allows a closed circuit television for that person to testify against the defendant only thing we're doing it now because we kind of watch what happened Kovic and house are courts kind of adjusted is were allowing video conference technology or other technology that we're a label to the child so basis expands the current law to other kind of technologies that could be used rather news doing close circuit television that's the main. Crux of the bill I think it's like that for coca nineteen we've courts had a kind of adjusting we all kind of uses in technology and how much we've advance I think this is kind of common sense twenty first approach to make sure that children are able to give that testimony and that it's it's handled in the right way without take any questions guard any questions from committee. We have Mr rose to speak against the bill. Jefferson so I Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers they're they're two things one the what senator garner said I agree with in addition the close circuit television ever used streaming that type of thing the problem is the Bill amends a statute which has flaws and frankly this is the the other part of the other provision that he has put in there about discomfort or uncomfortable or whatever actually makes the statute works of the of you start with the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution in a case called Maryland versus Craig the Arkansas the US Supreme Court said that it does not violate the confrontation clause to have closed circuit television or or some other video of the of the child outside the court room if if the court made case specific findings that it would be traumatic to the child. two and it was the defendant's presence that would be traumatic and not just it uncomfortable or nervous or or that type of thing of this statute although it it's been on the books for quite awhile I have argued and it would never get was able to get it we're never able to get up to Supreme Court because of various reasons that the statute doesn't comply with Maryland versus Craig. This would make clear that it does not comply with Maryland versus Craig because of discomfort is the type of thing that is specifically not sufficient grounds for closed circuit or other video under Maryland versus Craig it has to be essentially traumatic to the child for the specific reason of the defendant's presence and I would suggest if you're going to amend the statute that you take out the word discomfort or uncomfortable or whatever the Senate Emmis and and put the staff make the statute consistent with the Maryland versus Craig requirements of traumatic. All right Johnson you have a question. Why would this body care what Maryland versus created decision in the judge's decision to allow that we can do that is a body just like that judge can correct or Maryland versus Craig was a U. S. Supreme Court decision under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution which would apply in every federal and state criminal case throughout the United States throughout the United States are you saying that bodies determination is above this bodies US Supreme Court is the final word on the confrontation clause of or certainly more show more powerful than the Arkansas legislature is on an interpretation of the confrontation clause. That your interpretation that's that's correct is my interpretation our. any other questions from committee members. It's not a thank you Mr Rosenzweig thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak for against the bill. Senator Garner you're recognized closed very briefly yet did nothing is bill actually changes the language I think that's more argument against current law and says for expanded that's why I brought that up but nothing changes his arguments per se is actually six this section it mentions comfort in here said you do not create the right just to al you can't have a kid just cause more comfortable do about teleconference that actually have a real reason and that's describing the code already with that I'll close the bill would make a motion to pass. Art we have a motion to pass. Senator John we have a second Senator Johnson. In a discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass is Senator Garner center some down here cannot run that bill for Robert Lundstrum represented for one term that we did this morning she has an amendment that should fix the concerns representative Lundstrum is here there she goes Mr sorry I thought I'd run this bill for so I will move out of. To a great expert in a. President of one from a fuel introduce yourselves all record he was doing a fine job violating keep on going amendment to this bill yes. It was just a minute to pass out the amendment. House bill seventy forty. Yes Sir. Okay colleagues as discussed this morning are you ready Sir. We have a motion to adopt the amendment second and a second any discussion follows favor say aye. Are the member it's been adopted you're recognized going to present the bill representative last. Thank you colleagues as discussed this morning this is House bill seventeen forty and that this has to do with sex trafficking of minors and the changes in the bill are specific to that and minor can be enticed or induced to future sex trafficking act. So we change took out section put in sex trafficking and then on the traveling we define traveling. And also the defense from two years we change the three. I believe those are the questions the committee. RT you have any questions on the amendment. C. ninety want to go ahead and present the. Basically I I want to thank you colleagues I think this makes a bill better this is basically sex trafficking of minors I won't belabor the point but I think it's very important that we put some teeth and our sex trafficking grooming bills. Art was any committee set to motion arts centre Ballinger we have a motion to Pat. We have a motion to Ballard Ballinger do pass. I have a second. As amended. Senator Rice second any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Resolutions represent Lundstrum thank you colleagues and thank you for your wisdom I got one more bill. This is a good one quick one quick only be with four numbers of H. B. one one seven nine representative Gonzalez bill. House bill one one seven nine. The only thing we're doing with this bill is we're adding in and disqualifier for a license if you engage in sexual explicit conduct with children either visual print or otherwise pay so we're saying that if you. Three on child porn it would disqualify you from getting license and moving out compare like other crimes that we do that's what the bill does. Take any questions are you are not explanation the bill any questions from committee Senator Rice. Okay not knowing code now this is for a conviction for somebody with a conviction yes Sir is it is not just a charge they should be conviction I mean I'm reading through it here. Yeah that had to be conviction as prohibited so would just be a charge on there that's the other section I think it's kind of similarly written is this and I don't think it says you've been convicted of I think just brings up if convicted of different homes I can double check that real quick if you want me to Arkansas Code. That's fine I mean we're make sure port goes floor for passage but I would want to make sure that push somebody not getting trapped in the. Yeah allegation just looking up right now and then just ended up being dropped but everybody lost their. In the section above that does not in this change a person shall not receive a hold a license issued by the board of the person has been convicted or pled guilty or nolo contendere which for us said how you say that to any feeling listed on here so you have to have the conviction or the the pleaded guilty and the workers qualified thank you. Or any other questions from committee members. We have one signed up to speak against the bill much road where. Is consistent. Want to point out R. one with a job I hate to do this I know gets repetitive but okay generally recognized Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers what this bill does is amended adds to a list of. Occupation or or of of convictions for which a person cannot get a license to do anything of the other things of that on the list there's number of things that you murder rape by various other so called hands on offenses were who are the active participation in a crime is required this bill goes beyond that because one of the things that would just permanently disqualify someone is the mere possession of child **** not a hands on offense someone who is who who is merely possessing and I think at for that reason it goes too far it doesn't it doesn't matter if the person was nineteen years old when they had it in there now fifty two they've not committed any other offense and this is the only of the this would be the only nine hands on active. Of. We will full Phys physical action that would permanently disqualify someone and I would ask I would suggest that you remove at the very least removes the possession of child **** from the list of permanent disqualifier and keep it where it now is which is that it's up to the rest of the relevant licensing agency whether to grant a waiver or not and let that licensing agency whatever that may be decide whether a disqualification is appropriate or not. Stress where you were of any of the state to have a low simmer similar to this. Various other states have have your disqualification of laws my understanding and I I'm not an expert on this I certainly haven't done research recently but most but most states most states is my understanding have some sort of of application for waiver or where are you know you can present that this was thirty years ago or yeah I was merely an accomplice or something like that where a can where the particular facts of the case and the facts of the person's background can be presented to the relevant to a decision maker and is not a permanent forever disqualification from becoming a barber an electricians or plumber or whatever. For for being in possession of a photography of the what we're talking about here the the the right now I'm specifically concerned about is the possession of **** they're it in the most states will have some sort of thing where you have to go in front of someone and say you have this this conviction isn't the be all and end all of me in this spend X. number of years or you know my participation was minor or whatever and that's the concern I have is I think it goes too far because the the possession is something that can be done without seeing anyone touching anyone would just solely sitting there under computer late at night and key stroking a particular going to a particular website and and you not get in the car to meet someone you're traveling ninety miles for the purpose of whatever not not actually physically touching anyone and I think I think this bill goes too far at least to the extent that it makes a permanent disqualification of someone who is just in simple possession of child **** I'm not saying that they budgets automatically get a license I don't think it should be an automatic permanent forever disqualification but let the relevant commission or board or agency decide on a case by case basis. As sponsor derisive question. Well I'll just go part out Mr Rosenzweig. Yes use the term are not great one point that you came back any mention chopper four we're not doing this this says engaging children. It also involving a child is okay for or it says for for possessing visual or print medium or possessing visual print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child that's what another words it lists a number of offenses are some of which are hands on but one of which is the is just possession of child **** but they're all I didn't want to just leave that **** is a different level of your we are attracting bats by child okay that is recognized I thought I'd sent child porn on benefit that you came back said that a tree No Way Out thank you are any other questions from committee. Say no mistrust where you're recognized thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishes to speak for against the bill. Senator Ballinger you're recognized close. Thank you for that complement. It. Try to do my best mom pressure. Senator garner you're recognized he's way too nice for me to. We. I am close I make a motion to pass. Are we have a motion to pass in the second any discussion. All those in favor say aye I've. All opposed. All right your bill passes. Senator Garner you may go present a okay Mister Ballinger. Senator Ballinger is is B. six forty one. You're recognized to present Senate bill at six forty one thank you Mr chairman this bill really is kind of kind of clean up that bill bonds licensing board today only has seven members the the the current code requires everyone of the members to be a sitting judge and a court has ruled that unconstitutional to require that so so tell the members it brings it down the the current board all board also includes former police chief and I think a former sheriff as well so what this does is provide for an opportunity for the current board still be able to to to set it's kind of hard to get board members for many boards and so this gives an opportunity for the current members continue to have it also the the only substantive change the requires he's congressional district to be represented by at least one member. Happy to answer any questions on the part your next location of any questions. Anyone in the audience who wish to speak for against the bill. All right Senator Ballinger you're recognized closing I'm close I move do pass let motion to pass the second Senator Rice. The discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed. Gradually Senator Ballinger. Of representative Gazaway you still in the. Per your thank you for your patience representative Gazaway. You're recognized president of. House Bill thirteen twenty three first. Thank you Mr chairman actually with the chairs permission I'd like to begin with. Eighteen seventy eight if. That's good you're good with insuring mission. You're recognized house bill seventy eighteen seventy eight thank you Mr chairman I also have several witnesses here I would ask without your permission drug director Kirk lane if you could join me at the table absolutely. And then also is actually Boeing from the prosecuting attorney's association. It's both you will identify yourself for the record you're you're recognized for C.. Yes I'm Kerr claimed state drug director. And actually bill and I am a staff attorney the prosecutor coordinator's office and representative of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association thank you representative Gazaway you're recognized our thank you Mr chairman committee house bill eighteen seventy eight concerns the. Two drugs that we're seeing a resurgence in our state fennel and here one and how we classify those drugs in our criminal code. Currently if you look at our criminal code we treat to drugs differently than we do the other drugs specifically methamphetamine and cocaine and so if you look at our drug statutes we have drug statutes that deal specifically with possession of possession with the purpose to deliver manufacturing methamphetamine and cocaine and then for all other schedule one and two substances we have other statutes that deal with those we talk about fentanyl and heroin fentanyl is a schedule two controlled substance currently so it's already illegal to possess it and heroin is a schedule one controlled substance how those schedules are developed or based on the addictive properties of the drugs and the dangerous stress of those drugs and so obviously here one is highly addictive it's very dangerous it's a schedule one fentanyl is also highly addictive and dangerous is schedule to although I think it certainly could qualify as a schedule one. So what this bill seeks to do is to treat fentanyl and heroin because they are so addictive and they are so dangerous the same way that we treat methamphetamine and cocaine and to set it out separately and the statutes and so what the bill does with respect to hear one is it insert Terrel one into the existing statutes that we have for methamphetamine and cocaine and so for the enhanced penalties that apply for the possession possession with purpose to deliver delivery and manufacturing of methamphetamine and cocaine we simply adhere one into those statutes so that it is treated just as we treat method code. Okay then with respect to fentanyl we've created a new statute that criminalizes the possession of any quantifiable amount of fentanyl and we've attached enhanced penalties to possession with the purpose to deliver fentanyl the delivery of fentanyl and the manufacturing of fentanyl and then the last part of the bill addresses trafficking in fentanyl and makes that a Class Y. felony which is the most serious felony we recognized in the law it's ten to forty years or life in the Arkansas department of corrections I want to try to tell you quickly why I think why we believe that this is justified and or Drug Director Lankans certainly expound upon this but Sentinel is an extremely dangerous drugs it's but it is so potent compared to other drugs that it's dosed in micrograms and a microgram is a millionth of a gram. And to give you some idea. About just how potent and dangerous this drug is a recently there was a bust by the Nebraska state police of a hundred and twenty pounds of fentanyl. I want to think about that a hundred and twenty pounds of fentanyl. That's enough fentanyl according to the experts to kill twenty six million people that's every man woman and child in the state of Arkansas and pretty much the entire southeastern United States a hundred twenty pounds is of fentanyl is enough to kill twenty six million people and that gives you an idea about how dangerous this is and why we need to treat it differently than we do other drugs and so that's what the bill does And I'll let a trick Director lane who I think can speak in greater detail about that and then also miss bone as well thank you. Mister Mister chairman This bill is so important because of what we're seeing currently and the tools that law enforcement have or are are basically under the the current statute deal with prescription federal the federal that we're talking about is a listed found no illicit fentanyl that is produced illicitly by the Chinese cartel and now the Mexican cartel in coming into our country through various smuggling routes one thing to realize about heroin and fentanyl that her when it's twice as strong as morphine and fentanyl is fifty to a hundred times stronger than that and as a representative says usually it's. wait or or dosages to Michael yet senate the best way for me to describe this to you as a real quick demonstration the next time you look at a sweet no package realize that that's one gram of that substance a substance that similar in size the federal so if you take that out Newport R. their. And that realize that that's one gram if that was pure fat that one gram could have one thousand dosage units for people to get high but that one gram also represents five hundred. Does the fatal dosage units so that one gram could kill five hundred people so that's the reason this law is more restrictive on the trafficking offense and it's so important to realize that also realize the fennel was in our state to stay drug dealing is about profiteering and and money making. Eight thousand dollar investment into a kilo of fentanyl pure fentanyl can reap that drug dealer over a million dollars in profit so it's here to stay and we need to deal with that. And I just like to add on it would Director lane said if I could please so as I believe the crime lab is actually signed up to testify as for this bill as well but so I don't want to steal too much from them but I know there is certainly an up tick in federal related deaths in Arkansas I believe this is just if they gave me was in twenty nineteen there were seventy six of an or lady death and that's a huge uptick in previous years I know it's being placed typically it is laced with heroin and now methamphetamine and so that's been a major issue I did speak to one of the medical examiners at the crime lab and he gave an example of if you took one fifth of your fingernail that is enough to get very high on signal you combine that with hair when you combine that with methamphetamine that could be enough to kill someone the example you gave me is that someone overdosed last week in Pulaski County and he didn't even make it home before he died his friends had nor can they thought they could administer it to him to save his life he didn't make it that far it immediately because respiratory depression paralysis and he died right here so this is a very important bill we fully support it and ask for a good vote I'm happy to answer any questions. Listen I I totally agree I visited with congressman Westerman senator Bozeman and it was three years ago congressman Westerman told me they. The border patrol it confiscated a small just a small package that was enough to kill three times people in the United States yeah it was just hard to imagine that that kind of drug that kind of potency into drugs so I understand exactly what you're saying it is a good that's a good bill any questions from the committee. SunTrust. Thank you. And I'm sure not. Born to defend elicit. Drugs and all the record line and I've had discussions and and represent gas or you mention a hundred twenty pounds would have potential killing how many people. Twenty six million why are we not see and we're seeing a lot of this not minimizing it why are we not seeing mass. This. Are we not seeing a thousand people at a time. I keep hearing the stats and again I'm not defending it. This goes back to my original thing when the opioid. money started flowing. How to wash can we have we have had people. Even after surgeries we've had people that have been in car wrecks and pain that. Patients that have been denied. What is being used for decades. Not this to. But they were denied treatment because we got only anti opioid bandwagon and I was a legal but not that one time before I do sponsors. Pinot paychecks. And I don't matters member there were seventy five one hundred and when he put me on a hundred dollars a lease back laying floor get up and go work in the computer a little bit and go back Land Rover for more. In that I realize the stuff. The legal stuff it bad in in this a list of stuff and