State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

LTO recommending to the full House to one constitutional amendment for consideration based on the input from each of you the top three constitutional amendments for considerations are and they weren't necessarily listed on the agenda in the order of one two and three but here's the way that a here's the way the come out is for the input from this committee number one was H. T. R. one thousand five. If it was a report. Committee members go ahead and share this with you just so you'll have an understanding What I did I did you as all of you will remember I had each one of you at all twenty members on this committee did participate in had input into this process so I was glad of that I appreciate everyone's involvement thank G. R. one thousand five received twenty eight points. The way the system was set up if you made a recommendation of your first second or third choice some of you did make three you just made a first or second what I did assigned a point value of your first choice was you got three point your second choice got to point you third got one then them with medi combined or total days of points then we found out which would what are top three constitutional members coming from this committee the recommendations were the first one is a C. R. one thousand five it received twenty eight points just so I want to explain the point system so you do understand it when I give you these numbers the second is a. H. J. R. one thousand one it received twenty points and then HJR one thousand reporter received nineteen and so that's the order in which they finished. And the please note committee members that under the joint rule we can only refer or one for consideration therefore once this committee passes one of the constitutional amendments no action will be taken on any other proposed constitutional amendments unless the Constitutional amendments we recommend fails to put to pass either the house or the Senate. And the as a committee knows we've already heard testimony on each of these proposed constitutional amendments there will be no additional testimony on these constitutional amendments today or any additional handouts we've already went through that process and in in the matter of fairness to everyone that's the that's where we're going to handle it today so like I say we've already heard testimony on each of these proposed constitutional amendments therefore committee members at this point in time open to your emotional H. G. R. one thousand five for a do pass as. Representive dasar two three hand representative Dotson has a motion of do pass on H. J. R. one thousand five Judy discussion on the motion. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thermistor and if if you'll allow me a little leeway I would like to. Discuss the the process to in in this discussion on the motion A sport HJR one thousand five I think it's it's one of the amendments that we need to get out of this committee but at this point but I'm not sure that we know what the Senate is going to do not of these three choices that we have here I understand that I think they're going to pick one of those is is that correct we yeah the Senate the Senate I think they passed one out yesterday and the. Are they put we'll pass one out of committee yesterday to go to the Senate floor is that your question yeah yeah so do we know which one that was I think it was a one I'm not sure what they're Senate bill number was but I think it's the one that we had all also have a large for a. This year won the Arkansas because two concerning The alteration the general authorizing the General Assembly to convene itself in extraordinary sessions at one that's what that's my understanding I think hope I'm correct in that. So what. Go ahead well you know my my thinking is that if I would like to see one thousand four and one thousand five come out as Constitutional amendments recommended constitutional amendments out of out of the legislature and I feel like one thousand five would probably have enough support to be the Joint resolutions are bar to reach than the one that we we recommend out here so I don't know when and I'm just throwing it out there for for discussion I don't know that it would be appropriate if if we want both of these to refer out one thousand four out of this committee and try to make one thousand five the joint so. Anybody else have any ideas on that I'd be glad to hear. Any further discussion on the motion representative The British base you're recognized discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chair I thought that it would be up to the Senate to present the one that would be our joint this time. I think that is correct that's my understanding as well you sure you still here. Who is Marty okay. We've got Marty in the room we gave it. Representative to speak would you repeat the question. I thought that the Senate would be the one that we get to present the one I want this year I thought it was their turn. For the joint for the second one we get one they get one then we do one jointly but it's our time to make the recommendation for the joint what representative of Marty would you have a seat in the explain the process as regards to how the Senate the house works in relation to that the recommendation. Thank you Mr chairman Garrity with the pure of Legislative Research yes under the joint rules the house proposes one the Senate proposes one on the third one it has to be a joint agreement by the house and the Senate it requires identical resolutions to be passed by a super majority vote to a degree as to that third one that third one is coordinated between the house and the Senate as to what it will be. The space you have a follow up to that question lawnmower to do that today thank you I thought that it was their turn I thought we took turns of the one that they would present for a that would have to agree on but I thought it was their turn to make that recommendation that was certainly the practice prior to The New The New process with that third one requiring that supermajority vote I'm not privy to any discussions as to how that third one is picked the bodies could continue to to follow that practice certainly it's it's up to the to the house and the Senate how to move forward. So we we follow up you're recognized so we we get a chance to recommend them to them Is that. That's what I understand is that correct. Okay. It's an agreement between the two bodies as to what the third one is going to be. Okay representative Ladyman did you have a question. I did I think it's been partly answered but I'm still a little confused. I want to know what the process was on the third one if I recall last couple sessions at least we had joint meeting with the Senate of state agencies Committee and basically we have voted as a joint committee. I believe it can be either house or Senate bill. But I think the gentleman's agreement ways agreement is that we do allow the Senate to have their turn and then we take our turn but that's just an open agreement at I mean does that sound correct to you what we've done in the past it has been in prior to the House getting one in the Senate getting or the prior to this new process which was adopted in two thousand nineteen I believe I honestly cannot remember how it was handled in two thousand nineteen as to that third one if it was a joint meeting but again the practice has been that it switch from the house and the Senate every other year. The representative gray. Thank you Mr chairman takes things I may have missed something here but. In order for it to be the joint resolution do we not have to have the resolution filed in both the house and the Senate matching resolutions you're correct identical resolutions are required for some change authorize the introduction and the consideration of the third proposed constitutional amendment okay so Mister chair I think that's my concern with this is the the first one the H. A. R. one thousand five was only introduced in the house so it could not be a joint resolution. A claim representative great thank thank you clear that up that's billable representatives thanks to do do you have a follow up. I was just going to suggest that since for that H. J. R. J. R. one thousand five got the most votes that that would be our number one. From my recommendation may not have been my first but but I think that that's what it got the most votes Senate and that's where. Majority rules. Okay. Good point representatives face any for any. Any further questions from committee member representative Dodgin. Thank you Mr chair of I think we're actually just in discussion on the motion at the moment I just pulled up the the Senate Committee yesterday return for resolutions. To the floor so I I'm not sure. Which one. Only three of. Okay so so three of them that they could pick three of them potentially out of three of them to be there one I assume they're going to vote on all three of them on the floor today I don't know the answer to that but That's my appointed discussion on the motion and appreciate a good vote when we vote. The representative Dodge and penny further discussion on the motion representative make sure recognized I have a question for missing your if that's all right yes so the the question on. The Senate side these are House joint resolutions that we filed and obviously the House member I can't file over in the Senate so this being a joint resolution. Does that still mean that someone else would have to file something else on the other side for to be considered for that third can you clarify that yet no I and I'm sorry did represent granted I do want to clarify that no the Joint resolutions are the are another to be considered for by the house and the Senate it's that third one that requires a a separate resolution authorizing the introduction of a third resolution now it can be any of these resolutions that have been introduced by the house or the Senate. Right right right so in other words we're not filing a cotton two identical Constitutional amendments will have to happen so for example if we pass one and we want the other one to be the third one for example if it's mine is the is the third one or fix representative raises a third one then I as the sponsor would have to file a joint resolution on this side and get a Senator to follow joint resolution on the other side for the introduction of that third choices that in my correctly understanding that's not my understanding representative makes what you would need is because you've already filed right solutions for the Cup proposed constitutional amendments it could be simple us to pull House resolution in a simple Senate resolution that are identical just authorizing the introduction or the consideration I'm sorry not the introduction the consideration of the third resolution right so in other words I would have to file resolutions on both houses to allow for the introduction of the third one yes so there is a process for us to to move forward here with these are not blocked out of that third one regardless of what which one we choose correct okay. The president done does she have a follow up treatment to ensure that that was my question to the appreciate being cleared up all right saying representative right you're recognized the thank you for sharing a bicycle a bring the point at this point but it was too late to file these. They're already filed you're only considering the ones that early already pressed for the third one the third one before the it can be considered of identical house and Senate resolutions need to be filed authorizing the introduction it's not introducing or authorizing the consideration of them okay. Thank you. It representative Payton you have a question. Well I have comments on the motion. Is that what a man discussion on the motion of a do pass to go ahead okay members I mean I I love representive rays HJR one thousand five I'd like to see it be one of the constitutional amendments that they go out to the people except for one thing and that is I don't know if it'll pass or not when the people vote on it in the ballot box we had one out to the people. This past round that dealt with the same subject matter and it failed and So in addition to all three of these were in my top three picks it's just different order but I hate to say that I'll be voting no on the do pass for HR one thousand five I would like to vote yes on one thousand four so I will have to save my vote thank you. Representative makes you have a question on the motion discussion on the motion. That's all right yes you're recognized so obviously the sponsor one thousand four I'm going to I don't want to from truck try to promote that and I second what the representative Payton just said that last. Go around the constitutional amendments that we set out we sent out one that was either a tax increase or keeping a tax in place without one on term limits and we sent out one that dealt with generally the the same topic area here and. Two of the three failed so as we make a consideration we need to consider. What the voters are going to like and not like and also when I look at this out of the out of the three here which one of these is going to be the greatest benefit to the citizens of our state I like one thousand five and I like the idea that representative Gonzalez but for I think that one would be a strong contender for our third one especially because it which actually had that shot last go around. One thousand four gives us an opportunity to create a benefit for the citizens of the State and also for our businesses I know we're not supposed to get a whole lot of testimony here but. When it comes to personal property taxes Arkansas is the third highest. In the country on that and so like representative pay non voting no not because I necessarily against one thousand and five voting no because I think when we go to part time is that we need to prioritize what is in the best interest of our citizens and in my opinion one thousand four is in the best interest of our citizens verses one thousand five. Any further discussion on the motion of a do pass. But the government you. You have a discussion on the motion yes you're recognized thank you Mister chair I was looking over some point that was conducted to across all of our Kansans and I'm actually looking at it right now and the question that was pulled was. Would you support or oppose requiring sixty percent majority the total number of voters participate in the last year toward elects to proposed law constitutional change. Overwhelmingly I see it fifty eight percent support that I mean if the conversation that I'm hearing is you know what our Kansans feel about. This particular issue I do for thank the sources opportunity solutions and I know you can get poles and all types of issues but I just kinda want to add that to part of the conversation. Thank you representative McCollum any further a representative Richmond you're recognized. Thank you Mr I will be voting for the motion and just wanna remind everybody that this is not the same. Ballot initiative that was put on last time this is totally different is simplified and I think it has an excellent chance to pass and and I believe we need to pass so that the outside influence. Can stop coming in here and reshaping our constitution thank you Mr. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion representative Wardlaw you're recognized for discussion on the motion I think I got a question for you is chair and then I'll have discussion on that answer if that's permissible. With the question the Committee sent you their vote for the topic right yes I discussed at the opening I was there not right okay one thousand five was the one that got the most votes from this committee correct yes that is correct well that's what we should honor is the fact that we put the point system in place that everyone got our topic and that's that's what I want to do I want to stand behind what we agreed to do it so I'll be voting yes on the motion Mister chairman to stay with the process that we put in place okay thank you represent Wardlaw brothers got a representative would occur recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chairman Make it short and sweet I'm gonna be a no. Because I have to vote yes or no on the whole thing but I I I harken back to the professor who was here and I could some day see having an increase threshold for constitutional amendments but going above the fifty percent requirement for initiated act is holding the public to a higher standard than we hold ourselves so I'll be voting no. Okay any further discussion on the motion. Saying none representative Dotson made a motion for a do pass on Page J. R. one thousand five all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it to build a constitution amendment has passed thank you Committee. The next item on today's agenda. Representative Penzo. Representative Pendleton road in the area. Committee members we have a We have an amendment that's being handed out this time in regards to Thirteen sixty seven. Representative Penzo you're recognized to discuss your amendment. Thank you Mr chair of this amendment just adds of military attorneys to the bill I had to request made the National Guard attorneys you know Arkansas attorneys could to be added to the the bill so that's what this amendment does. Remember your discussion on the amendment. Representative Penzo from your closed on the amendment is that correct that is correct what's pleasure of the committee on the amendment we have a do pass. But have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion to adopt. J. none all in favor say aye All opposed say no the amendment has been adopted representative to Penzo you're recognized to present the. Thirteen sixty seven is amended thank you Mr chair. On the mark March