being mixed in all its terror. But. I still am frustrated in Iraq and and never ever. Gotten anybody saying like on the side to go back and help people. That are a legitimate pain concern people. Other than English. Put everybody in a bad category and stripping down to an amount that will not do any good. I support you bill I will for you bill but I didn't want this to pass. In just call our drugs bad that I have a Opiant relation to. And I attempt to dress the best I can I I think you're exactly right fentanyl is prescribed in a lot of cases in when we first started C. and fennel I can tell you about my first experience with it was probably in twenty eleven or twelve when I was prosecutor charged a guy who was with a buddy of his they had had the patch is neither one of had a prescription for the patches but they had obtained the patches somehow. And it was I think it's been prescribed for cancer patient originally and thank. At this get this guy put the patches on his buddies back for sale this body yeah hi and his body never woke up. And so yeah that's kinda how we first began to see it. But that's not how we sit anymore were I think the way this we're seeing it now is in the illicit form but absolutely to your point it is a legitimate prescription drug that is very helpful to people in certain circumstances and we specifically provided in the bill that it's not an offense if you're possessing it legally under a valid prescription so we want to make that clear and I don't believe that's where we're seeing the majority of deaths at this point and Drug Director lane can probably speak to it again but my understanding is it's coming over from China to Mexico it's coming from Mexico across the border it's in pill form it's being laced with other drugs and you know with regard to the mass deaths I think. You know the the best that I can speak to that number one hopefully we it hasn't reached at epidemic level yet here there is somewhat of a problem with that I think is noted by what the crime at the scene but it hasn't reached epidemic level yet hopefully we can maybe stem that tide by passing a law like this and then I think another thing to think about is probably the statistics don't pick it all up because there are people who overdose on the struggle who the family they don't send them to the medical examiner's office for an autopsy there are people who may know what happened but they will never tell and I think a lot to a lot of the overdoses that you're seeing it might be federal or its thank commonly with the medical examiner's office will testify to is it's a mixture people that are doing about the people that are doing some other illegal drugs are mixing it with the. No one and that's you're not intentionally but because and people's causing people to overdose I'm not sure answers your question what you do and again I all I'm all I'm wanting No Way taking up for illicit drugs and and we know we're losing people and everybody's had somebody they know or it can be family or anything else but I have the reason I bring this up just because people that lost their voice in the legitimate legal. Pharmaceutical help write in in this pain paranoia that's been created because there is such bad stuff and I've tried to be a voice for them because it's tragic what some of that bread to go through and some of may be taking their own lives thank you I spoke to bill. Okay any other questions from committee members. Saying none thank you for trying thank you Ashlee. We have a catchy McConnell signed up to speak for the bill. Hello. You're recognized for the record you are I'm Cathy McConnell and I'm here to speak for the bill today I'm going to speak in two parts one I want you to put a human face to fentanyl death. I want to read my son's obituary today. It is impossible to capture a person in a beach wary especially someone whose adult life was largely defined by drug addiction to some Matthew was just an addict when people saw his addiction they stop seeing Matthew the truth is that Matthew was a caring loving and living being struggling mightily with his demons. Matthew entered the world in nineteen eighty five a new year's eve. He was a beautiful and amazing boy perpetually. Racing down Colorado mountains are chasing getting heads he was always seeking an adrenaline high. Matthew spent his first years of elementary school at the hall in London England he embraces two years abroad both academically and on the field he excelled at cricket football field hockey and rugby. During high school he continued to channel his energy and spirit into sports becoming a key player in the soccer and football teams in Omaha Nebraska. Outside of school Matt focused on the guitar reading and woodworking he was a gentle soul who loved reading poetry. He found kindred spirits in the music of Johnny Cash Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix the hours spent learning the music with his personal therapy and high school Matthew experimented with prescription drugs with the oxy cotton. It told him I can make you feel accepted I can make you feel all right I can make you feel worthy. I can make you feel loved finally it just tell them I can make you feel nothing and make you feel like everything will be okay. His family and friends watches addictions deal the best part of his life away Matthew thought this the but lost the battle in August of two thousand nineteen. We never expected diction to kill those most familiar with us there is a dangerous idea that drug addicts or a whole separate category of people. People who would never include bath you the starting linebacker. But the truth is that there is no other kind of people. They're only people and all of us know someone whose life is vulnerable to addiction. I wanted to read this because I work with addicts. And I always say that as long as you're breathing there's hope. But when you get a tiny amount of Fenton all there's no more breathing and there's no more hope so I hope that you will pass this bill the other part I wanted to go over that's the first time I read must individuated and cry so I've made a little progress the other thing I wanted to go over with you all is I work now at the Pulaski County sheriff's office I work as the re entry coordinator and I work with to Barrick's one man and one women spirit full of addicts and what I do is I do pre release work with them on decks addictions so that hopefully when they get out they will have a skill set to make it I wanted to go over with you I went into my two young units and thirty two men I have nine fentanyl attics. And up twenty nine women I have seven fennel attics. The people. I'm not a mathematician but it's pretty high percentage. So it's real it's here it's now. It's here to stay and it's it's getting into our children we have Some of the people in my unit were telling me they had taken hydrocodone pressed with that now and had no idea it had been all in it And overdosed so please pass this bill it's very needed. Thank you. Thank you Mr call. Sturch will. Some questions Senator Ballinger question sorry. Thank you Mr chairman I just wanna say I appreciate your work I've use me on the board of the returning home center there and in Springdale and and actually a user run diction mystery and and the entire bill and that brands talks later is not running it and you may know him because he's you Mr so much of the job and I appreciate the work you're doing appreciate you coming to testify thank you thank you Senator Ballenger Stacey James. Speak for the bill. Stacey James on with hope movement coalition and I'm here to support the bill. M. I wrote a small statement and I just like to read that to you if you don't mind I am a director of hope movement coalition which is a coalition of parents that have come together over the last two years with one thing in common we have all lost our children to the drug epidemic that has swept our state and our nation there are a lot more of us than you would imagine at statement makes it difficult to find a voice but when we find it we used it. I'm sitting in front of you today not because I'm director of this coalition I'm sitting here because in March of two thousand nineteen federal killed my twenty two year old son. And it's not my intent to elicit sympathy from any of you okay there's no way there aren't enough words of time to convey the enormity of our lost. You didn't know Hey again but you all knew someone like you okay. he was incredibly intelligent and creative he was a natural born leader and spent a week in Washington DC at an international youth leadership conference he represented Arkansas as one of the future best and brightest. He dominated on the football field he never met a stranger he volunteered his time assisting those with. Extreme physical and mental disabilities he had a connection with those people that a lot of people just didn't understand and Hagen could calm them the way no one else could he was an international missionary he was one of thirty six students that were chosen as sophomores to participate in a college baccalaureate program at his high school. She Y. as in the U. S. navy where he served as a sub mariner. He was amazing right lovable he was a great kid and he suffered with. Anxiety and mental illness it was a great kid that made a bad decision. You all did not know my sign. But I know that you know someone like you. You all know that great kid that has the the brightest future in front of them. I move my coalition does many things in our efforts to raise awareness to this epidemic What we are finding is that we're spending more more time answering phone calls. Parents are terrified they heard what but now is they know someone that's lost someone different and all and they want to know what they can do we're also paying for more and more funerals. That is one of the most difficult parts of what we do. Taking a mother by the hand. And helping her. Bury her child. No parent is prepared for that last week before the committee that we spoke in front of I actually had a phone call from an Arkansas mom who lost her twenty two year old daughter. She was found in her childhood home in her childhood bed by her little brother. Naturally he screamed he's just he's traumatized mom runs in she administer CPR. And it's only after she spoke with the corner that she realized her daughter had been dead for nine and a half hours. A dead body after nine and a half hours is ice cold and rigid and this mother because offense and all gave CPR to her daughter's corpse. It's very important that you understand this is not just an addict's problem what we are seeing in our state and nation wide is that the spent mall going into the press bills is finding its way into the hands of our young people and when I say young people I mean fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen year olds these children are dying because what was once breaking into their parents liquor cabinet to cut loose. Has now become checking out what's in the medicine cabinet and because those prescriptions are so closely monitored they're going to strangers to get what they think is annex like mom takes or anxiety for Percocet that died takes for his old sports injury or or after all that that little brother takes for his ADHD the problem as these kids are getting pressed Sentinel. Doesn't everyone it is most certainly going to present us against an addict it's it's that strong. I want to point out that. These kids are all really great kids. They are we we've we've got an amazing group of young people in our state. These young people have just entered a year and a half of what we all have their mental health is not great none of ours is we cannot sit hearings after code that we're all doing fantastic and my concern is with the fence on all is that it is going to find its way it's going to attack the great kids with some anxiety and when we've got to get in front of that my son chose to use cocaine. I cannot sweep that under the rug I will not sweep it under the rug my son chose to use cocaine. According to his toxicology report. He got cocaine with fentanyl cut in it and according to the medical examiner that I did speak with Atlanta there was no way hacking could have known. If he had got just what he intended he would still be here with us and you would not see my face but nothing I say will bring him back. It's not going to change the course of my life I don't do this for him I do this for the Hagens in your life the Hagens in our communities and we have got to start somewhere. I'm. I I would like to say that on a national level. I am seeing. Twelve to fifteen today. That was taken out. And the twelve to fifteen today that I'm saying R. fifteen to nineteen years old. We've got to protect our future. Because at this point I'm helping bury Arkansas's future. And every time I do that every time I write a check with these hands these are the hands that buried my sign literally. When the dirt from home my brother Doug in our family cemetery on my hands and knees I raked the dirt over his navy blue marble arm it took three minutes. As my understanding that's about the time it took for not to kill him. We have to do better. Bad decisions should not cost people their lives there is hope in recovery but spent most taken away from us. I'm asking you I'm taking you I'm imploring you pass this bill and in doing that you will save lives. Thank you. Have any questions from committee. Mister James thank you thank you for your senate Russian question. More. Thank you for your testimony we heard from. What testimony today from others that. A greatly appreciate. I would ask you this I really didn't want to. Thank you your story. What will pass this bill that's what we have drugs coming across our southern border. And we've got an administration that's allowing it no I'm not talking about one party or another. We could be what we're doing. If we wanted to stop it. We could stop it we could make it go down to a trickle would you agree with that. We were really serious about saving lives you feel like we could do better I thank absolutely we can all do better I know you would want to state and I don't mean to put that upon you here's I think it needs to be say it we can absolutely do better you know Kirk and I had a conversation the other day is that there's so much that needs to change about our system. That it sometimes gets overwhelming and and from where I sit at dealing with I consider myself the surviving mother and not a grieving mother but working with that. Her claims office with the recovery community with the surviving parents and the grieving parents. Cigna is a mighty mighty weapon against change. And and so we can all have this conversation and there not be some back room judging or avoiding the conversations we are going to get anywhere because you're most powerful voice is going to be those that have directly been affected by this can we do better absolutely what I love to see this just sweep across the nation absolutely what but I live in Arkansas I raise my kids in Arkansas and I know the nation is watching Arkansas I know that for a fact there watching everything that we do in this area. And I it's my prayer that we do we actually were the front runners and I wanted to be that way I want to be an example to the nation this is how you save lives. This is how you take care of your neighbor. I I again I greatly appreciate your work your strength. But I what I'm wanting is voices. To the lead Washington DC regard there out there I want them to know we can do better stopping drugs coming into this country if we will the voices are out there but but they have to be heard and no one wants to listen thank you for your patience you. Thank you thank you Mr James thank you let me just add what senator rice said you can't fix what you will confront and we have got to face up to the fact we're facing something here this killing more kids and then a lot of the things we deal with on a daily basis with these drugs so thank you for your testimony James where Mr seni Moran. State your name for the record good afternoon simmer and I'm the assistant director with the Arkansas state crime lab I know it's late days but I'll be quick really just wanted to kind of title up at the end with some statistics that we're seeing in our medical examiner's office at the crime lab now realize like representative Gazaway said we don't receive all of the drug overdoses here in the state of Arkansas but if our guessing it probably about seventy five percent of the drug overdoses come to the crime laboratory for autopsy. Drug overdoses in general have increased twenty four percent since two thousand nineteen to two thousand and twenty but to me the alarming statistic and I didn't I didn't know until I started looking at it was that we saw on eighty five percent increase in fentanyl related deaths eighty five percent. Before I started working I thought it's methamphetamine but it's not it's fit now we increased from. Eighty which is already too many in twenty nineteen at that no this two hundred and forty eight cents to eighty five percent increase that's close to fifty percent for overdose deaths that we're seeing at the crime laboratory so it is a big problem another statistic that was just pretty alarming to me if you really do the stats that someone dying here in Arkansas every other day so it's every two point four day someone is dying with fentanyl in their system or is it intentional all absolutely not because seventy seven percent of these deaths have other substances in them like you've heard other testimonies methamphetamine cocaine. Is that right that's that several drugs in these this is not just one drug but all it takes is the lead issue says three nanograms per milliliter in a person's system. For them to die of a fentanyl overdose and we're seeing it. But he said it's impacting laboratory it's impacting you heard the testimony it's a very serious substance and like I said we're saying and I hope we don't see eighty five percent increase in twenty twenty one because it then gets to that level where it's starting to become an epidemic man and I hope we don't see that. Thank you Mr every testimony questions from committee members. Thank you for your testimony this. This represents Gazaway is a C. known as the audience you're recognized close thank you Mr chairman colleagues I think that you see from the testimony that was presented here today and I want to thank the witnesses who came to testify today and told of what I know we're very difficult stories for them to tell really shared their hard and and you know their experience with us about how this is really impacting people across the state these are drugs heroin and fentanyl again that are causing heartbreaking deaths all across the state in communities all across the state and we need to treat him differently one of the things I thought was telling I saw I miss brands notes there in twenty fourteen the crime lab salt three deaths from fentanyl in twenty fourteen and twenty nineteen eighty. So there has been a what I would call a pretty dramatic increase just even from what the crime lab saying these drugs need to be treated differently they need to have a harsher penalty penalties attached to on that's what this bill does And I would appreciate a good vote right Committee further. We have a motion to pass for Senator rise. In a second Senator Ballinger. Any discussion. All those in favor. All opposed. Graduation versions Gazaway. You have a do you have a short bill representative Gazaway I know you've got a lot on here. I don't know I think I think several days ago pretty quickly but died I've got about ten of them so serve me to choose one. What we have. We have some individuals here on the fourteen ninety nine. Would you mind if we were in that bill sure yes no problem represent about run that. Senator Stubblefield I am happy to however I know that the chairman specifically said he wanted to be here for that bills okay all right yes I would say would be better off waiting are that being the case represents Gazaway you want to go. You want to go back to the table and proceed all right. Your next bill thank you Mr chairman next bill I'd like to do would be fifteen sixty one I Mark. You're recognized to present house bill fifteen sixty one and with your permission I have a judge robin Carroll who I'd ask if he be allowed to be allowed to join me at the table okay. I just feel identify yourself for the record. Mr chairman robin Carroll circuit judge thirteenth judicial district eleven elder and I'll. Our. Thank you Mr chairman a House bill fifteen sixty one simply defines the the target group for offenses that are eligible for transfer from the Arkansas department of corrections to the Arkansas department of community correction of course the Arkansas department of correction is the ATC facilities are the ones that house the more serious offenses that we see in those units you have murder or rape and all the other very serious felony offenses that we commonly think about the department of community correction has disabilities were called regional regional punishment facilities are pia of a regional correctional facilities are CFR you wanna term and those are facilities that are used more for rehabilitation and for lower level offenders that are charged with the serious and violent felonies and so what this bill does it did it defines the defenses that are eligible for transfer from the department of corrections to the department of community corrections all say that this is agreed to this bill has been agreed to by the department of correction and the judicial council who have worked on defining the type of offenses that would be eligible for transfer And so that my understanding is that that this is agreed to by all the stakeholders and I'm happy to turn over to judge Carol let him explain in more detail. Thank you Sir basically what the bill would do would it would it would allow the certain that a few more certain people to get into DCC instead of going to ATC normally the people that go to the DCC are people who've either been placed on probation and have and there's a revocation because they can't stay off drugs or they've gone through drug court and have failed a drug court so they going to DC see into a six month drug treatment program the recidivism rate in DC C. is lower than an ATC so in revocation when you're looking at a perhaps a D. felony and a six year eighty see stent that person's going to do a year in DC C. they'll do six months so what it would do a eventually it will save money for the state for correction cost the bill only applies to non violent offenders most of these crimes or offenses already exist in this bill and all this all this does is add just a few more categories it is a representative Gazaway said it was a collaboration with the prosecutors ATCC and the judiciary and it did pass the house ninety five to one and I'd be happy to take any questions are any questions from senator garner. Thank you judge Carol good C. di appeared mail right to I think this is a good bill seems to be in my opinion in a more focused way to do this and I think that moving forward is probably produce better results would you agree with that yes Sir thank you thank you Sir. Or any other to Committee members of questions. Is there anyone else anyone else the audiences alike come speak. Forgives the Bill. Judge thank you representative Gazaway you're recognized close thank Mister chairman I'm close for the bill and would appreciate a good vote Arkansas. Sure entertain a motion of this Senator Ballinger we have a motion to pass second vote was. I have a motion to pass senator garner. In a second in a second are you guys twins. Twins. We have a second second by Senator Ballinger do pass all education all those in favor say aye opposed graduation Mr represent Gazaway. Next will. House Bill fifteen eighty six. Four years. Okay. Representative Gazaway you your. Recognized to present house bill fifteen eighty six thank you Mr chairman house bill fifty eighty six concerns the offense of video voyeurism it's a very simple bill it just adds three types of conduct if not consented to actually maybe make that four types of additional conduct if not consented to that would fall under the offensive voyeurism currently with the law that's already on the books is unlawful for a person to use a camera videotape. photo optical photoelectric other image recording device for the purpose of secretly observing a person and there are certain conditions that apply one if it's in a private area out of view two if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area and three has not consented to the observation what this bill does is simply adds in addition to not consented to the observation it adds not consented to the observing viewing photographing filming or videotaping and there's a specific case up I believe that came from the fate bill area that was kind of the motivator behind this bill that by the prosecutors association realize that we needed to expand a little bit and Mr Mansoor I think explain those facts. If you order for yourself yes thank you Mr chairman Bob McMahon with prosecutors association. You're recognized as as president Gazaway said this very simple simple bill the particular case that came to our attention was a situation where there was a a female who had consented to be viewed I guess removing her clothing but the individual was actually videotaping her at the same time which she did not consent to so looking at the way the video voyeurism statute was written she had not consented to we want to make sure that the fact that she had not consented to be videotaped was now covered because under current law she consented to the viewing but not the videotaping so it wouldn't fit the actual crime itself of the borders and so this correction which saw that from happening in the future and would enable us to have a charge in that situation so that's a very simple set of facts but that's exactly what happened in the case are. Committee at any questions from committee. Senator you have a question. Yes Sir I'm eleven walking in and out to to. So in the case described a. The. The victim knew that they were. Get taking the pictures but having consent to the videotape I'm sorry Mr I understand was she consented to having the individual watch her closing but there was no consent at all to do anything else and he videotaped I misunderstood I thought you said take a picture I was like I'll just in spring pictured okay bye bye and I may have salinity correctly but. Any other any other questions from committee. Sam Nunn. Anyone in the audience. Wish to speak for against. Saying representative Gazaway you're recognized close thank you Mr chairman I'm close for the bill might appreciate a good vote our. Committee. We have a motion sensor Johnson do pass second Senator Rice. All those in favor. All opposed graduation represent Gazaway. Asked house bill fifteen sixty eight thank you Mr chairman thank you three. Next bill. Thanks house bill fifteen eighty seven six. C.. The past fifteen eighty six the next bill is fifteen eighty seven yes hard you're recognized present fifteen eighty seven and Mister there's also a witness from the prosecuting attorney's association I believe on this bill. CPO and I think there's. But again it. With the chairs permission the Committee recognized thank you Mr so what this bill does it concerns when a person is convicted as a habitual offender whether they have to serve time in prison really the purpose of this bill was just to close a loophole that existed if you look at the way the current law reads specifically in section a independent meeting the following criteria and we're talking about a bit you'll offenders here may be sentenced to pay a fine authorized by law for the felony conviction and to an extended term of imprisonment as set forth in subdivision I to this section and the way that's been interpreted by the appellate courts is to mean that a person who is charged and convicted as a habitual offender the way again This Is been interpreted is that they could pay a fine. Four be sentenced to imprisonment. The instinct and out this law is is it does not allow under the existing eventual fender Law for someone who's charging convicted as a habitual offender to be sentenced to probation. Or to a suspended sentence but the argument that defense attorneys have made kind of over the years and has been kind of found the way the law is written by the appellate courts is that would allow a habit you'll offender to be sentenced to a fine only. And I think the point of the bill is to kind of close that loophole because clearly it was not the intention of the legislature when we're talking about habitual offenders people who've been convicted of a vigil as a habitual offender to be sentenced to a fine only when the legislature took off the table things like probation and suspended sentence and it does say that they would be imprisoned but then to say that it would authorize a fine only it is kind of an absurd idea because if the legislature intended that they wouldn't likely taken probation and suspended cents off the table to and so this just closes that loophole that's been used on rare occasion over the years and says that if you're a visual offender in your convicted as a habitual offender that you'll have to do prison time and that's what the bill does I probably didn't explain it real well in this bow and can fill in anything that I missed played pretty clear actually would you like an invite yourself. My name is Ashley bell and I'm an attorney with the prosecutor court enters office and speak on behalf of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association. Do you have anything to add I I just wanted to say at representative Gazaway did an excellent job explaining the bill the case involved it's Jones versus state and it's it's just an issue of case interpretation of what the law is under the current habitual offender statute there is language that says may that may has always been interpreted by the courts to really mean shall sentence within a certain range depending on what that level the fences and with the existence of the fine the general intent of the visual offender statute is always been we're going to punish habitual offenders more severely and we're not going to give the option of probation or suspended sentence and this one case says well we're going to give a fine only or or present and so essentially what this bill does is tie up that loophole it's our belief that it wasn't the legislature's intent to allow for for such an absurd result so what you're saying is because of this Lupo we've allowed a lot of a visual offenders to walk free thank you pay for. it is Sir yes Sir so it I don't know that this happens commonly it's certainly an argument that I've heard made commonly add to a jury by defense attorneys I know it happens occasionally but the idea being is that it would just close up that loophole so there wouldn't really be the option of a fine where one can't even do a suspended sentence or have probation. Okay any any questions from committee members. Seeing none. Anyone else in the audience Mr rose what. Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers recognized this isn't really a loophole it's really a safety valve the issue here is this in Arkansas unlike most states we have the jury sentencing jury gets to decide there are the occasional cases where a prosecutor tries to send someone to prison whom the jury feels should not go to prison that's what the Jones case is about know why and and what have been the law before and when Jones is been the law for any are you know two decades now the problem here is this or there's several problems Arkansas has a essentially a lifetime look back on prior convictions in in many jurisdictions you don't count the prior conviction for after ten years fifteen years or whatever Arkansas it's for life it's always there and you can become a habitual offender after with with just two convictions if you written to felony hot checks you are a you can be individual offender I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't happen very often that a jury does not sentence someone to prison but in my practice which is over forty years it's happened twice one was a guy who rode a hot check and he had two prior convictions about twenty five thirty years earlier jury refused to send him to prison the other one was a guy who is in the car words and drugs were found they decided he knew they were there and possess and he had two prior convictions from another state for things that would have been misdemeanors here in Arkansas in the jury refused to send him to. Press this is a check against the occasional case where a prosecutor is unrealistic and wants to send someone to prison but a jury who and we're here as long as we're trusting juries to make sentencing decisions give the jury the opportunity in the appropriate case they and they're not going to take it in the case where it's not deserve but they will so I I would ask to this bill be defeated in the law remain in effect as it is right now. For any questions Mr rose for. Senator Garner. Yes so this is kind of like. The concept of jury nullification but in a much for way I know there's some historical cases where the conviction came down the jury just basically said we're not going to fall this is unfair or stuff like that is that kind of the similar concept we're talking about here is to not sort of sort of in in this sense with jury nullification normally deals with this shouldn't be a crime or whatever what we're dealing with when this comes up the person has been convicted of the offense the question is what's going to happen to him does he does he go to prison or not of Arkansas is one of the few states that still has jury sentencing in most states it's it's it's the judge who who who decides what the what the numerical value of the sentences of and and this allows in the if the current law allows a jury in the appropriate case. two Senate to not send someone to prison the reason the jury is there is a as a conscience of the community and also is a a check against the against the the government essentially and you know most prosecutors exercise your sensible decisions most of the time but sometimes they don't this allows the jury the current law allows the jury in the appropriate case to not send someone to prison it shall be convicted they sell it may have a fine for instance to make a fine and doesn't apply to class Y. felonies anyway where it's got where it where it's going to come up and word has come up is in the low level drug case. Or the or the of your staff talk check type of thing in generally speaking where the crimes were really in that the previous crimes for a long time ago and the person who's lived a blameless life for twenty years twenty five years thirty years and made a mistake Jerry doesn't want to send and of this this would this would take that discretion away from the jury is a policy decision you know for for the legislature to make I think the current law is the correct statement policy. Mr chairman I respond yes I would like to hear sponsors and ask for that. Thank you what I would say is first up the Jones case that we've been discussing with dealing with the way that the jury instruction was written it wasn't necessarily just an issue of the jury wanted to give a fine it was that the jury instruction didn't give that option and that's what it got it reversed essentially but it really boiling it down this is not a huge problem in terms of we have a lot of juries you're wanting to send it to the two offenders to finds only and I can't think of any prosecutors who are filing charges with someone is a habitual offender who has a nonviolent offense from thirty years ago for a hot check I I understand Mister is and so I had to cases where this is happening has over forty years of experience but a lot of times if someone is charged as a habitual offender that charge often goes away in negotiations when the case please out it is not something that on something that is doesn't need to be charges at the joint center or sentence as a habitual offender they are not these are reserved for cases where someone has multiple felonies they obviously are not following the law and are not being rehabilitated. you Mr chairman Clouseau respond to Mr Rosen's resolutely all right thank you I think. Really what it kind of boils down to is. What did the legislature intend when they passed this law and I think you know if if if it's instructive to look at what the legislature didn't include if the legislature meant for habitual offenders and you know I can just tell you if you charge somebody has a Mitchell offender it's somebody who needs to go to prison that was my experience Adad rarely use the eventual offender unless it was somebody who I definitely needed to leverage because this was somebody who needed to go And when the legislature passed the law as it is they took probation off the table. They took suspended sentence which is essentially unsupervised probation off the table. And I think it's just absurd to think that the legislature meant for habitual offenders that you can't give on probation you can't give them suspended sentence but you give them a fine the legislature meant when you're dealing with the big chill offenders up and about felony habitual offenders that if they're convicted as a for a felony habitual offender that they go to prison. And that to think otherwise and argue otherwise which the defense defense attorneys have done for years that's one of the things that you'll always hear from defense attorneys when you're when you have these cases and you charge someone as official offender will they might just get a fine and so you know they can't use that as a way to. And their negotiations to try to avoid prison but I think that you know realistically this is not what the legislature intended the legislature would intended anything other than prison they would allow for probation and suspended sentenced also be available an available option for habitual offender the fact that they didn't. Seems absurd that they would just say but you can just give them a fine and so that's why the again this bill is just trying to what I would school clothes that would pull I know Mister Rosen swag disagrees and I enjoy a good arguments or isn't is it a recidivism Hendren a **** will offense. When you when you commit a crime over and over in your wrist at the rate is really and to put a visual offense. Absolutely it's absolutely and and and Mr Rosenzweig you know he brings up the really the most innocuous example anyone could imagine someone wrote to felony hot checks and now they're charges a **** will you know in reality it's people that have had it in others to have actual offender statutes there's what they call the little habit you'll offender stat the statute and there's the big conventional offender statute and that's for people with I think over five. First of all alarm okay for about five you have five or more for more sh these are people who clearly have no intention of following the law and Mr Rosenzweig likes to argue that you should just give them a fine that's why he doesn't want this law changed again that there's there's a need to change this Law Center Johnson can't question. I mean this is the for more. From what I read it. This is the main. On page two I mean that that shall be is in the case of of whether found guilty or for more felonies. As online and line twenty five Page two yes senator it is it's that's under the larger vigil offender section it actually is under section one as well as the small the visual the shall be sentenced really the imprisonment it's a little bit confusing if you're looking at it and you've never seen the statue before that the shall is really interpreted as a shall ready it's just in terms of the imprisonment it's really the fine that is the issue and so the reason that we we change it this way is made and president may and sentenced them to a fight and shall include imprisonment. I don't know if that answers your question had no time. Thank me thirty days right. I actually it depending on the classification of the offense there's there's a list so it depends on if it's at B. felony or C. felony there are longer terms of sentence so they start off at the base line and then if someone is a small eventual then it's a certain level and if someone is a large vigil offender than is a longer term of imprisonment thank you the committee members have questions. Sam Nunn thank you Mr rose Womack thank you Ashlee thank you anyone in the audience anyone else notice which speak for against the bill. Seeing none representing Gazaway one close. Thank you Mr chairman again I think there's really a bill that closes a loophole that goes back to what the legislative intent likely was when we're talking about a bit you'll offenders I think the legislature clearly intended that if you are charged and convicted as a habitual offender which is a pretty tall order in and of itself if that happens then the legislature met prison time that's why they took probation off the table that's what they took SIS off the table they clearly never intended that a person could just get a fine for being a habitual offender although Mr Rosenzweig likes that and I'm sure loves to argue that I don't think that's what the legislature intended and I would just ask that the that we close that loophole we'll do that by passing this bill and so I would appreciate a good our committee. Of the chair will entertain a motion I have a motion sensor Johnson do pass do pass. The second from. Senator Ballinger. Any discussion on the motion. Are all those favor say aye All opposed. Graduation representative Gazaway. Mystras thank you batten zero right now. Next bill representative Gazaway. Are you ready. Thank you Mr chairman a house bill fourteen ninety seven. Yes. Representatives were you're recognized to present house bill fourteen ninety seven. Thank you Mr chairman members this may be one of the best bills you get to vote on the session this concerns our courthouse dogs in expanding their use vote then the types of facilities that they can be used and then we'll and also the witnesses or the type of witnesses that they can be used to assist. basically what the bill does And I guess maybe a little history would would be a good place to start we currently have been allow in Arkansas the use of a certified dogs to assist. Victims of child sexual abuse and that's happening in court rooms error in some courtrooms not all court rooms around the state and these dogs I help the witness be able to remain calm. At while they give testimony at trial it the really amazing if you've ever seen or dealt with one of these dogs basically they're brought into the courtroom the jury never sees the dog the jury doesn't know that the dog is there with the child by the child's there on the stand but it just helps calm the child down as you can imagine there's not any hope I can't imagine a harder task in the world then. To imagine a young child who has to get on the witness stand in a court room surrounded by adults surrounded by judge wearing a black robe a jury of twelve people sitting in the jury box lawyers and the person who has abuse them sitting at the counsel table staring right at him. And. We passed a good bill several years ago that allowed for these dogs to be used that are properly trained to help that child witness be calm and be able to deliver their testimony and so what this bill does is it expands those the ability to use those dogs before and what this bill describes as a vulnerable witnesses which are witnesses who are suffering from an intellectual or just a developmental disability. And that includes many types of conditions impairments related to the general intellectual functioning or adaptive behavior including without limitation cerebral palsy spinal benefit a down syndrome epilepsy or autism these are witnesses who already have a hard time testifying at trial and if these dogs can help them just as we allowing for the use with child sexual abuse victims we want to allow for those expanded classes of of witnesses also includes dyslexia. and those Again with other other types of disabilities has to be before the age of twenty one or twenty two and then vulnerable witness means a person but a person testifying in a criminal hearing or trial who has an intellectual or developmental disability which we've already defined or who have significant impairment in cognitive functioning acquired as a direct consequence of a brain injury. Resulting from a progressively deteriorating neurological condition including without limitation Alzheimer's disease or dementia again these are also witnesses who I would have a hard test may be hard time testifying at trial and these dogs could certainly be beneficial to them and then we talk about the types of facilities where these dogs can be used right now they're used in the court room in a criminal proceeding but we expand the locations to the courthouse hello any location where the certified dog team provide services at any location related to a law enforcement investigation or law enforcement request their presence the location where matters pending in the criminal justice system occur and then we say a child advocacy center school day care law enforcement agency prosecuting attorney's office in places where child victims are going to have to go. And so again I think that's what the bill does Mr McMahon can speak to the program he has a worked on this over the years and and has a lot of information that he can sure about how this program has worked in the courts. Mr McMahon would you identify yourself for the record thank you Mr chairman Bob McMahon represent the prosecuting attorney's association and I think Senator ever present Gazaway did a great job of presenting the bill what I can add is if there's any specific questions about the procedure I'd be happy to try to ensure those but I can give you a couple of reasons why we came for with this bill Arkansas actually was one of the first states in the country to have the court facility dog program and what we learned to the past few years that other states patterned what we do and what they do after what we do what we learned in studying their laws that they expanded of the type of witness that the dog could could benefit and so that's what we're doing this so we kinda patter this after some other states we took existing language that was in our criminal code in our public health and welfare code to use language we're familiar with a couple of general examples of the the the primary dove facility dog in Arkansas is located in Walker county Cody how that was the the prosecuting attorney up there and he he started that program with courthouse dog named barb just a little bit of statistics in terms of what Bob has done since she's been in Faulkner County she's attended over two hundred meetings participated in six jury trials and is a participating over a hundred fifty hours actual court hours there's another program here in in Arkansas right now based off the prosecuting attorney's office up in the fourteenth judicial district sauce my understanding I think there are three additional dogs to in White County in one in Boone County that are in existing child advocacy under centers right now so again we think that this is a step in the right direction to provide better help into including more witnesses they can benefit from this excellent program and I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any about the the procedure but other than that I think represent Gazaway covered what this bill does. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr. didn't we have a the judge here in Arkansas when there's a a child of the victims of rape that was going to use the courthouse dog or petition to declare it unconstitutional though the bill the law. And Constitutional Amendment eighty of Arkansas constitution there was a it is my understanding that there was one case where the Faulkner County dog again let me please say there's nothing to prohibit that particular dog or anyone the other dogs from being used in another jurisdiction but the Faulkner County dog was the I guess a petition was filed to use it here in Little Rock in one of the judges declared the wasn't he had control of his courtroom anyways Kalau that to be used in his courtroom so again that's a G. we we feel like that's a judicial decision a judicial discretion but that was declared you know by one particular judge so that that literally has no effect it never was appeal or anything like that so literally has no effect on any other court in Arkansas that that's my understanding so it was the judge's discretion to do that so I think the procedure was followed by the prosecutor's office by following the petition that the law requires them to file it was just denied by the judge again without it being appealed we don't have anything to say that the law was was held unconstitutional this one particular local judge's decision yes so it so obviously it's not it is not impacting on the rest of the state but it wasn't a matter judges the the discretion he declared it unconstitutional wasn't wasn't because he didn't wanted in his courtroom he said the whole law is unconstitutional because Amendment eighty it's my understanding he yes Sir I think that's corrected you know wasn't part of that case is my understanding that he felt like this limited his discretion to control his court room and it mandated that this happens it's my understanding more more prosecution asking they realize it's judge's discretion but I believe that was what the article I read said about his decision so is it is it has the court actually taken up the case and declared it to be constitutional. No I'm not aware of any case where anything was appealed regarding the the use of those six prosecutors misconception riles it was prohibited in that one and that one did not get appeal so are we worried at all that someone may declare a mistrial if it gets to the Supreme Court since it had been to the Supreme Court and judge already saying because of Amendment eighty of our constitution that doesn't allow us to do rules of procedure practice and that's what he declared unconstitutional but if he even gets it there then some some rapist is convicted who who had a open you know child to use the this dog to help him testimony that we have a mistrial declared because it hadn't been to the constitution the the Supreme Court yet I mean I think that's possible Senator but if I would hope if the prosecutors follow the procedure that law outlined that it did you know that public court would wind up hold the law the you all past two thousand fifteen but you're you're exactly right I mean that could happen okay. The Senator Ballinger. Of. I think Senator brought that up that would That would probably hasten Amendment rulemaking wouldn't. Yeah I think a a a a an amendment on rulemaking would be a good idea. Because then then the legislature could do that couldn't. That that would be one those good ideas at the legislate the people represent about. About the court system. As always Mr you're so wise. Any other questions. From the Committee. Anyone here to speak for against. See no one of represent Gazaway which are close for your bill thank you Mr chairman I'm going to avoid that very interesting discussion that representative Ballinger brought up because I do think it is an interesting discussion but I think this is a great bill I think it'll help a lot of vulnerable witnesses across the state and I just ask for a good vote attorney or not representative Gazaway you with this bill you put yourself on one side of it. Of the motion Senator Ballinger second from center Johnson in discussion. Hearing none of all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried can resolution represented as well you passed your bill. Senator represent against wave you anything we can match. I am feeling good with that I'm good with it. And get. Seventy six this call. Thank. Representative Gazaway M.. The Gazaway fix steak house bill fifteen sixty one or something else. We've already done fifteen sixty one Sept thirteen I do not I do sixteen sixteen house bill sixteen sixteen sourcing house bill sixteen sixteen. C.. Thank you Mr chairman committee this bill simply provides for District Court judges to fall under a retired district court judges To be treated the same way the circuit court judges are when there is a vacancy on the bench so let's just say you got a District Court judge to get sick and I need someone to fill in for him right now if that happens with the circuit court the circuit court judges paid travel expenses and mileage for driving to that other judges jurisdiction to to handle their cases forum and so this allows retired judges over utilizing experienced judges who retired if they've acted as a municipal judge or District Court judge in the past and the receiving benefits under the Arkansas public employee retiree retirement system to be able to If the if the Chief Justice Supreme Court appoints them to fill in for another District Court judge that they be allowed to receive Mileage and reimbursement for their travel expenses if they go in and fill in that's all the bill does And happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non represented as we would like to close for your bill. I'm close for the bill and would appreciate a good vote. Do pass from center Johnson. Second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion. Harry none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations representative has where you have passed your bill. Thank Mr. Representative goes we do you have any other bills that there are people here for. I do. And what would that be I think they're witnesses here on sixteen oh five in sixteen oh six. Let's take sixteen oh five the okay. Representatives were you are recognized to present House Bill sixteen oh five thank you Mr chairman this just concerns the payment of a for a court transcript and adds one section that says the judge of the circuit court in which the court proceedings occurred is exempt from this section other words that the judge presiding over the case and they need a copy of the transcript they don't have to pay what normal other people would have to pay it was a case heard in their courts there court reporter. so on and so forth but I have Judge here who can I think explain that more detail. Could you identify yourself for the record yes I'm citizen we are circuit judge involving your answers to counties thank you for being here today on sixteen oh five basically what we're doing is clarifying what really is already in place for the trial court reporters under their. Arkansas state trial employment guided already discusses the transfer process preparation that are not required by the judge shall not be done in certain hours which indicates that the transcripts that are required by the judge to be done during work hours and they are paid on salary for that as well so basically what we're trying to do is clarify in that state you can make it clear that the court reporters are not charging the judge of whom they work for to produce a transcript of the court of which they are recording for that judge saving the state money we've got some jurisdictions where the court reporters are requiring the. Judges to pay for the transcript of the hearing of which they recorded for that judge. That's the short of it Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mister you mind what we discussed this but just for the committee if you have somebody who is a substitute court reporter coming in what the essentially agreement the fixes for for covering their how they're going to be be paid because if they're otherwise by this they wouldn't be able to charge. That's correct in in a sense that's what some arguments have been made with the special court reporters at their summit sitting in for a court reporter so if I'm a poor reporter sick or on vacation has been someone sitting in if they need a the judge saw the same committee for example needs a transcript from that court reporter rather than them not being paid so if I need in two weeks from the end they are paid and the amount that for the full day so there's the one part of if they're only working in court for three hours because the rest of it settles for they got paid for eight hours of technically speaking there actually been paid for a full days work and I'm just asking them to get into page transcript on something however if they did work a full day and I do need to transfer to another judge need to transfer from the hearing for the for the same reason what we are doing his work with the trial court employees committee that to pass a policy with a receipt of favour of the court reporters will get paid for the time that they do this transcript so for example if I have a special report of it in my court for one day the folder I I need to transfer from that day then we are AOC will pay that court reporter for the time that they are doing that transcript now there has been some arguments or I should say some discussions with reporters about that that's not being paid that they're not being paid as much by being paid for the full day as they are for the transcripts and when you do the math on that it's only forty six dollars forty six pages that they'd be required to to top they get paid four dollars and ten cents per page from an attorney when they order transfer for purposes of appeals and things like that so when you do the math they really are actually getting paid more to the state for that and just for the record I think one of the things that that's what not known as I actually was a transcriber for a court reporter that's how I got to the legal system in the core systems so I'm well aware of how transcribing works I'm more aware of how the transcripts work I understand the timing that goes into in the work that fits into it so I don't under this bill lightly also do not expect the. Court reporters to work for free that the some of the things that they are also going to be saying and I do anticipate that there will be some that are here but the administrative order nine which I did provide to you explains that court reporters are to work for forty hours per week so on those forty hours per week when the courts are not in session those court reporters are being paid to do something so they're not doing anything for free they're getting paid already by the state to work for the for the judges and so for example if I don't have court and it's in office today those are times that they could actually be doing those transcripts that the judge request now it's very. A few times the judge needs a transcript but sometimes there may be something that's a difficult case I need to hear the arguments again most of the time ashes to listen to it so my courtordered doesn't have to type it but there are some circumstances in which they do need it again This usually is not a problem however there are some cases that are happening throughout the state where they are requiring their own judge to pay for that transcript for which they are actually paid by the state the salary already to do. If you look also attached in the notes are highlighted in their certain things if you look also in the administrative office of the courts job description it is specific to perform other duties as assigned asking my court reporter to the top of a transcript for me is considered another duty that is assigned. Any questions. I'm reserve my questions so here the against other questions from the committee yeah out there this summer so in the case of say a substitute comes in four day they work the whole day that they're paid for that day in and two three weeks later there there's judge says Hey I want these transcripts you maybe want the proceedings in the boxes transcribed better ways private and that person to sit down for three four hours now to work to do that and more sensually I've heard as they will be compensated other the initial fee is that not correct no that's not correct what will happen is if they've been there for a full day let's say in court a few weeks later I need a transcript from that date and and we're only talking about special. A court reporters at this point that's the question is directing they will then be paid for that day of the work that they have to do so if it takes a half a day to do they get paid half a day's work of it takes them a full day they get a paid in full a seller or and after that they get the additional salary what they get paid for that day they don't get the pay the additional four dollars and ten cents per page my question is after they do say that work the whole day and then two weeks later they're all somewhere else the judge requested that they get paid that second time correct they do okay yes our thank you. I would ask that I would be allowed to respond to anything of any opposition because I think they're missing. Able answer more questions we hear both sides. Yeah I think we'll have questions for you after well we here thanks any other questions for this witness at this time. Hearing none of we have. Valerie flora of against. First. You can tell you take that your other son. Miss for fuel dental for yourself for the record. Good afternoon committee yes my name is Valerie flora I am president elect of the Arkansas court reporters association I'm also a official court reporter in the twenty second judicial district having served there for twelve years our opposition to this bill is skizzieren cracked. I want to get out. Our opposition to the bill is as written in this form today. Rick does require our subsidy court reporters to work without compensation. Should the bill be modified which is what we would ask to state what judge weaver just stated. We could be okay with that but no compensation for the amount of time that it takes to produce a transcript is unfair to our substitute reporters. The unintended consequence even out if they were compensated for a half day or full day the the daily per diem for substitute reporters is quite low we struggle to find reporters to cover for us when we need them because of that very fact so to ask them to work again on a transcript for that same lower she. Would cause a problem and us being able to find reporters to want to come cover courts trust me when we need it and that is. Really in a nut shell are only opposition to this it's unfair compensation or no compensation. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized that but there's other reporters already doing this. Over the state already doing I'm sorry I mean the court without the compensation that. So because I'm an official salaried state employees when my judge request and and most of the all the officials that I've spoken with most everybody far judge request a transcript from us we absolutely give it to them without charge and we find the time to manage that. We're our main opposition factor only on position is when it comes to our substitute reporters. And that you're only opposition to this yes okay thank you Mister senator garner you're recognized yeah so we got to conflicting kind ideas here so you're saying that it's a substitute reporter. Comes back look at the example gave later for two weeks they're not compensated for that time it takes to do that transcript give it the judges saying something different I'm just I don't know I'm not saying anybody's misleading or what I just wanna know what what the real case is good can you explain what she's saying and maybe she can explain what you're saying the seat where the fusion is maybe explain it if you my letter answer first and I would go to you judge so where I'm addressing right now is this bill as written St sit stand before you right now. What they have proposed after this bill is that they would. Compensate a substitute reporter based on the same per diem for which they said in court for us is that either in statute ordinance rule yet now. This something that will come. That's what I'm hearing today or judge what assurances Committee have that that's going to happen like what this is a purely me being ignored on how this would no that's on using it today because she has never reached out to us to ask us anything or talk to the opposition so what we have talked to are the ones that we have reached out to us we talk to them to talk to court reporters I'm actually can talk to other members of the board and in regard to this and they are all in support of it for it the intent and we go back the intent of the statute is really. Toward the court reporters and we are absolutely and I think we can all agree that it would be illegal for us to have anybody work for no pay that would be a huge liability on the state for us to do something along those lines said this the the main intent of the statute is really intended toward and in my opinion the court reporters that are actually employed by the judges so I think that's where some of the confusion comes because I was never discussed in no disrespect toward her I've never met her before the other folks have contacted me either for reporters on I've reached out to the court reporters and they they are okay with this but yes we absolutely even as a state there's no way we would even be allowed not to do that and as far as the money again they get paid one hundred and seventy five dollars for a day that's a forty two point six nine pages that would have to be typed again I was a transcriber I know that doesn't take that much time and we only have twenty five lines per page on a transcript I don't know what that's to topping would be acceptable to amend it to put that per diem requirement in the law just to have that fixed or is that going to cause problems that some for seeing well I guess my concern would be that does that mean we need to go back and change all the statute and everything in the trial Hendrix is or at the like administrative order number nine that talks about the court reporters required to work and then the camera labor standards act that go on to the hours that are worked we you know that portion of what she's requesting is usually somewhere else and that's what we're going to put it this statute is just in regard to the transcript itself and how much per. How much per page those transcripts are required so this right here is really aimed to for transcripts that are. Requested by individuals who are not judges however because we had the issue come up with this with some court. Not courts under current law if I'm a reporter I tell the judge or not get this let you pay me you have no the judges have no recourse correct well it because I mean in all kind of other different because it's not clear it's debatable whether it is or not that's really have to go into looking into the fair labor standards act in some of the wording in that administrative order number nine and then the actual court reporter job duties that is printed out as the under the ministry of Office of the Courts already she would be but you're saying that either through this other process you're fine with paying the per diem if they have to additional hours is up to or later I'm saying it's a way we can put that code seems like it kills both birds one stone office to later that's too convoluted thank you Mr chairman for the intelligence on that. Other questions from the committee. Okay let me. See if I can wrap my head around this. Of because I'm hearing two different things first I'm hearing report court reporters and I'm hearing