thirtieth of twenty twenty the governor signed the executive order twenty dash twelve for the purpose of suspending provisions requiring in person witnessing House Bill thirteen sixty seven codifies the executive order with a few changes If I could I'd like to let us Senator Ballenger At view comments as well. Senate you're recognized for comment. Thank you Mr chairman thank you I have it now is gonna get a chance to get back to the Committee so quickly. You know at the funds we keep represent Wardlaw online then this should be a fun time so we've a we've worked And there's no hope that side and I realize that coming into we worked to to try to find a way and and and I got I got on to this issue just trying to figure out a way to codify some of the the executive orders so that when we did go outside emergency then we have the ability to continue we wouldn't be losing these things and so I I filed a bill and then I found out represent Penzo filed a bill we're both working on it well the situations are to basically two different types of people who are wanting this so one is the is the small individual maybe a lawyer who's wanting to have a fairly simple process is no question about who's being being knowledge another rise and straightforward so so this is represented pencils bill that would handle that we also have a more sophisticated more complicated for that bill issue the basically requires some sort of a outside certification it basically it it really requires you almost have a software program to be able to run and do that and mortgage brokers some of the people that that deal with things a little more concerned about about all the security necessary behind it they want that so so in in terms we basically of created two separate ways to do remote notary one or more sophisticated complicated ones that you will have an opportunity to see when we get off the Senate floor it's out of the Senate state agencies should be coming next and the next well early part next week in this version which is mirrors what the governors executive order is what we've been existing under for the last however many months and and working under. And that way we don't have a situation where we're we're cutting out some people who may not do this all the time and so they're not going to invest in the software associated with it and so that's basically how we're right now we came to this you're going to hear some people who are frustrated by this some of it is because legitimate concerns they want want security however what they should do is check nation require the notaries to be done under the other bill that hopefully will will get done if if you all agree when he comes over here and we'll get past the the more sophisticated more complicated one but this also allows a mechanism for the people who who don't frankly I want to go through all of that but they do have a need to do a remote notary they can do it under what exactly the governor's doing today I think that's a bit of a protectionism going on where people don't want to open up other people to be able to to do this in order to try to to protect their interests that's not I'm not much interested in that but but there are people with some legitimate concerns and we're trying to do everything we can to meet all of them but I I you know I'm afraid that we're still have some opposition to this bill happy to answer any questions questions from committee members and representatives are recognized for a question. I thank you Mr up senator You kind of alluded to it and I thought you're almost there. I want to know how. He all of how we should address the concerns the mortgage bankers have that sure that they're using because the Ballinger method and so they're happy with that yeah but that someone below them in the whole transactional process and title company use the Penzo method and they're like no we don't think that's too good we're not certain yeah how do we how do we how do we miss these and reassure the mortgage bankers that that's not gonna have it it might might the way addresses you put in your closing instructions so you from title company for a long time to did did. Probably over a thousand closings I guess my lifetime a lot of them with the secondary market loan it up with the that packet this big you know with with loan documents and about that much of the packet or closing instructions you have to make sure you comply with those closing instructions if you don't comply with closing instructions that and then they they can wanna hold you accountable for it you can buy that mortgage and all those other things so you make sure you comply with the closing instructions and frankly they have people who that's kind of their job is compliance to make sure that you've checked every box and that sometimes meant thanks for thanks for a long closing process but what you do is you require them to utilize Act whatever it's going to be the under the Senate bill three forty for the closing and that should be fine and then represented those attorneys trust attorneys have asked him to to bring the bill they can use the bill that's before us. Follow recognized so you're assured that these two can work together and of the end of industry can actually. Learn to. Identify what level they they're comfortable with and adopt that and compel the other party to follow as well the that's right or what not is so that the title company doesn't want to adopt into the software and everything it takes to follow up they will be they they will do it because I don't want to lose that ability to do secretary mark lines thank you senator thank you. Presented Ladyman you're recognized for a question a representative would address my question okay representative Wardlaw you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr I mean since you called me out I might as well get in it. so your brother you alluded to your senate bill three forty but there's there's really I'm sitting here reading the two of them side by side there's really no tie between these two Bills yours has a lot of us in a year's being Senate bill senator since you're doing most of presenting years as low safeguards in it and a lot of things in it that look like industry standards in this bill basically has nothing in it I mean it it's it's electronic notary and lets it just be what it is so why why would you not want to have some sort of parity between these two. And how will they work together once both for past it or if both for past I guess would be the better word so I can walk me through what that process would look like if you had one with all this and then one basically just **** nilly yeah so let me say this **** nilly versions what we've had for the last year so it is what we're doing now in the state of Arkansas in fact what we're doing without the sky falling without much objection to it up to this point and and the way that they work together is is is the fact that they are different they they feel two different needs in two different issues one would satisfy the the people who want more security and the other one would satisfy the people who want a little more flexibility may already know the person may it you know they're closing a trust transaction and they need another witness there you know that something like that the allows them the opportunity to do that and so I think that I think that's the beauty of it is that they are different and they they they fit to different niches and that's I mean I we almost ran into this accidentally but I think it actually works for a better system. Follows yes Sir Question for you for the chair first of all we will have secretary of state at the table to ask questions to on this issue. They're not signed up to speak for against the bill so that some people signed up to speak against the bill but I do see them in the room and I think since their the basically agency that watches over this can we hear from them at some point at your discretion yes we do yes would be I think that's a good idea would be glad to do that so That is one secretary of state's office are you are you back there. Okay you would just have say thirty of the table we've got a few questions for you you would identify yourself to the committee please. Thank you Mr chair curtain element legislative liaison with the secretary of state's office so go ahead so my question is from what I'm being told and and I don't know this personally so I'm just being told there's only one other state in the union it does it with two processes such as this and that's why only and while only at a no the state pretty well it's pretty role so it's hard to get witnesses hard to get things like that Arkansas is known rule but we're not that rule we have a school with every so many miles were not hours away so. Why would we need these two processes in your mind I can't really speak to that question because I only worked with us Senator Ballinger on Senate bill three forty I did not