substitute court reporters and I getting that right yes Sir. Two different classes basically and on one hand I'm hearing court reporters. Provide transcripts as part of their job to a judge of the judge wants it for no extra charge from and then hearing may be not necessarily correct that is an issue in some other counties where the court reporter is requiring their judge to pay them for the transcripts that the judge request. Okay so Mr floor should that be an issue. From my perspective that's a personnel issue because it is clear that our job district descriptions as written require us to do other duties and within that is prepared transcript for our judge because we're state employees who get salaries and I do not know what case came up that precipitated this I was not part that you're even though I'm on the board of executive board for the state association we were not contacted. About this nor as an official reporter was I contacted about this I found out about this and after it passed the house. So if I if a court reporter he was a state employee is not performing her duties by providing a transcript for her judge in my opinion that's a personnel issue. This particular bill will affect negatively getting substitute reporters to work in our courts for us. Okay but we we all seem to be in agreement the court reporters are supposed to supply transcripts for their judge circuit court judges if they want them. Are we both of you agree on that I agree that they're supposed to however because the statute is clear on whether the judge has to pay it or not statutorily there is a there's room for argument regardless of the personnel issue there's a room for a legal argument because it's not clear in the statute all right that's what we're trying to correct yes Sir so but the so there's no disagreement that between those of us here that that's supposed to be happening and so the disagreement is all substitute court reporters and judge you're saying that. Under this subsequent reporter still get paid of. Per for providing a transcript. Except it's a salary which I'm assuming is your reigning hourly because I differentiate in my mind hourly and sour what salary but okay date went when we have a substitute court reporter they be at a hundred and seventy five dollars for that day for a full days work so if we're going with the argument that we need that in here than really we would actually to put the other salary part in here. Allori amount for a special court reporter is in a different area and that's where we plan to put to make sure that that too is clear and that other area to put it here would but not really make sense because where we pay them and how much we pay them to have their paid is somewhere else this statute is strictly about how much a court reporter gets paid when the requested for a transcript. And we're just making sure that it's clear that that is the amount other than from the requesting judges presiding over the hearing. Okay well I think it makes it clear that the judges exam Senate makes it clear that judges and have to pay I'm not sure that makes it clear. On anything else but that's what I'm trying to get down to the I'm good I'll come back to my questions of that Senator Johnson and then Senator Ballinger centre Dotson. You mentioned the fair labor laws the substitute the court reporters is is that contract labor. Yes Sir. But don't fall under some of those things does it. That was going toward whatever I was saying that the court reporters not the subsidy court reporters that was falling into the court reporters. Because I've got letters rather court reporters in their arguments are different than the arguments that she's making a think we're talking about the sentencing court reporters and if that's contract labor now well that when I was referring to that I was referring to not not the substitute reporters that would clear to me I'm sorry. That would be my fault. Okay Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr you know I know we're we're laying the process nobody wants to make any amendments in and I understand it but I think I think we're still early enough in the process that we got agreed to amendment we would have any trouble it what if the amendment rather than obviously we don't Senate salary or whatever but instead and I think it be better to do it rather than setting a salary and there is pointed to the the rule that would state that currently there is there's some rules that provide for the mechanism what they're they're going to get paid the issue is is not for the day rate we know what that is that's what they get paid today is that they go back into the transcript then the question is that's not set out anywhere in the law or and rule or anything of what they would get paid so could we do an amendment to point to the to to indicate that they would get paid in accordance with you know whatever rule provision that set up and and. Then just leave it at that. I mean if amending it will get it. It shall be and that that's fine I just feel like it's not in the proper place that I'll do what I need to do to ensure that this I definitely can see that if what we're talking about is is a. Is pointing at and if we if it is cleaner I mean I I had to mess up the codes of its cleaner to put it another section code. You can support that section code into this bill as well so we can do that if we need to but at but instead of instead of you know sitting out don't don't set up of what the rate is or any of that information is all that could be changed but we point to the rule or even say established by a by rule by the whatever it's the agency that that does that and and and and I think that that that should satisfy everyone's concerns yes that is completely fine we can definitely amend that had I known that before returning today and somebody reached out to us before that I would make sure that we had everything prepared and to the right of an issue but those are the issues that were brought to me well other than that they were okay with what we had encourages either not here and Senator Ballinger correct me if I'm wrong yeah the older the lawyers but. The. What I read thirty one thirty two the judge of the circuit court in which the court proceeding the card is exempt from this section if that previous paragraph said that big mac for four dollars but the judges exempt I would read that the judge would have to pay. Per big macs didn't I don't read that somebody else has to pay for big macs I just believe that he doesn't have to pay for big maxi and I think and I think that's what was its was parked the concern I think the argument that I mean clearly we're not gonna pay is not going to require labor four zero right so with that there will be a method to to pay them but but the question is whether now we want to set that out in the code to do that in order to believe in all the concerns and I think that's a better idea than just leaving it hanging as it is well well that there's a little bit different from the big mac so what they're courtordered paid not the special court Porter paid like I said basically this out I'll call it a salary for that day this is a per page. And. This is for a per page and not for the actual big mac doesn't make sense because what we're we will be paying them per page will be paying them for time right it but not working with contract law though no that doesn't make sense to me because you got that one method of payment but you don't have an alternate method of payment here you may have an understanding. But none that I see. That and that's just fine we can try to clear that up and we'll. President goes one Mr chairman it can I pull this down we'll try to make an amendment will both get this same office without objection the committee thank you thank you saying. routines Gazaway I believe that you have. Three more bills to have witnesses for at least. Mr chairman if I could sixteen oh six is another bill that concerns court reporters and so that's one that although I don't think there's opposition to this one. Then I have eighteen thirteen. And eighteen fifteen. Which are to agree to bills that involve DHS and parent council. And I think those should go pretty quickly but I do have witnesses here of witnesses here so let's let's get one thing that we have witnesses for so it is just a store without dinner. All right so you'll do eighteen thirteen. Mr chairman while I have a the judge you're with me could we just to sixteen oh six sure okay. Where is the ticket take a look at house bill sixteen oh six basically this just adds a section that says the court reporter and so this is the benefit court reporters not to want to add a local reporters and judges more make that very clear. I will not be an attorney represent. The the the a court report the court reporter may require the payment for the remainder of the final cost of the transcript be submitted before the delivery of the transcript so right now they can condition the payment of fifty percent up front and it just says before they have to actually deliver it thank you they can require that the rest of it be paid I think that's fair I think the court reporters want this a lot of times you know as you heard earlier yet the court reporters who work all day in court and then they have depositions of things they have to transcribe after hours and I'm talking this is typically for private attorneys went when they do get a half a day off from the from the judges counted one a day sales early sometimes they'll do depositions or when a judge is not the state do depositions those are private lawyers and the is sometimes they do that work after hours at night and work late at night I know I've just I've seen this and basically this would just say that they can make you pay for the rest of the transcript before they actually have to give it to you and I think that's fair for court reporters to do all this work to get paid for it so it's all the bill does. Now. I think that's all the bill does. Yes yes it is I don't know that I do local reporters because this was one of the things that I brought to a representative Gazaway because we were having issues with attorneys order transcripts and the court reporters work many hours especially there's an appeal nineteen weekends and just like the big backstory can't go to Walmart or not Donald to get it back and drive away and paying later that's basically what I'm trying to do here is make sure that the court a party to do the work that the attorney pays them before they get the transcript are you saying that there's attorneys that are paying I am saying that their attorneys are not paying your dues for in right that is not me. In the report no there's no law in place there's actually been some court issues going on with that yes Sir. That would that would that be the legislature of the courts that would would make those rules well you're about to make those rules right now. And U. S. District. Okay anyone else to testify up for against. Hearing none representative we would you like to close for your bill close the bill would appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Centerville second from Senator Garner any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried congratulations represented as well you have passed your bill. Thank you Mr chairman are you ready now for is it fourteen eighteen thirteen eighteen thirteen Mister ordered here. He is. Okay and also miss invoking DHS. I will suggest to you that if they're agreed to. The longer you talk the less likely less likelihood of success you have. Thank you Mr chairman these bills or agreed to by the adjacent parent council to groups that are typically opposed to one another in court I think that's quite remarkable and says a lot that We should probably pass these bills eighteen thirteen deals specifically with the parents right to counsel under the juvenile code basically what it does is. For non custodial parents and punitive parents of the punitive parent is someone who has acted as a parent but is not legally been as not been legally recognized as a parent now the chairman knows well about punitive parents and not to study appearance and what the bill does is essentially if there's a punitive parent who's demonstrated significant contact with a child that early in the case even though they've not been legally recognizes the parent we're gonna have the court appointed counsel so that they can go through this process with a lawyer they can get legally recognized with the parent as a parent you don't get to the end of these cases and we're talking about DHS to dependency neglect cases here you don't get to the end of these cases and they're just seeing a lawyer for the first time just just before a termination of parental rights hearing if the if these people of acted as parents and we can get the recognized early in the case as the legal parents there's a good chance that if they've got those significant contacts with the child that that child could be placed in their custody that they would not have to stay in the foster care system or maybe even go into the foster care system and so this is a good bill that will protect parents are people who are acting as parents but have been legally determined yet to be a parent to get council early on to get custody of children early on and avoid some of these issues that we've seen With. These parents not being able to exercise their rights early in a case and so I think. That's primarily what the bill does but I have the experts here who can explain that more detail Mr before we have anyone testify formalized committee if they have any questions I got a motion property I thought you probably did of this committee having questions. C. none is there anybody here to testify against. You saying No representative god we would your clothes for your bill I'm closer the bill would appreciate a good vote. Senator makes a motion to pass second from center Johnson any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed congratulates representative goes well you have closed your bill passed your bill. Congratulations on closing on it to. Sixty. Eighteen fourteen. House Bill. Turning my back on. Okay that was eighteen thirteen correct correct okay eighteen fourteen This defines parent for purposes of the juvenile code. And but specifically to add and you'll see this on page two a person who is listed as a parent on the birth certificate this is important that we have that in the definition because in these cases DHS has to provide notice to parents and the preliminary question then is who is a parent well if you're listed on the birth certificate you ought to be recognized as a parent and so we say that if your list on the birth certificate you're recognized as a parent DHS now knows who to give notice to and this helps them in their procedures the second part of this bill defines how. Witnesses can offer testimony at a hearing we're talking about foster parents adoptive parents pre adoptive parents or relative caregivers the current law allows them to basically just picked up here and have the opportunity to be heard and what you'll see in practice a lot of times in these cases is these folks to show up in the court says R. is early these folks here and I'll stand up and they'll say what would you like to say something and without being sworn in as a witness without being put under oath without being subject to cross examination they just stand up on the first few in the court room and they start telling their story and what this says is that those people want to be heard would they still have the opportunity to be heard but they need to be heard as a witness which means they need to take the witness stand the need to be put under oath and that and to be subject to cross examination like every other witness that helps make a good clean record for DHS and for the parents again this is agreed to by DHS and parent council groups are typically odds of one another so I think that this is a good bill and the experts are here to help answer any questions any questions from the committee. Anyone here to testify against. See non representative Gazaway are you close for your bill I am closing appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from senator garner second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion hearing none offer the bill signify by saying aye. Did I hear any eyes All opposed motion care congratulations representative goes where you have passed your bill. House Bill eighteen fifteen. Thank you Mr chairman a House bill eighteen fifteen concerns a dependency neglect petitions hearings and the termination of parental rights as it relates to appear to parent this one is kind of in conjunction with the eighteen thirteen that we talked about earlier basically. We want to define punitive parent and get them involved in the cases and again at the outset of the case if they've established the significant custodial or personal or financial relationships with the child so we include a clear. Your definition of who is a punitive parent we say that they must be alleged in the petition other words they have if we not DHS has knowledge of the person's appear to parent they have to say it up front they have to list them as a party to the to the petition that's what the first part of the bill does. importantly later in the bill this bill gives a circuit judge sitting in a dependency neglect quarter DHS court the ability to make paternity determinations typically that's done by circuit judge sitting in domestic relations court. and there are some people who say under the law right now if you wanna make a paternity determination that that has to be filed in domestic relations court that decision has to be made there well there a lot of times and DHS cases when you're a dependency neglect court that the judge needs to make a finding of paternity that circuit judge sitting in DHS court is just as in password as the circuit judge who sets in domestic relations court and often times is the same person to make that determination and so this simply gives the authority to a circuit judge sitting in a dependency neglect court to be able to declare paternity just like a circuit judge sitting in domestic relations court could. We it the bill also states that Basically if I put punitive parent again we've developed talk about punitive parents and those are people who believe their parents have behaved as parents but have not been legally recognized as parents we kind of put him in a two classifications there's punitive parent to establish significant contacts and the speed of parents that haven't done anything in the punitive parents haven't done anything this bill gives the judge the ability to dismiss them from the case pretty quickly as opposed to string them along the whole time because they've not even made any attempt whatsoever to be a parent that's kind of the last thing that the bill does and then one last thing on spin section five on the next to last page we talk about the termination of parental rights under this section for. That is not considered an involuntary termination I think that can be explained why that's important and generally this is what the bill does I think the experts can probably clear this up a little better than I did. Thank you operations from the Committee. Hearing none is there anyone here testify against the bill. Hearing none are you closing your bill representative Gazaway this bill is agreed to by the ages and parent council on clothes and appreciate a good vote. The motion to passion Center Johnson. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried congradulations representative goes we have passed your bill thank you experts for your testimony. That do you have any other bills with witnesses representing Gazaway. It's possible to have somebody else needs this year I'm happy to yield for we're we're gonna go to Senator Ballinger with house bill fourteen ninety nine. Senator Ballinger I know that you are presenting this today for Senator Dismang and representative fought yeah and I actually have a the expert in the room misrepresented fight is she's willing I'd say probably good for to come down to the and there's an amendment has the amendment been engrossed opening it no it has not so we need to run the amendment okay we'll need to run the amendment and it although I understand that it may be agreed to nail sense with the amendment it has the committee's attention today to hear the bill and hear the witnesses and not necessarily take any action. Of because we would like to digest this but okay well right beat that's the first I heard that I'd love to be able to take action with the center Dismang was very much aware of okay so what I'm a I'm definitely I know that the chair rules so that I can I can count that it may be hard to overcome you. So of. The Senator Ballenger a representative fight you'll rip recognized president house bill forty nine okay so on the amendment essentially but the concern that the prosecutors had in the process is currently we have people who are the the coordinator of the multi disciplinary committee that is together that has if the date is sometimes have multiple functions or other important part of the team they were afraid that there may not have any say in who that person is and so the the the amendment takes care of that concern that it really is a multi disciplinary team that will ultimately have say aye to this coordinator is and they will consult with the the the CDC's and doing so and so that's the amendment and I make a motion to adopt the amendment. The second from center Johnson any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All for the motion signify by saying aye hi all opposed motion carried resolution Senator Ballinger you have amended your bill rate president of house bill fourteen ninety nine is amended yes I would like the director of the CDC's to come forward and introduced herself because she is also an expert on this and probably can answer technical questions questions that I couldn't do. You would identify yourself for the record. Elizabeth pulley. And your position executive director of the children's advocacy centers of Arkansas okay your the Senator Ballenger you're both recognized proceed okay I'd and I'll give a broad overview so this is a bit of a reform to to give a little more I guess unity in the process of how the CDC's work and if the yes this is how I got involved in this process is there were rules like I said some concerns with the the prosecutors and I'd I had also some concerns of my my own dealing with the oversight and so they provided amendment to for me that actually. Everything has now passed or did the affidavit they have the ability to to oversee this and and work on this and so they provided that amendment and then just through the conversations we basically got to the point where there is a compromise everybody agreed to and so that's kind of how we're where we are today at this point I don't know if no opposition to the bill and the actual framework convention the bill I'll leave that to miss Elizabeth to explain. Yes. You're recognized thank you. I've been enrolled for four years as executive director of the children's advocacy centers of Arkansas we are here today because we believe Arkansas can do better on the response to child abuse House Bill fourteen ninety nine is a transformational plan to streamline the response to child abuse in Arkansas by transitioning the children's advocacy centers in the multi disciplinary teams projects from the Arkansas Commission on child abuse rape and domestic violence a section under UAMS to the children's advocacy centers of Arkansas we are thankful for the Arkansas Commission on child abuse rape and domestic violence for creating the multi disciplinary teams in providing an environment for the CDC's to grow but after fourteen years it's time to enhance and build upon the sea season Arkansas has outgrown this model the current model has not kept up with the national approach in is outdated after several years of researching best practices talking with experts on NDTV's NCC's and asking for input from other states national and local partners it's time for a better response to child abuse in Arkansas. A child advocacy center or ICAC is a safe child friendly location where a child victims can receive free direct services that include advocacy forensic interviews mental health therapy and medical exams there are seventeen full cece's in Arkansas intent additional satellites located in rural parts of the state we provide services to all seventy five counties in two thousand seventeen the CDC served five thousand child victims in in twenty twenty we have served over ten thousand the need is great in Arkansas to provide services and we want to continue the growth movement. There is a state chapter like my office and CDC's in each state we are connected with the national and regional headquarters to keep in line with national best practices all of our CC's including the chapter or nationally accredited and a few of our species are still new in cannot start the process in till they have been existence for a certain amount of time ninety four percent of chapter offices like mine across the nation monitor the CDC's by ensuring the high quality inconsistent services provided to child abuse victims trainings for local boards and administrative training to conduct daily business a multi disciplinary team is a group of professionals from specific distinct disciplines that collaborates from the point of report throughout a child and family's involvement with A. C. A. C. NDTV's coordinate efficient communication and information sharing ongoing involvement of key individuals and support for the children and families the teams are made up of eight to nine members in NDT coordinator establishes and sustains the relationships among the team members to promote a collaborative approach the role of an MDT coordinator is not that of the director or leader but more of a facilitator to provide a trustworthy and safe place to discuss child abuse cases the coordinators are currently contract positions under UAMS this bill will not a limit any current NDT teams this bill will not move NDTV's to larger cities this bill will not create a regional teams or teams will not be asked to leave their county for a case. Review meeting this bill will foster open and positive relationships with the entity agencies by promoting best practices from a national model. Each local team will create a shared mission establish roles promote victim services each team will also have input on growth their coordinator in also goals. Identifying gaps in services of counties can work together on developing new resources for their area. Provide orientations and trainings and other new opportunities to strengthen and sustain the teams having in the tees NCC's together is considered best practices from a national perspective and what many other states are currently doing this bill have state oversight of the funding and grant process with D. F. and a quarterly reporting and annual legislative reporting. There has never been a state level MDT Committee so part of this legislation is to establish an indie T. oversight committee that will include heads of agencies to discuss local and statewide needs resources challenges and changes local entities will have input on the roles they're coordinators and want and work best what will work best for their own local communities the children's advocacy centers of Arkansas cares about all the children in the state and believes each child victim disservice deserves the same quality of services no matter of their location the entities in rural areas that are not close to SEAC would still have a team and services to children the chapter would work directly with the rule entities to strengthen and enhance the facilitation we want to thank Dr cam Patterson in UAMS for staying neutral on this bill. We have to continue to move forward and not stand still with our response to child abuse the children of Arkansas. Depend upon us to consistently pursue excellence in our approach and the need to have the best quality of services available please join us in enhancing the CDC's in Indy T. programs in the State of Arkansas. Senator Garner. Thank you so currently the commission is made up of twenty two members appointed by the governor in various roles across state. And it seems to me that's kind of requires a government agency I don't know the exact make up on it under this is will go to the board of directors as the leadership of this determination of this money and out who select the board of directors what's the terms on which the government oversight and where they act as a notice of three or four in the current commission from south Arkansas just trying to figure out make sure we have a say in how this work so the current commission the commissioners I am also a commissioner and they are advisory so they do not provide oversight. So the board directors will not have any kind of so the commissioners at UAMS are advisory only so they do not provide current oversight under this new structure where the board of directors and that no I was just explaining what the current model is so there's not a current board that oversees but what we're moving towards is D. FNA to have the The the funding oversight with the amendment the the we adopted a couple days ago it's all now through death in a so that so all the funding there's no no appropriation goes directly to the CDC's it goes the FNA takes the money and we'll distributed directly to the individual species with the come consulting with the for the state chapter to in order to do that what formal powers were you have as the board directors. Are the board of directors every and our center our chapter in each center is a five oh one C. C. three so it's that nonprofit governing agency so we work with the board directors have own dictating apologize re that's it that's it okay make sure it in and so it the other thing is all these contracts will come before a L. C. for review you know any rules that they adopt will have the opportunity to to look at a man have review it ultimately I think that where you're getting and where you're concerned and I know that it's the same concern that represent Senator Rapert said in and it's it's the oversight is like just cutting a check to a nonprofit while the nonprofit's great you just don't know who is going to be there and so I need some sort of governance oversight and and they if they graciously agreed to do that and really change the bill substantially to allow for that. And if I might add I believe this will give a lot more oversight from the legislature because I have been here this is my fifth term and we have had no reporting are very very little reporting from the commission as to how what is happening so I believe that coming before at A. L. C. will give us a lot more information coming before aging children youth military also to report will give a lot more transparency. Senator Stubblefield. One of my concerns is in some of these other. Senator several districts is that specific county didn't have A. C. A. C. they don't do the right of with the increase in these cases going to the CICS have an adverse effect on the counties that don't have. You saying so there's going to still be an MDT team in in those counties and they will and determine what needs all our resources that county might have that rule county so that we can develop if there's a C. C. that needs to be established if there is a therapy that needs to and be brought in to a therapist being brought into that specific county to be hardened into the facilitators so there are six I believe that we they're currently sixty five MDT teams across the state currently and that we we are actually would like to make sure that all seventy five counties have a team. What I would say is that the the intent of the legislation and the fact that one of the moments the center Johnson brought is made it really clear is for it this will build not to change the structure of the of the NDTV's directly so in fact hiring that that's one of the reasons why we included the amendment those decisions should still be made locally and and it should be the the local entities to make make this is what's are consistent several people but a lot of our local council like to fish what prosecutor to individuals who are who are local to the county and and when we brought this concern up I'll just a miss Liz was first thing it statement was I don't know what's going on I think you said and winking county Logan County whatever county was I'm not familiar with what's going on I'm going to rely on the the entities to tell me what's going on but you know the local folks to to do it and and also I think that alleviated that alleviated a lot of the concern from prosecutors could they share your your work so. So the CDC the CDC director's. Are they going to become MDT. Ordinators no we have no plans to get rid of any of the current NDT coordinators there contract positions and and they are a lot of them have been that in that role for a while we want to enhance this program we want to enhance the training for the facilitators and for the teams and identifying those gaps in this community so we can actually serve more children that's the goal how many how many CDC directors or MD to coordinate how many as CDC directors I believe there is about seven and yes of the thirty I think it's thirty eight coordinators total. So from what I would say is that decision if if there if they decided to hire them as the corner that would be a decision of the of the local board to make that decision with which I can see that being a great combination if you happen to have somebody in your county if not then it's likely to be somebody else's look at in the county. Thank you Mr. What and who is this C. A. C.. RCA sees not only what do you do. But I heard nonprofit or her requires a government what is C. A. C. I'll start of an wet her get more detail is I I don't know if anyone but said Qualls that government I think they were the wrong they're nonprofit now like a lot of other non profits they're carrying out a government function but we we contract with all sorts of non profits or even private entities to carry out some legitimate government function and and I'll just tell you that the CDC that I've had a chance to to spend most of my time with are the ones who serve Carroll County and and located in and we're getting and it's just sweet people have a hard for kids I want to try to help them with their their their in a tough spot and I think that that's really the the concept behind C. sees is that kids in particular when when they're victims of abuse they're in a particular hard vulnerable time and in they are they're just basically make that the whole process a little easier for them what's great to benefit for prosecution because it's easier for them for a comfortable child who's who is feeling well adjusted to to be able to to share information or even testify if necessary but it basically they're they're at the organization is just they're all like the puppy dogs in court or like a committee of the things we talked about to just be there to help support kids when they're they're interact I but it that she can give you will more details about who they are what they do. So you might have heard different terms a child advocacy center or child safety center and they have different names in both of them are recognizes the same in the state of Arkansas and and so they provide we provide free direct services to child abuse victims within the state and there are seventeen centers there are five oh one C. threes that have a governing board that and they also practice and follow national standards that are like other states of every state has C. sees every state has a state chapter let my office in there some species even overseas now. Okay we say nonprofit my church is a non profit and red cross is a nonprofit. Is this a national nonprofit. Everyone has everyone of is a five oh one see three but we're connected As members to a national organization and we're connected as members to a regional organization okay so what's the origin the end of. This organization it started in Alabama by prosecuting attorney his belief was that and we're talking with clients and their families that kids were try kids were experienced who experience traumatic experience had a traumatic experience with child abuse had to retell their story over and over and over as they went to a scary. Police station and then they went to an ER and had to re tell their story and then they had to go to to mental health therapy in retailer story this is a center that provides all services that they they can tell their story and their experience one time and it's recorded for prosecution all the services are there so the child can build rapport with those people there to provide the services they need in their communities free of charge. The there is a Board for each of the seventeen yes and there is an overall board in Arkansas or No we have a state chapter board that's within my office and we are a membership organization with all the C. sees across the state and and how's the board determined horses aboard come from the state level board. The state level there is my office and so it is made up of community leaders and it also has some of the directors around the state the Committee leaders get to be on the board it's a nomination process a nominated by who eight it could be a it could be a local CACD it could be a member of the community that wants to nominate a person. We just have different to bylaws by each. Of the CDC's that's how my office functions. Okay of. And. The and so it's a non profit so. The. There is no government oversight then brought. Well currently we do reporting to the commission but again and that has not been a strong oversight so we want to create create a corrected that by establishing more oversight as mentioned in this bill. Okay so you want to move out from under who. UAMS your move out from under you AMS and moves where. So we're going to go under and defending puppies will go under and D. F. and I. Mr chairman it was I guess is what's important to to recognize and understand just so we can make sure we get it is each one of these are non profit so technically they're not under anyone their private organization but but the the money that goes through and the and the the contract that they carry out we'll all be to date definitely given a is the is going to be the oversight the part of it that we're all worried about is okay what what legitimate contractor what what function of state government are they going to carry out and and how the are they spending taxpayer revenue all of that is through the FNA who who are quick to handle and manage that each of the nonprofits if they're not doing it and we're hearing it and then the solution of fixing that is either modified modifying the contract or not approving a contract if if they are carrying out the legitimate function. But ultimately we are going to be we're gonna be trusting the nonprofit to to to carry out the job that we're paying for same same way we do it with every other contract that we have and when we go to review committee what those ours contracts with typically private entities nonprofits for profits that the state has contracts with and we are paying them to either build a road or paying them to house prisoners were paying them to treat treat people or whatever and so in this case that's what we're doing is we're we are we'll be cutting a check in the form of of of funds going from the FNA there's grants to each one of these these programs in order to provide these ministry tickets. Okay I'll come back to my questions Senator Stubblefield. It does seem to me like we're getting a lot of power to a nonprofit organization I may be wrong here but what is this bill do exactly that you can already to. So currently there's not gross for either program for the cece's or the entity's and we want to bring them together to enhance what is happening and as again we talked with experts and looked at different models around the country of what they're doing and with that we realize that we're behind in Arkansas in at more importantly their kids not receiving services and we want to ensure that kids that have been abused have services that they need in their communities so we believe that this bill will enhance the process set in the communication and collaboration amongst the team so that more kids will will be served will this bill of online as with surrounding states better yes it will. That's all I Mr Senator Garner. Thank you are discouraged earlier I asked what would like to board directors kind of what power they had no just oversight now the reading it there's multiple sections we all can enter into a contract. For me there statewide organizations other so they'll have the power to enter into contracts underneath this correct. Sorry for directors can. Come make contracts with government funding on home multitude of different things. Okay that's that's as low distinction before you said earlier. Our. Senator us. Can you elaborate a little bit more of what you explained. That's troubling to me about this board. In the make up of it it's it seems. Pretty loose in that. The way you just take recommendation from somebody in the fact that everybody kind of does their own thing. This is not what kind of what I heard from you. No are you are you referring to the board I know this is a little confusing the issue just a minute ago about the board and you said they should have the chairman said how to these board members get their and usually take recommendation from somebody yes so we have you know and and you get stuck on the board and then you said something about the individual. So our current separate kind of I took it did not do their own thing so our current board has bylaws our organization for for all of the each each Senator individually is a five oh one see three so they have their own bylaws and their own structure that is very similar across the board of what that looks like so with in the bylaws it is a structure on nomination for the board and and that's not just putting someone on the board that aids betting and out and the board members decide being a part of the board so very similar to other nonprofits and function of bylaws and and board members so much annual budget are we talking about so our C. C.'s re in the past year received a one point five million. Mr chairman I know that Mr robin Cornell is here and she can actually speak a little more clearly for us on the on the structure of of how each of the the non profits are are formed I think that what I would say it and and it probably be good to bring her up but what I would say is one thing I think that maybe we're missing a little bit is you know these are nonprofit entities it It is totally warranted you guys have all the same concerns that I had and and that's what we ask for an amendment it's totally like warrant to the we be concerned that we are going to be paying these nonprofits to perform some function. But those same concerns rest any other time that we are contracting with a private entity to perform we don't we don't have say over how they select their board members to the they're nonprofit it well we could we could put it in a contract we wanted to but but the the non profits to questions whether in the nonprofit or quipped and prepared to handle are they best equipped and prepared to handle this legitimate state function that we're asking him to do and since they've been engaged in the process already and let me say this without much without hardly any legislative oversight up till now they've been engaged in this in this process and doing the job they probably are the best into TD's to to do this and so ultimately you know it does I don't I don't want to see a bunch of cronyism in there people get put on boards and being paid something to to in order to issue contracts whatever those are all big issues for me and so those are things that we should be watching paying attention you guys are all warranted in doing that but ultimately these are private entities that we say you know what can you do okay you can do it so we're gonna catch a contract do it. Senator thank you I agree with the concept but I think the distinction is now we're taking the oversight slash functional part of it out of a that commission and placement into the nonprofit to be kind of the deciding factor noticing about oversight. But you can enter contracts you can do more than that's the distinction is typically we run that through a government agency in order to distribute those to a nonprofit is typically the branch structure in most cases in this form would have that nonprofit be A key part of the top ports force House distribute I think that's my only real concern expressly okay now you're saying about alleged or surgery there's a L. C. section technically under the law the souls be reporting to aging children and youth currently for not doing that that