work with the representative Penzo on that a process I would defer to their judgment so follow up Mr. So he he has a bill for notary and he has a work with you at all on what that's going to mean for notary across the state we have had initial discussion back on February the first with his pill a pill bill dropped we provided a copy of what we had written and there's been other than that initial dialogue no other dialogue until this morning thank you thank you Mr. To make sure have a question for secretary of state or abortion for center about victory state you're recognized so my my question is that you know the whole purpose of a notary is to be a witness to the you know the the legitimacy of these documents and for doing that virtually. How do you prove. That the notary actually witnessed this signing you know what what safeguards are in place it is does the video of that have to be capped or can you come talk to us about that yes Sir I can only speak towards the language that's and Senate bill three forty but basically the way that that bill is written the safeguards involved a solution provider which is a technology company that has the software that is enabling the remote notary process both audio and visual and is built to where it has recording capabilities within that law's requirement that the bill that the documents be retained for five years also built into that is something called credentialing analysis by which the notary would be able to use the software if they didn't know the person or have a witness that was verifiable to run it back through databases by which they could verify the identity of the person the principal. Okay fall recognized on one of the other concerns that I saw the from the bankers association that the notary doesn't have to file with the secretary of state's office through this language is that is that correct. That is my reading of of house bill thirteen sixty seven thank you. The debate. You're recognized for. Okay. No further questions for a picture state thank you for the ten to the table. Senator Ballinger representative Penzo. But did you Payton has a question representative you're recognized thank you Mr. So I grew up in the car business and in ancient times that car titles had to be notarized so my mother was a notary my wife the notary co workers are notaries. I've been around a lot of notaries and We don't have to notarized car titles anymore but they've all maintained there's no reason and I can't tell you how many times people have walked through the door. And wanted them to know dries a document had nothing do with our business in the car business but they were always happy to do that. Many times that individual would produce a piece of paper that is already signed. And may have said look I'm I can't notarized that you have to sign that my presence and you know sometimes a lot of pressure involved there if it's a friend or relative or customer so I so my question is not so much about the title real estate business and and lawyers and things but how will this bill affect. Does it every day run the mill notaries that are not really doing it as a profession but as a courtesy and in two ways. Where they basically have to get with this new program or drop the notary and second way is it going to create more. Pressure on them by an individual that says well Joe blow got it done without Senate and their presence or whatever so there can you just kind of give me. How it might affect those notary's thought that. Yes thank you yeah it it shouldn't have said of zero impact on so the only way that it could provide more more pressure is that they have more flexibility so that your your cousin bill that lives in Nebraska you know may want to pressure you to not have something that is is for the state of Arkansas or something you know that's. That's kind of far for it fetched but essentially you don't have it because the fact you have more flexibility maybe you'd find more pressure that way other that'll be it won't make any change to that but also if they don't want to do remote numbers they would have to do another is they will be they will have to keep the notary up with secretary of state so they are filed with the Secretary of State the question is whether or not they can do it through a simple method of a face time or whether they're going to have to actually purchase through my bill purchase software provide for all of the security features that are associated with my bill. Thank you. Say no further questions from committee members we've got three people signed up to speak against the bill. Credit Bremer. I pronounce that correctly. Thank you have saved in the table data by yourself to the committee for the record and you're recognized to speak against the bill thank you Mr chairman my name is Greg Raymer I'm here today on behalf of the mortgage bankers association of Arkansas have a few prepared comments and then I'm happy to answer any questions you may have I appreciate the committee for for hearing me out today and I want to say thank you to representative Penzo for his willingness to engage in a dialogue about this bill however we are opposed to HB thirteen sixty seven because it simply does not have the fraud protections that are essential to ensuring our consumers personal information and data. This bill makes permanent some of the notarization practices allowed during the PANDEF during the pandemic under the governor's executive order those protocols excuse me while certainly appropriate needed during the time of an emergency were never intended to be permanent. This bill codifies process called remote ink notarization or ran for short where documents are sent to the signing party via regular mail overnight mail fax hand delivery and their identity is verified through means such as soon or face time or some other similar platforms that we understand this process may be easier it may be convenient in some cases but it's totally void of the security safeguards that are consumers deserve that may be okay for some transactions such as the ones that you've heard defined here for an attorney executing a document with the client they have a relationship with but it's not okay for many other transactions. There's no signing process that would make these documents tamper evident there's no multi factor identification steps for the signing party and while we have no doubt grown to appreciate the capabilities of technology platforms such as zoom and face time over the past year those technologies lack the capability to adequately record the transaction in verify the signing parties credentials there's also no requirement that the notary under this bill be on file with the secretary of state's office there is a separate remote online notarization bill Senate bill three forty referred to as roll on in our industry that does have some of these fraud protections in does take into account the best practices that have been adopted by the mortgage bankers association of America the American land title association and is already low in many other states throughout the country however passing both measures would create conflict and confusion within the law and it would still leave our consumers vulnerable to the fraud and security concerns we ask that you vote against this bill I'm happy to answer any questions you may have questions from committee member representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question thank you Mr did did you or anyone in your house association. Here's read. Use remote notary in its current form the under the pandemic. A representative Gonzalez thank you for the question you know I feel like I should first say that I'm not a notary and I don't want to assume that anybody's familiar with our practices is a mortgage banking institution. We don't know to rise documents we don't witness the signing of documents we prepare a package and we require on art we require excuse me we depend okay limit large tires that are did you to John accept any documents from the notary that use the current system the the the the one that's been in in effect since the pandemic began yes we have okay how did you ensure that there was not fraud involved in those and and. Going forward me to someone sued over those documents here you are saying that that you couldn't guarantee that there wasn't fraud how would those those promoters not be overturned if that's the case and we don't have something like this in place obviously I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to the the you know the the legal concerns there however we do put the burden on title companies it when it comes to witnessing the signing and execution of documents and I will say you know Ron is the permanent version of what this bill wants to do I thank SP three forty is what a permanent version of this should look like and I'll a reference back to you know comment the senator made a moment ago we said **** nilly is what we've been doing for the past year will this would make **** nilly permanent law and I don't think that's a good thing. Apollo. Okay the question of representative back you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman my question is you start out saying it to you guys to try to work together and obviously it didn't want to my question is okay you what was a stopping point at what point did I mean did you say I want acts and he and Richard Penzo said no you can't have sex or was it did it can you give more definitive as to what the actual point that you could no longer support this bill was no longer so I never supported it to begin with I just wanna make sure we're clear on that Senator that okay that you can support today okay thank you I appreciate that I think we want different outcomes in the bill I think their desire is to have for instance in a state lawyer someone who has a a client relationship someone they're familiar with I think they want to have the flexibility to be able to execute those documents that doesn't work for us but we need something more secure we need something that's safer for the consumers as well. You know financial transactions should be the safest thing that anybody can do and we have to put the appropriate safeguards in their banking in general is the safest thing you can do electronically I don't think anybody would argue that and we don't need to relax laws on that side of things. Follow the privilege of a pleasure ridge when you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. What the senators bill that he has forthcoming with that provide you the security that you need and and why is it that. That if this one passes then suddenly his becomes less secure. okay I wanna make sure we're clear you're referencing SP three forty is the one that would provide us with the necessary security yes Sir that that is correct that is the one we would support and contains a language that has been adopted in several other states throughout the country and bar industry your question specifically was why does this what will this bill passing why would that make us less secure. Okay I'll try to do my best to answer that My belief is that by having a wrong deal and a written bill you would create a moral hazard for a title company say in a smaller part of the state that doesn't have the cash flow to invest in this type of technology so they they have a client who at the last minute and yup I think titles going to speak here in a moment they can tell you because they deal with the actual closing transaction sometimes they don't find out that the signing party can't actually come to the closing table until a day or two before while in the opposition would say well the the mortgage company should require the title company if they're gonna sign remotely to use this process and if the title company doesn't have those capabilities in they don't find out until a day or two before that they need those capabilities now all of a sudden we've held up the closing process and everybody is is is impacted by that so Hey you your question is how does the passage of this bill make that transaction any less secure I would tell you that I think that would put the title company in that situation in a very compromised position they could under the law notarized the documents but again we have a situation where we've compromised the security of the customer with competent potentially compromise the integrity of the documents because they're changing hands multiple times those are our concerns. So. The mortgage bankers you guys you don't have the ability to insist from the title companies that you use the the technology that is going to be required in the senator's bill. That you simply do not you're not able to front load that requirements say this is what we'll accept if you use benzos methodology then we won't accept that I do not want to speak out of turn this this type of legislation is still in its infancy throughout the country. I am not sure as a mortgage banking institution if we have the ability to restrict that the title level. Thank you Sir thank you Mister. The public questions from committee members representative love you're recognized. Thank you Mister chair I just stop because I'm not familiar with bill three forty Senate bill three forty he can kind of tell me the one of two major distinctions between the bill that we're currently having in front of us thirteen sixty seven and the Senate bill three forty of representative love I'm happy to and it's good to talk to someone from mild stomping grounds itself was or are. The Senate bill three forty has the appropriate safeguards that we need such as multi factor identification of the signing party okay the technology itself can actually verify the authenticity of the of the identification document that the consumers holding up to the camera to prove their identity additionally the signing session itself is entirely electronic so there's no paper file the seal from the notary is electronic only they control that seal the document signing session itself is actually stored electronically for a specified period of time none of those safeguards are contained in thirteen sixty seven. Hello okay it further questions from committee members say none thank you Sir we appreciate your time thank you also signed up to speak against the bill is Bailey. Coming back. I mean he'll the Wesley was saying Roger I'm an eight year old the next the. The next person signed up Westly was saying. K. next only signed up to speak against a bill is Wesley. Pleasuring bless yes I'll let you pronounce your last name Sir. Thank you Mr chair it's Wesley lesane thank you on behalf of the Arkansas land title association Mr Roemer did an excellent job also had some prepared remarks but in the interest of time I'm not going to duplicate things that he's already said rather Abu I'd like to address some of the issues that some of the committee members has have raised through their questions and point out some of the problems that would exist if both house bill thirteen sixty seven and Senate bill three forty we're both enacted you know. As was aptly pointed out Senate bill three forty has security measures and safeguards in place multi factor authentication Recordation of the signing session and and storage of that for a period of time to to prove that jondo actually I'll say put pen to paper but actually executed the document electronically those are not features that are available through house bill thirteen sixty seven frankly you cannot tell the difference once the document was executed under house bill thirteen sixty seven you would not be able to tell the difference whether that document was witnessed by a notary electronically or whether the person who executed that document sat across the table from the notary public there's nothing within that bill that requires the acknowledgement to indicate that it was taken by audio visual means that is a feature of Senate bill three forty. and as pointed out those would not be there are papering out provisions for counties that don't accept electronic recordings but the entire process would be electronic and only notaries who have an electronic notary commission from the secretary of state's office would be authorized to do that. Under house bill thirteen sixty seven any notary who is Commission could perform if that became law. You know not only does it. Create problems with respect to security features consumer sharing non public personal information via facetime or zoom or Skype or some other audio visual meeting platform that was never intended to have the security features that Senate bill three forty days so you know it another problem that existed with that is the land title records. You know there may be documents that are executed pursuant to house bill thirteen sixty seven that are placed of record once they're placed of record and recorded we can't tell how that was witnessed or acknowledged whether it was audio visual or whether it was an in person signing and it it brings into question the reliability of the record and the chain of title with respect to that property frankly you know this what house bill thirteen sixty seven is is making permanent a measure that was thankfully done to address a short term problem being the pandemic governor Hutchinson has continued to extend his emergency declaration but house bill thirteen sixty seven seeks to make that permanent without the necessity of there being some emergency situation to to authorize its use so. Questions from committee members representative back you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I'm just gonna repeat the question back to you so could you could your group front end load this thing And so we only accept signatures in your process as associated with this the Senate bill. We're only as good as our weakest link we couldn't would I work for a title insurer Mr rolling back here works for