are not following the law correctly as I don't know obviously they might be more precious or something about the fact that a governor now this appointed commission and also the functions of how we can control that purchases nonprofit one theory you know I do not think is gonna happen I'm not just not knocking organization Yoker put whoever you want to board directors and they would have function oversupply Advisory present pinion and then some actual direct say in the contract report of it that's it was give me a little heartburn the only push back I'd put to that is all of those arguments are hundred percent legitimate. In the same arguments I had now that the distinction is is it is the FNA the that is making that choice they're working with the the the state chapter in order to to make decisions but is definitely ultimately has the oversight the responsibility it's a secretary that that is going to be making those decisions and we had a bad one this making bad decisions will need to make sure we're policing it but ultimately it is and before that it was a government entity that was kind of underneath UAMS budget that is was performed for moved from us that frankly I didn't feel like we have much say in the process what I think today we we are in and so I don't like all the all the concerns are hundred percent legitimate concerns I just think that we have addressed some of those if not all of those with the with the the structure we have today and I would add that the currents system under you A. M. S. and then under that the commission on the Arkansas and Oklahoma follow that model that is not what the national guidelines for C. AC's recommend in any form or shape and as we said that commission was advisory only they really gave little oversight. The centrist over. Thank you Mr. Look in my voice. Is there any kind of I mean if you press the MBTA's question all of them were they felt like they were providing meaningful service or. Took a survey that we have it because that has been under UAMS and what the results of the survey or I'm not sure. What what we're not building this tonight. But. It is I'm I'm obviously at the will of the committee I just hate the fact that we kept everybody here and and of this was understood and agreed to beforehand then you know basically I'm obviously don't want to don't want to push too much but but it is a little bit disconcerting that we frankly busted our Harpole morning this morning to get to a compromise we have people here all day long to deal with this and I would I would really prefer to be able to to take a vote but I I also understand I'm at the I mean it it doesn't do any good if ports votes going to fail so so I I don't want to do that but the same time I yeah my preference would be that we have an opportunity vote on today but if all of our answers the questions are answered you know I understand that we have amended this which means this is gonna go back to the House before becomes law let the chair B. as plainspoken As You can be Senator Ballinger of it's disconcerting that no one spoke to me till yesterday About something as major as this I mean I'm looking down here this is new law of that about contract the ability to contract of with CACD and DCFS except for the fact that there's no one from DCFS or C. A. C. B. or anyone like that here talking about this of that there's a major political push behind it and we don't know anything and that's when the reasons we wanted to ask questions without being under pressure to take action so I think we're we're pretty good position. share rules we again I know how DCFS works I know has see ACT works I know how that lines were I don't know how CACD works and we're talking about doing something really major and. Of you know I apologize that everybody wants to run their bills at the end of session because is this a new bill. no Sir it's been filed for a long time so the But again I don't think this committee's gonna get hurried but we would we would like to find out exactly what it is that we're being asked to do. so. Of. The other questions from the committee. Ross is just to the chair I'm a you know I'll be here later clock I've been in committee since eight o'clock this morning nonstop so I'm here late and then I've got to go. I have more questions but. The system will. Okay you said you took and how much how much money from state. Our centers received one point five million five million does that include grants and donations that's just state funding so that does not include grants and donations correct what is that amount it varies from center to center across the state on there you don't know how much that is a total I do not that to hearing is set number. It we can okay. Thank you. Other questions. I will have more questions but I am just really curious as to what Mr Rosenzweig has got to say so. Of I'm going to go to the against. Jefferson sorry Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers Problem with this the C. AC's or or and this bill will be purporting to do a number of things some of which shall not nice like giving Services of one sort or another but. It also purports to privatize to hand over to a private company the investigation of an alleged criminal offense and the lady who's just spoke Care talked about that talk about got during the forensic interview so we can prosecute the case that is a quintessential government function that does not belong in the hands of a private company whether it's for profit for or allegedly nonprofit that's that is a major concern and speaking of someone who is a very distinct non admire or of the way C. A. SIS do their forensic interviews and which often do not meet any nationally recognized term definition of forensic interviews of pics section nine. which is on page two a get rid of section nine it looks like it's on page seven purports to give them full immunity. For anything they do. Not even qualified immunity but this is immunity from civil liability for performing their duties under this chapter so if this passes you are giving a private company handy and who was handed over the the ability to investigate crimes and telling them. You can't be sued no matter what you do no matter whether it's for willful misconduct or anything else like that and that is a dangerous dangerous things to do and again what what what happens to the to the ability of of the prosecutor to comply with that discovery if you're handing over the investigation of a crime to a private company now what is in the hands of the police is imputed to the prosecutor but what about in a private a private company and if this is in my opinion it's a terrible idea to hand over this investigative capacity to to an entity that doesn't have any business and doing the investigations you have control over over In police departments are public agencies the C. ACT is a publication C. D. N. DCFS is a public agency you have some control over that but you're handing over to a group of people. Who you have no control over and it's telling him you're totally immune no matter what misconduct you. Anyway that's my concern. Any questions for Mr rose one. Hearing none thank you Mr rose what. Committee I'll ask you what you want to do. Of folks are happy that we're not going to take a vote I don't think we're particularly happy that we're still here and we stayed so that they could testify. We can we can continue take testimony or we can. we can adjourned and take this issue up later Senator us. I'm not asking any of these come back that they appreciate your testimony Hey welcome sure welcome come by would it be helpful not know would not be helpful to hear from some of the state agencies that you mention. Or would they are with the way in. We'll have some people come to the table that things are going to come to the table I'm going to ask them if they if those state agencies have not been directed not to give an opinion and only to give information and only a fast of I'm going to ask that question. Here I'm I'm I have found that the number of years I've been down there for yes the right question yeah I'm surprising some down on this to answer again and hopefully they're all honest. What would the committee like to do. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr at I would I would recommend at least if the we have people who are speaking here to to answer questions with the bill so so I I've got a text from Cornell has information stuff that we've been beat around the that she has more details on. Be good to have heard her come and answer questions other people the room who have information or not voting on this today at least we should you know go and meditate and think about this with with all the data that can be provided I do understand that that we we may want other people to testify but maybe if we have some of these people in the room we may not bring them all back or they might need to come back anything give information that had been original plan was to get to a woman you get Thomas soon as we can yeah so as you know from my standpoint I think we could you know provide everybody that you know we're ready to go in and are to suspend is minimal as it is and so were and it probably good to make sure it's relevant and quick but if somebody's here who has information as you go and get it and then go. We have no intention to put this off to last a signal by Senator Dismang this morning the thought we're gonna be able to get him in another building go exactly the way we thought they would that's how the legislature works so of if you all want to continue if that's the will of the committee of and Senator Ballinger has suggested that robin Cornell of look. I guess that's not what I read it but of would testify we'll call robin Cornell. For clarification so yes or. Yeah I miss the bill earlier and I think Senator are represented Gazaway has another bill. Is that we're going to pretty much adjourned after this I'm assuming everybody's tired it's getting late what's the what's your opinion on the best way to handle that I think they're both house bill so there's no. just to get it done what kind of your opinion on that yeah and I'm going to Senate bill that's going to be more urgent because it's going to go the other way but of on his plan on Monday. And on Monday okay I just wondered if it I know is very unpopular the sign out bills if we're not to that point yet but just thinking that we're getting to the finish line it might be something we consider for just want to put that out there for I know I have somebody's been waiting all day to. One thing with bill and I just simply forgot earlier this one of my okay. All right of is it did we get the name right Cornell. Well that's what I read okay of of ms call if you would identify yourself for the record. As your Marcone. Yes can you hear me yes I'm the executive director of the C. A. C. and White County I'm also an MDT coordinator for white and Woodruff counties. Okay you're recognized test vote on house bill fourteen ninety nine I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have but I also want to clear up something that with all due respect for Mr Rosenzweig there is no where in the bill that says the C. AC's will be taking over investigations that is absolutely false we have no intentions of doing that we we could not do that this bill part of this bill that would allow us to have some sort of input on NDT facilitation of facilitators not an investigator a facilitator would be somebody who helps facilitate the NDT teens those teams are made up of eight individuals from the eight different agencies who all agreed to be on that team to work Chalabi's investigations together a facilitator is simply somebody that helps. Keep the flow going of the I. discussion there's there's no way any oversight investigations from that position. I also want to clear up something about the civil liability it's our understanding that we are covered under the doctrine of charitable immunity we're also given civil L. and unity because reminded reporters I'm not a lawyer so that's that's all I know about that but that's our understanding. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have had the. Chairman. To I think Senator Ballenger all remember a. suggested that you may know something about the organizational structure. Yes the organizational structure of each individual CACD or of our state chapter. I'm not sure which he was referred to. Mister chair I don't I don't mind so the there was actually questions on both so people were were wondering about how how each individual CC was structured and the people also had questions about the the structure of the state state board at it if if people feel like their their questions were answered then the may not be not necessary but if they haven't then she's she's one I'm told is the expert and can explain it to you Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman under under this new system who would decide where CACD. C. C. goes. There's nothing in this bill that we talk about where SEAC goes so would community have any say absolutely a prosecutor if you say absolutely okay. CSCs are founded on the principle of collaboration that's who we are so we we love to collaborate yes. Can you clear up for us for the board comes from. So my individual board so I'm a I'm a five oh one see three independent nonprofit I have a thirteen member board of directors that I I answer to locally in White County all seventeen CA sees have their own board there where unincorporated businesses and then we have a state chapter that we belong to as a member that state chapter is also its own five oh one see three and it has its own independent board of directors as well part of that board of directors is made up of some CACD directors and some community members across our state. And the. Is there any particular way that you decide who the board's going to be. On a state level or and on my local level both. probably just the way that any nonprofit would do that where you take recommendations your fellow board members recommend somebody to be on the board that person is vetted that persons interviewed there's a committee a search committee that might be on your local C. A. C. border chapter board that that committee would that those recommendations and then meet with those individuals bring back recommendations to the board for a vote. Of and it. The only the oversight of been told is DFA. I would be DFA is currently you M. S.. So for the things that we're asking for in this bill yes. D. F. and I would not have any oversight over my local CACD right but for the for the funding that that you all give you legislated to go to C. AC's that goes to you a message you're already giving money to a month nonprofit now it's just funneling three UAMS we're just asking that a final now they're DFA so who has oversight over your local CDC. My board of directors. Okay and do you do forensic investigations we do forensic interviews and forensic medical exams Prins it and we are not investigators. and who has oversight over the. I would have oversight over my staff and my board of directors would have oversight over me. Okay of and if four of the legislature had questions. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay is there anything under law that requires you to answer questions. Not that I'm aware that my individual local CSE would have to answer questions to you I'd be happy to but not that I'm aware of. Good both of are you aware the. DCFS employees have to answer. Questions of legislators of course yes Sir okay so. The things that are removed from the self S. and moved to CHC if that were the case that would seem to remove oversight to me am I wrong we're not removing anything from DCFS and giving it to CSCs. We'll on page ten. Of. One six be the children's advocacy centers of Arkansas may enter into a memorable wonders memorandum of understanding with the crimes against children vision of the division of Arkansas state police the Division of Children and Family Services the part of Human Services and any other agency is necessary now that's new all. It's not there by accident. And the memorandum of understanding means that somebody would be performing services for somebody that's why you have a memorandum of understanding and that money would be passing through and exchange for here's what we're gonna do for you. Of. The maybe some attorneys can tell me that I'm wrong but that's that's how I read that. I mean I think that that memorandum understanding that we're talking about in there is is for as far as that item of the entity oversight committee. What we're asking them to be a part of that of a state wide oversight committee over entity facilitation. Are no ma'am until at the very end of the this administrative contracts and this is it specifically is giving what appears to be new power to the CA cities to enter into a member of memorandums of understanding with the crimes against children division of this The state police and the Division of Children and Family Services of which appears that we could be outsourcing and the that we could be creating with this document and this law the outsourcing to CACD things that those agencies currently to. That's not the way I understand it again I'm not a lawyer and maybe miss pulley can can help me better explain that at C. A. C.'s already have imho use individually with all those agencies I have my my agency has a demo USC ACT and DCFS and all of those agencies and an agreement to bring children for investigative purposes and recovery services for victims to my CACD we already have that. Then then we construct this from Los suppose. I'm not gonna say that yet because I would need some some body out with a little more knowledge about the law and maintain that entered that again we're just again I don't we have not approached this is this being a bad thing we're just approach this is a big thing that we really think we need to understand and of. The and just because you're a good organization or supposed to be of. Doesn't mean that we understand this well enough. To say yes so of. The. Can you explain to me the day workings between CHC and DCFS or C. A. C. and CACD a call comes in to call comes into the hotline of I'm assuming DCFS. Has to respond or CACD has respond not CACD right not necessarily so we we have an interview with those agencies that for certain types of child abuse cases that they bring those children to our center for forensic interviews medical exams if needed and then they also highly support the things that we do at the center that they don't offer children and so we collaborative Lee agree that's the best way to work child abuse investigations so when a call comes in the hotline if it's determined to go to it's going to either be determined to go to CACD or DCFS that agency contacts us makes arrangements for the family to come to our center and investigations worked there collaborative Lee. Okay but and again I am not expecting you to know the answer to this but we we have a law that specifically says how we we the legislature interact with CACD and DCFS do we have any law that says how we interact with CHC. On the same type of things Hey there is there is a law I'm not I don't recall the number may be listed as as that does does outline what is C. A. C. is and what we do for the state of Arkansas and the state of Arkansas does have in that law that date there's a desire for child abuse investigations to go to that to see AC yeah but but there's a very important law that says that CACD DCFS has to tell me anything I just can't. I can't reveal it to other parties and but I'm concerned about outsourcing anything. The even if it's already been done if then that then hampers the legislature and oversight. Of because we haven't covered that under the law and I. As this is coming forward I don't know of anything and I don't have the agencies here told me that it is covered The I could I could put parent council on the spot since I have one here trying to look the other direction but. Of the but if you don't mind Mr harder could you come to the table. Yes Sir. Again we're trying to. Figure this out. Do you know of would you identify yourself for the record please my name is Glen Hoggard let me give my disclaimers I'm of parent council have a contract to represent parents and DHS cases in Through four counties in north central Arkansas been doing it for seventeen years all parent council are personal service contractors and are not state employees I am not here on behalf of the parent council program. And I also serve on the bar association legislation committee and I'm not wearing that hat either. Know what you are here but the chair's recognizing you as an expert because of your service of parent council of the do you know of any law. That. The legislature's interaction with CHC or they would be. It be under the same of all the of the CFS or. Of. CACD would be a and. And answered our questions regarding information to us as the legislature I don't see how they would be since or nonprofit organization and less there was specific law and of past. I am unaware of any existing statute. That would require a C. A. C. as an entity to respond to. A legislators inquire he searches the statute that exists with respect to DCFS employees are CACD employees that being said. Based on my experience with the cece's in my local area I tend to agree with this witness and that this Connell and that of I find that they are. Cooperative and collaborative I will also say that having her miss rose white system on earlier there's some things he said that I also find a ring true and be issues for me and my practice as I represent parents who are frequently the. The individuals accused of the actions that are the subject of the investigation NCAC. Well but I see a big loophole that we could be making even bigger and I can see where I could as a state senator contact somebody C. A. C. and they could even tell me that contrary to. Contacting the CFS who had to answer my questions say well because of privacy laws I can't answer your question. Since I'm at. In my practice I represent SEAC I'm thinking of my friend general stride who I think is probably your attorney who could answer this question who's also a parent council I don't. I don't know that privacy laws I don't know that CA Caesar bound by privacy law one way or the other. That typically is going to be to a governmental entity. I don't know what I'm specifically answer your questions and basically I said I don't know. So any information I guess what I'm hearing you say is you it do you