a title insurance agency owns the title insurance agency we could make those requirements from a title insurance standpoint but if you have a notary in a small county who's put into a pressure cooker on and trying to close a transaction and they don't have the ability to comply then that's the moral hazard to Mr Roemer you know alluded to is you may have somebody's like. I'm going to turn my back and I'm going to do it this way just to get this deal done to appease the slender to appease this realtor or whatever the case may be and because. That it The acknowledgment that is related to that doesn't distinguish it from something where somebody came in and sat at the table across from them nobody would ever know until it's too late until somebody raises a problem to indicate that that wasn't me who was on the other side of zoom and holding up and I Jennifer cation that you may have or may or may not have had a clear picture of what looking at it the the fees Fiallo Senate bill three forty. I have credential analysis they're able to look at the identification and determine whether it's fraudulent or not they go to databases they can ask questions that only the the person would know themselves it's it's a robust system that. Frankly face time in the morning quick to do. Some and I'm. Really trying to say I'm going but but the so the question though that what you're saying is is if you required it and they didn't do it then wouldn't that individual who didn't execute the way you required to title insurance or whatever would that be putting them so vulnerable to financial certainly they would have some. Be subject to some possible legal ramifications as a result of that as the title insurer though we're we've insured Mr Reimers mortgage interest in the property or your ownership interest in the property we've got liability to you under the title insurance policy and we can't be absolved of that simply because our agent didn't follow the process we may have legal recourse back against them but we've got to make our insureds hole thank you representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair have you noticed with the existing system that's been in place since the pandemic started here years ago have you noticed or have any suspicion or any indications or statistics that there's been an uptick in fraud because of using this system that we have right now. You know how I do I don't want to answer your question directly my experience has been and again I work for a title insurer so I'm not in the field in the in the closing but in conversations with our agents across the state while they appreciate having the executive order as a tool or a backstop that they could use in the event that is needed by and large they've not had to use it they set up drive through closing tents in their parking lot they will take documents out to a party's car and hand them to them and watch them sign them through the window and personally witnessed the signatures so. My experience has been that they've not had to utilize it to a great extent certainly there have been a few but by and large it's not like there's been a rush to do everything by the. So the answer the question is you really haven't seen any up tick or anything like that and what you would consider product I think because of its very limited use of for the reasons that it was an active if house bill thirteen sixty seven becomes law permanent law I think that opens Pandora's box to the potential increase in fraud identity theft which results in additional wire fraud et cetera I think it creates a mess thank you Sir thank you Mister. Representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman. Up my question is not really about fraud but it's about additional regulation that you might have to deal with. so. Well you have to regulations that were basically control the same process and applying different situations. Would this make it more difficult or make the closing process longer for you or the mortgage companies I mean would that make it I bought a few houses in this very complicated now yes I'd like to D. complicated rather than make it worse so my question is would this make it more difficult to do a closure would extend that would be more difficult to comply with. I don't know that it would be any more difficult to comply with certainly at least in speaking with industry colleagues you know the the raw on process you know it's it's different because you've got to go through credential analysis and things of that nature but I don't think that it it makes the process any longer our real problem is is and you alluded to this in your initial opening comment to the question is you've got conflicting regulations at that point and and then what does that do and I think that creates a problem for you know the secretary of state who oversees notaries it It. This is just not a good idea to do that Senate bill three forty is is something that would be palatable and something that we could we could support because of the security measures in the safeguards that are in place there house bill thirteen sixty seven does not contain any of those features and and as a result we we have to oppose it it doesn't protect industry participants within the state or is it protect state consumers. Further questions from committee members say none thank you Sir for your time thank you. It depends. No one else is signed up to speak for against the bill representative Penzo Senator Ballinger you have personally backed in the table. Are you ready to close with your bill I am Mr you're recognized closed thank you Sir I want to kind of talk about you know this become a lot about Senate bill three forty the the genesis behind it representative Wardlaw asked the question of the Secretary of State how I'd been in engaged with them on this I ran my bill nationally so trust attorneys. It still utilize this executive order after the executive orders over then I've got bankers mortgage bankers title company secretary of state The military attorneys all these entities come at me you want and make modifications to the bill so Bob Senator Ballinger had filed a bill. So he reached out to me and was like Hey why don't we just make just one big bill here and it started getting too complicated everybody's want me to change my mind I ask mama said you because I've got a background real estate so everything everybody if you're saying I deal with closings on a regular. So Senator Ballinger we probably we know quite a bit about closings closing documents you know things like that so. But he knows the title side better than I do and I said would you mind split needs back out. So it's not that I have been trying to talk with secretary of state his bill is to address all the concerns they had about security things like this what what do we need this bill there there're. There are elderly people there's still a a virus floater and other you know this COVID nineteen think it's gonna be around for a little bit we still need for trust attorneys to be able to get document signed by the elderly. The clients I mean there's still people out there that don't want to commend offices you know I I I had a real true the other day reach out to me. was talking about it these the secure watchin people signed documents they said that the title company came out and grabbed their ID to go make a copy and then left him for thirty minutes and came back got the documents sit stand and watch and seinem so I mean there's that's that's up to the title company to do the right thing and and it's it's when the situations were for trusted tourney is dealing with the client that they know and if you when you're notarized and sent you look at the ID you look at the person's face and say okay that so and so you could you tell me can't do that over Zoomer Skype FOR some other audiovisual method you can it's been going on for the last year I mean testimony here they've been stating that the you know this is some flawed executive order that the governor put out we've been using it but if you codified over into the world's gonna come that's that's not the case it's been going on for twelve months and it's it's still the I mean this is about protectionism corporatism there was comments made that you know this is expensive and may be little bit small business Central Arkansas can't afford to do it well that's exactly what we need to do this method so they can still operate under doing online notary and if if the Senator Ballinger is get some comments I'd be happy to listen to. I just say I mean I think representative great job you know this that if if the bill that I was carrying and frankly I really appreciate everyone loves that bill so much but it if the bill that I was carrying was more complicated was it more difficult was a more expensive we would need this bill right so it is a more complicated process that frankly is unnecessary in most cases those cases where it becomes necessary then that's why we have that tool hopefully will become law and and with all the love that he gets I can imagine it not becoming law and and then we have that tool for people to require the roll on under that act and if that's the case they can be satisfied then and read as a pencil I mean the the main point is we've been living under this Pandora's box up there we're going to be open with them I opened a year ago yeah this point where we're finding that we're we're functioning under the situation and and on top of this now they're gonna have a new tool fully and and the other actor required to make it where they can feel more comfortable and so that I I appreciate a good vote. Did you Payton did you have a. Discussion questions thank you I don't know if it is too late to ask the court I'll as long as it's securing information what was just said okay so. I'm I'm pretty sure I support this bill but I still dream up concerns and you know I hear of advertised on the radio about home title guard because somebody's going to steal your house and things like that so yes I heard him say that you know they pull up in the parking lot given the driver's license and I go in my copy that it Markham sign or whatever. But they are here in Arkansas where we have jurisdiction. So as an attorney maybe answer this or Penzo but I mean the the. Technology would not allow them to not only be outside this state Arkansas where you have no jurisdiction but even outside the boundaries of the United States we have no jurisdiction so the term have you thought about that can you comment on thank you. The the Notre Ising attorney has to be in Arkansas is that what you're asking no I'm talking about the the signatory. They they would but so this is the thing is that if it particular to outside the country that is a becomes a really interesting and really difficult issue is actually to go if they are US citizens have to go to consulate and then we're relying on that whatever their system a notarization too good to be sufficient and and that is probably maybe I would guess even less secure than actually having somebody who's got a vested interest in the state putting their their eyes seeing the person scenic getting a copy of their ID and and all of the safeguards that you have when you're in person are pretty much the same safeguards that you have it your parents who were notaries now rise and somebody came on off the street and provided an ID they were taking some risking and doing that because I didn't know the person but with the ID you can feel pretty comfortable I would say that's the same thing even though it's different using technology you're still basically seeing the person face to face you're still hearing the person and I think that those are the whole safeguards hand. It is what we've been working under and I do believe that that system is probably going to be secure enough but if somebody doesn't feel like it is then I hope there's another act that they can require in order for them to feel like it's it's more secure. Thank you thank you Mr you will. Say no further questions represented Gonzalez you've got a motion motion do pass as amended I have a motion do pass as amended in the discussion on the motion. Yeah representative Gonzalez you're recognized for discussion on the motion the Committee we've we've heard a whole lot about the the what ifs what if this bill passes and the other one passes the situation we're in right now is this is a bill in front of us and the other one's still down in the Senate somewhere we don't know what's going to happen with that it may it may or may not make it down this far we we may decide to pass that we may decide not to pass it but right now we have to vote on this bill this is been in place for over a year it's been working these companies have been happily using it under the system that we have now but also the world's going to fall apart I I just have a hard time believing that and I would appreciate a good vote on this. Any further discussion on the motion of do pass as amended. Shea none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. JBG bills passed thank you Committee thank you Committee. Committee members next item on today's agenda we'll pass over sixteen thirty five. So leisurely Senate bill four ninety eight senator Johnson. Judge if you would just. Bill by yourself for the committee and welcome before state agencies allows me thank you Mr chairman. Appreciate being here Mark Johnson senate district fifteen of. Senate bill four ninety eight is a. Real simple bill it to. Current law says. That if there's a complaint about irregularity in an election the written complaint is sent by the County Board of election commissioners to the appropriate county Clerk appropriate prosecuting attorney. What this bill will do will change that to where is sent to the state board of election commissioners for evaluation that is the only change it makes sense to move that to not to a nonelected it is certainly something could end up being with the prosecutor if it rose to that level but this just changes the the process the due process part to the County Board of election commissioners and and and and this is to be consistent with other things within the law where they are responsible a party for elections be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from committee members. One of signed up to speak for against the bill we have a motion from representative makes of a do pass any discussion on the motion. Say none all in favor say aye All opposed say no congratulations your bill is passed Senator what you're doing is I will go ahead present Senate bill five fifty seven thank you Mr chairman Senate bill five fifty seven is also a simple bill a little more complicated but under the law the responsible. Party to run elections in each county is the County Board of election commissioners and so under the law they supervise these people now as a matter of practice I think everyone of us knows and and there's usually not any problem we've had some problems but usually there are no problems you're dealing with volunteers people or poll workers and you're also dealing with the county employees including the the employees of the county Clerk or other and possibly even other county officials of we we tried to come up with something that clarified this relationship during election season and I have to thank your former colleague referred for RepresentativeHouse who came through his both legal and military background to come up with about right where to find if you look on page two line three it says that county employees detailed as an election official and we worked to try to get this language clear those if if for example the employees of the county Clerk assist with the election process they are detailed by the court to do that job they're not. Losing their status as employees of the county Clerk there just detail to do that job but it clarifies that they shall comply with direct directives of the County Board of election commissioners in matters related to election. And that is the and they get officially the the County Board of election commissioners will make that Detailing or that requestor or agreement by an affirmative vote of a quorum of all members of the commission and they can't change any duty that a county employee has already under either state law or federal law is just simply as a and I appreciated Final houses words they are detailed to do that job and this is that clarification in the law so I'll be happy to answer any questions representative will be recognized for a question. Thank you Mr so senator Johnson can you can you give me an example of how this bill would be applied. In regards to because he said in a county employee in so immediately what comes to mind is Amendment fifty five in those being like County judges county employees and then. the indirect it by. The commission so can you just give me an example so I can better understand what how this bill would be applied. Thank you for that question representative love I'm I'll try to do my best to answer it but let me let me start by saying is clear under the law that county officials the county Clerk county judge whoever they are constitutional and recognizes you mention Amendment fifty five but under state law it's it's also clear that the state board of election commissioners is not only the the responsible party for carrying out an election at in each county but they are also the responsible party if anything goes wrong it's on them it's not on the Clark it's not on the judge it's on those commissioners and that's why under the law of the certification of the election result is done by the County Board of election commissioners so we're dealing with the I won't call it up the vagaries in the law but something that need to be clarified we wanted to make it okay we're elections run smoothly and and in most cases they run very smoothly in coordination