have the right to call C. A. C. and get information to senator about our our workers some of our investigations or cases so that that information is information owned by the entities that are investigating so you can get that information from the law enforcement or CACD or DCFS it's their investigation so it would it would make more sense for you to to get that information from them. You could see how we want to clarify. I'm not sure how it would be makes sense to clarify in this law. Although I'm not dumb but in the law I'm talking about that we're making we're being asked to make a major change here. And the. And so it's come up who is CACD what what exactly is the role how how do they function with DCFS sea ACT the legislature except for a I think all those things are are are are very valid questions for us. What legislatures all has already deemed as valuable we need you set aside money to go to see a season through a grant process and in the law that was passed that. Mandates that that at agencies bring their kids to our centers when it's available appropriate so we're we're already been deemed as valuable to the legislature. Okay. I questions from the committee. Seeing none of thank both of you of Chris one. Okay crystals not hear any Jo Williams. You sure you will test five center. Thank thank you Mr briefly Senator Stubblefield to answer your questions about the funding and so forth. funding comes from many sources and and reason I'm speaking this I served several years on this board on the statewide board. How member's own talk about the budget and how their how they acquire their budgets and then how board members are chosen board members generally or chosen from leaders in the community first of all who have a passion to help because there's no pay there's no there's nothing in this that. That is that is Some to get something that you get free tickets to a ballgame or something it's not like that it's it's hard work and so there's not a paid position but they do go looking for individuals in the community like a mayor which I was a mayor at the time I was asked or someone a minister or a doctor or someone that has a reputation that is out there in the community so that's normally how the board members are selected and you ladies certainly can correct me on this the other thing is you you questions about. The budget and how they come about a good example is it it Lonoke Lonoke county say our main white knocks in lone oak. They have. The eight. ACT lunches and Salam at noon from volunteers. They go to do miss and get corn from Esau and sell it to the community they should just to the active they do catfish sales in order to raise funds to give an example. The last time I looked. Wayde Knox there in lone oak which is named after a person you member the episode with the Boy Scouts and so forth that was at center came about because of that incident. A rape kit for a child. Is one at that time was a thousand dollars and they do twenty a month. In that one C. AC. When we talk about a million point five for all of them it's really a drop in the bucket they do a tremendous amount of their own fundraising all they couldn't survive I promise you that I can. That can be proven pretty easy they get just a fraction of the money from the state and from grants in order operate but if they didn't do fund raisers and if they didn't have their board who was willing as first question they ask me are you willing to help us fundraise to make this function war. After I went. They actually have an exam room that a child was taken to it's almost like a surgery center. They actually do the kids there they actually bring the child in and they do the rape kit there used to would have taken to the children's hospital I would take him to a to a White County hospital those days are over with because they really don't know what you're doing these are trained professionals are in. Whose own salary to do that very thing for these children in an environment as bad as it is to make it as pleasant as possible. So when we say independent is over twenty years and what is really interesting. Most of us run is table don't have a clue they were even there. That's that's a good thing that's a good thing I understand some of the testimonies they're not they don't find guilt or innocent they have one function and that's to interview the child get the truth in an environment that is not repeated several times. That's all they do so Budgets you know they raise their own money the state actually this state chapter oversees them I've been involved in trying to get some of them certified it is a very different takes years. It takes years to certify one Senator. Thanks certify one Senator. It is very expensive to do to meet the federal standards and national standards in order to have a C. A. C. so. I'm passionate about it no no one asked me I asked Bob if I could talk because I have seen first hand knowledge no the governor didn't ask me to is because I'm passion about this and sorrow several board started so domestic abuse shelters. Find a member month out of my pocket. And then involved in N. CA cities now over twenty years and I'm just impatient these ways that's why I'm here to time why you're you're asking the questions I was really hoping we'll both tonight. there's not much change I know we can read that into it but there's really not a lot of change from what they're gonna do tomorrow. I think it does bring us in line with surrounding states. And it allows a lot more collaborative effort between this committee to make to our own decisions and again if you're in the bottom on the front page newspaper would be having a different discussion today but you're not and I've never met a person didn't care I'm for the whole family not just the child but for the whole family and so with that I'll be glad to answer any questions up populated because this is awful my experience in no one asked me to come. Senator Johnson you're recognized. If it if they're contracted. The way the structure is in the bill. Do you think that fundraising will continue to that that there's not a fraction. They unequivocally would have to raise their own money. Unequivocally I don't have any million dollars it would take to run all the cece's with the full government. payroll Mr L. thank as possible I A. B. staggering to this organization if if they just walked away is that the government supported it's just not possible. There's usually five to seven own staff it's twenty four seven this is Christmas the child's been found in this or Arkansas. To call a center in the center opens up and brings a kid in and they do that that night. It just takes a place. Here's what I found is mayor here's one passion about the organization. He might have a rookie policeman. And it by a young girl or young boy that appears to have been molested. That young officer was start asking questions and they're a relevant they're probing their dramatic to the child and when he gets to the next morning someone interviews them again and then again this takes the place of all of that. In the police are absolutely involved they get the information. They get the video the prosecutor gets if it's all Expos within that environment there's no secrets. Each each party that's that's involved in this gets this information to make this decision about how to treat the child or how to turn it to the prosecutor he says look you give that information it's good. Mr Rosen Uig that right. Probably frown twenty comes because they do a darn good job of an investigation where as a young officer he's not equipped first holes everywhere he would love from the bring and those kind of investigations today. But these folks are high high standards that are made every day three hundred sixty five days a year and just it's an impeccable record that's in place I would acid please search your heart without the service. There will be a fraction about ten percent goes to the prosecutors to be honest with you it's not a high percentage but when they go it's a good case. So Mr Johnson Senator I hope I answered your question there. Senator thank you it's very very very unlikely but what if the real scandal hit a Moro and the CHC had dissolved as a non profit were the state be at. If they will it would go to see a sea of Arkansas not the individual nonprofits on the ground for example if Lonoke if no no not the individuals on the ground this the the the child at the center of Arkansas which would be the oversight in contractual obligations under the neutral what happened to this money in the funding if that happened. Well if it's passed through the state organization they wouldn't get it until they reestablished go ahead Senator Ballinger. It plays a chair and it actually so the current structure actually the funds go directly from from DNA to these centers other so that would be an oversight within the organization itself that would be absent but the funding itself the the checks are cut directly to each one so that at that point what we wouldn't have is the the consultation with the FDA as to where where funds should be directed so that would be something we'd have to do if they would have to figure it out with yeah what I figured out. The fiscal side doesn't interest me as much of. The center Williams Mr the do you have an opinion as to why the of DCFS see ACT except for noticeably absent. Well. Other than I know that there is a neutral or supportive of it I can't give in and I've not had a discussion with anybody about the details of what agency would come or what would not hi I'm being honest with you I haven't. So I'm I'm confident if they opposed it they would have been here. Other questions. I would ask again in your heart the work that's done the fact is twenty years down the road and you're not reading about him in the paper they're pretty doggone good organization and they're accountable to good people in our communities the doctors of the mayor's I I'm not sure the politicians but yes people injured they're they're the ones is leading these efforts in and they do what's right ninety nine percent of the time otherwise I'm convinced you'd be reading about it in the newspaper so I really wish to rethink it I can't make you I'm glad to be down here I'm glad to be working with you and I'll be glad to answer any questions on the candy for some S. we need to do I'd be more than happy to help facilitate thank you. Thank you senator Williams I believe that is all the witnesses. No. Okay are you Jennifer long. I'm Jennifer long I'm the executive director of the children's protection center which is the center that serves Pulaski County. so I wanted to time to talk to you a little bit about some of the things we talked about their some of the questions that have come up specifically about the DCFS and CACD support I think you guys just got a packet passed around and in fact CACD major drew who is the agency lied of children's the crimes against children division of Arkansas State Police actually testified at the house legislative committee hearing in support of this bill I and I can't really speak as to why they're not here today but we do have information we have from DCFS and from CACD have their support in this bill. I'd also there is a question about funding to and about how much CA sees get and I just like to talk a little bit about my center we have about a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollar budget we serve about over nine hundred children and twenty twenty. and all of that we receive about a hundred thousand dollars from state funding that is through the C. A. C. find and then there's also some mental health funding that the state legislature has appropriated to UMass that comes through different organizations so that we can provide a little bit of mental health services to kids at our center. But also at our center work we're unique because about five years ago my Senator took on the facilitation of M. D. T.. And before that time in two thousand sixteen we were serving about three hundred and thirty children are children's advocacy center R. NDT wasn't really aligned all the agencies were really great but there really wasn't a mechanism or a strong facilitator to really make that collaboration happen. When we came to the commission. And in fact actually in two thousand sixteen we didn't meet best practices we had that national organization that came to our center and we didn't get accredited because of the way our MDT functions specifically because of that we reached out to the commission and there was really no support from the commission and helping this work so RCC slowly took control of MDT facilitation it's impossible for CACD to control as an agency that investigates these cases it's a it would be impossible for us to that we can't arrest anyone we cannot take a child into foster care we are there is a service to our community organizations and to children and their families. so we started taking on that facilitation we were able to provide trainings we were able to create an atmosphere daily so that all of those agencies can interact and that was because R. C. C. was uniquely positioned to provide that and our community we knew what our community needed and R. M. D. T. tells us what to do honestly we would not do well we wouldn't be able to provide services to children if R. M. D. T. did not completely buy into what we're doing they guide us when it comes to making decisions or Cup coming up with programs are finding ways to serve families. And it has been incredibly successful like I said in two thousand sixteen we serve just over three hundred children and in twenty twenty research nine hundred children nine hundred and three actually and that's not because cases went up in Pulaski County calls to the hotline did not increase that much but it's because our team was communicating and working together a lot better and that was a direct result of the fact that RCC was able to coordinate that facilitation and that process. Questions from the committee. Ross. Well you mention the packet not thank you for the packet we just got it. A few minutes ago I know I I'm not sure why I think that was prepared yesterday it It is helpful to understand because. Most of us are not specialist in this area. But we do have a lot of different things in the subjects we deal with here. So this would have been helpful earlier I will take a look at it tonight. Mr I'm sorry but I tell you I had to leave the date and some I can't change. Other questions from the committee. Senator Johnson. With this structure change what percentage of your funding would come from this grant. No but like I said we were able to take on we we actually last year entered into a pilot program that the commission tried to work out it will not change our funding at all over the neck of the course of the next year or two from what I understand. You'll you'll be in control of the funds if that local M. D. T. decides to have their facilitation come through our center have our center manage that facilitation then we will get a portion of the state funding so I know this is confusing but in Pulaski County we have a really high volume case load so that facilitator is a full time position that wouldn't be the case necessarily in other parts of the state the M. D. T. there would determine what they needed but in our community we needed a full time and duty coordinator the funding the commission was providing was not enough for that so my Senator went in and said we're going to find funding to provide what we provide additional funding for trainings for MDT and for additional that additional salary so we can make that a full time position so for us moving forward I don't see how I mean I'm going to have to find funding somewhere else to be able to provide this type of service which we're happy to do because it means more kids being served and it means our community agencies have better outcomes. So so this this these monies grant funds you. You'll see into the immunities to do her to do their work yeah that. Correct I I'm I don't know what the funding structure would be but of course that would be through the entity oversight committee I and I think what we're talking about is the facilitation peace and who what would what would oversee that and how the C. C. N. M. D. T. programs with a wine There there is I from what I understand there's no like. Pocket of anti to money so I I don't I don't know I know that from the commission right now we receive us I receive a CACD grant and then I get a little bit of money because we facilitate MDT. I mean my understanding is the funding is going to go from UAMS is to the U. M. at the FNA is gonna create these grants for the seventeen centers. Right now the money goes from to UAMS to the to the commission and it goes out to the MBTs. Is that right now it goes to the MDT coordinator it does not the entities get have no funding to support any work them duties are doing. The M. D. T. at the commission contracts with an MDT facilitator and that that so that check from the commission goes directly to the MDT facilitator and is viewed as like a salary how many in the two facilitators are under sixty certain they're sixty five and duties but there are several facilitators that facilitate more than one county so I believe there thirty six or thirty seven MDT coordinators in Arkansas right now. So the money would go into those seventeen CA cities and then the money would go from that to the the coordinators are at. I think so I'm sorry I want to make sure that I answer you correctly there are we have an MDT project and the CDC projects so the money that goes to the C. C. project right now that would go to all seventeen centers directly from the FNA but for the M. D. T. projects that would entirely depend entirely on what the local and duties would decide if they decided to facilitate their CA's there I'm sorry there MDT functions through their local CAA sees the not money would come under the M. D. T. project to those centers however if the M. D. T. decided to facilitate it through the state chapter which they would have that option then at that facilitation would go then the funding would go to the chapter two then cut the to then pay the MDT coordinator for those areas that decided to not go through the CACD for facilitation state chapters the CDC state chapters C. A. C. as of Arkansas yes so. I didn't hear anything about the grant possibility with the FNA for the state chapter I heard grants for the seventeen individual C. C.. So. So where my mission that note that it would depend it so the M. D. T. who would be able to decide if they wanted to work with the CHC to handle their facilitation like what is happening at my center okay and so then I then I would be getting some funding for. What for my MDT facility for the family to facilitation but let's say there's not a C. C. in a certain County and maybe that M. D. T. determines that they don't want they would rather work through the chapter for the facility like the the support of the facilitator okay then D. D. F. and they would cut a check to the chapter to be able to pay the facilitator in that area. So is is a state CAAC allowed to. Request grant funds from the FNA under this bill yes. So there seventeen plus the state chapter. Yes. How do they differentiate those funds I'm not sure how do you how does definitely differentiate those funds how will grants be done by case load. I don't think there's a funding mechanism that's been put in place right now the commission doesn't do that by case load. When it for this the CHC funds every center that's accredited in Arkansas whether they serve three hundred children or whether they serve a thousand receives seventy or seventy five thousand dollars a year. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. See non thank you. Thank you. Senator Ballinger. It. I would just say that it you know I'm I'm happy to to further answer any questions also happy to go home he did that very last question so what is eventually going to happen is is DFA's going to have to establish rules by which how the how the funds are going to go to be disbursed working with the CDC's on how to do that because they're the ones who are going to know you know what what who or to serving what and and I honestly I think this is may be one way that will be able to to better at equitably make make sure the small amount of money that they get is is better disbursed or it's a small it's a lot of money but compared to what they spend it's it's not not that much but you know I if this you know at this point when you know we clearly don't have a quorum the the the chair has a has said we need to put this off so I'm fine what I would just say is that if you're if you guys still have questions then probably you don't get with me or we'll get with somebody and and I and I'm sure the chair is going to be able to get the agency is here to answer questions and I would just say if the committee will will just remember that this does have amendments on it I appreciate them amending it but in doing so it means that it's got to make it back to the House before becomes law we got here next Friday that doesn't give us a lot of time. Okay so you're pulling the bill down the Senator Ballinger until next time. Yes I am I'm happily and of my own accord pulling the bill that bill down thank you senator garner. The measurement like to run H. B. fifteen ninety if there's any questions will hold off till Monday because of the time but if we get through quick I'll get through quick fifty nineties effort to thanks for signing consequences under nineteen thirty three law individual gets angry another one tries to murder the victim the victors by the ten eleven permanent injuries the perpetrators prosecuted there is the issue we're trying to collect judgment on some kind of insurance things like that if you just fix that allowed to go forward any questions I'll take in our my guest can answer. Questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to us well for against the bill. Saying none Senator Garner you close for your bill close and I would make a motion to pass. Motion to pass. Circumcenter Johnson a discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed most cared resolutions Senator Garner you bet your bill representative Gazaway. So do you have something or just do you have something urgent. If you don't have anything urgent than. Okay then anyone else have anything urgent. I appreciate you being here all day and we are adjourned until Monday at. Three or. When session Senate session ends or if the call of the chair.