with the the ultimately responsible party the Election Commission and the county Clerk or other county employees first persons that work for the Clark is generally what happens but want to make sure that Hey it's made clear they're still the employee of the Clerk be there situation of working under certain laws they have nothing to do with the responsibility carry out the election but are mandated by other state and federal laws are clear that's that doesn't change and three that the does it change any thing except for the instructions on how the election itself is handle and that's why on page two section in section to be it says that The County Board may sign to other election officials the supervision of those election officials that just sets up a hierarchy to to you know the that but the ultimate bosses under the law of the County Board of election commissioners in this simply clarifies that and sets up some some reporting lines of of the responsibility. Representative Gonzalez represented love you have followed. Gonzales you're recognized thing Mr on on page one and then another another place on this bill start online thirty three supervision election officials may be delegated by an affirmative vote of a quorum of all members of the County Board of election commissioners so that doesn't specifies this just is this a simple majority of the board or is this a unanimous vote of the board it would if you may have to be a a scope of music it would have to be a unanimous vote it would have to be a quorum in place and they have to actually vote it couldn't just be a a directive from the chairman for example it would require a recorded vote by the commission okay all right thank you thank you Sir thank you any further questions from committee members. Say none no one signed up to speak for against the bill transaction your of your ready to closing your bill I'm close Mr okay Senator Dotson is close with the bill what's pleasure of the Committee representative Richmond. Have a motion of do pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Five seven regulations your bill is passed senator eyes so you've got one more bill we has rejection from the Committee we're gonna go head to move bills center at the end of the table to be Senate bill five five three is there a. The member known as bill is okay you're recognized president your senate bill thank you Mr chairman and this did bill did have an amendment I'm grateful for a representative Payton who is co sponsor to get this amendment on the bill we got it grows so everybody will have an opportunity to see it in the bill of Senate bill five fifty three. Is a bill that to protect the state capitol and historical monuments of one of the saddest things I have experience was coming up here last year and seeing graffiti on our beautiful capitol building and seeing other desecration of of a property it just hurt me I mean I I consider this a sacred place I've actually. Criticize people that don't take their hats off when they walk in this is like coming into a church far as I'm concerned and I'm I was I was so hurt by that but when you say we want to protect money much want to protect public property and you get into some details the and we had the iron those out and I want to express my gratitude to the folks with the Arkansas Municipal power sociais Asian who brought forth some concerns and thanks to the amendment that representative Payton us already gotten on the bill in its engrossed we dressed all those concerns and they're they're happy with it it that that what they were saying so what if you have a monument and there's a water line that runs a hundred and that line breaks. Can you move the monument so we put in a provision to they can certainly go in and take care of that and any other problem lack of that that would come along if it's extended situation where they had to be a long time repair then they could apply to the Arkansas history commission with their planned of we're gonna move this monument over to the warehouse for six months we're gonna fix this street this water main or whatever and then we'll put it back at that time and that way we know that the the monument itself is preserved but it's not to disrupting it with any other legitimate operations such as utilities et cetera so I'm grateful for them for doing that we mention. All these different war monuments this is not just about war monuments but it also protects up things that honor This service organizations historical events firefighters police officers military organizations military units and we name I guess every war in the bill that American soldiers have fought in and the we we changed it from a bill I had two years ago it doesn't include a temporary exhibit temporary structure a street sign a name plate things that got make got to be confusing we're trying to narrow it down to specifically what we're trying to protect the. The bill does put some criminal penalties in four of vandalism and Desecration of monuments it puts in the if on the Me get to the penalties if the if the value of the property is more than five hundred dollars this is could be class A. misdemeanor and if the damage is is more for more than a thousand dollars it could be a Class D. felony one of the things that we we wanted to make sure of is that what is a monument well monument is something meets the definition of the bill that will be in place. At when the bill becomes law in the future any entity of a governmental entity private entity that wants to read something on on private on public property would need to notify the state history commission and they would register whether or not that that particular monument qualified under the law that way there wouldn't be any question about it now make clear we have a separate set of rules for the State Capitol grounds there's a Capitol grounds Commission that. Has. The say over that and this would not interfere with their thorny nor that of the secretary of state and we also have in place a statute that says in effect no new monuments on the capitol grounds without the approval of the General Assembly so that wouldn't change that either so we're we're narrowing it down for protecting the existing ones and. The State Capitol grounds not withstanding any future monuments. If if you point to put one up you'd send a notice or letter however they put it into their rules to the history Commission says you know we've got this monument to commemorate the the space force and they're great contribution to America well you know we just got the space force we don't know what they're they're going to be but we want to get the appropriate time our children grandchildren may want to honor the space force will they would need to to register that with this the history commission so it would be recognized and and would be appropriate at that time that is basically the the what the bill does I'll be happy to answer any questions. The representative would occur you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mister senator thanks for bringing the bill thanks for your comment so far clarify a lot of the points that there's a lot of confusion out there and and the The Amendment welcome for sure I'm getting concerns from a lot of cities. Who are worried that this is a bit of an over reach where. They don't question our ability to govern what happens when these Capitol grounds and that's power to the. But they're worried that the language of the bill is so wide open that things they don't even consider monuments now could be. have monuments under this bill and then their ability to remove and replace them upgrade them they would have to come back here to get permission is that is that is that the case. Thank you for that question representatives with a current year touchy on the things I felt like we set up a process in the bill I probably didn't explain it well enough the arbiter of whether something is historic and a monument or not will be the history commission and I'm hoping that by rule they can. Can I talk to of of Mr Bryant over to heritage this morning about it we anticipate they bring rules that that would all it said a process for what I'll call the routine questions like that and I I would think that most of the time they would be routine is what is this will it's a fine monument but we need this what street Widener we need this it would allow if with proper respectful preservation or even in some cases allowing the monument to be donated back to the original donor or some other agreed to thing that that local folks could work out with as long as this was approved and and reviewed and approved by the history commission either under rule we hope to have promulgated or even if necessary a voter the commission at their regular meetings to to deal with that we just someone that has an eye of properly identifying well that's not mine but that's just a rock versus and I say that thinking there's probably example like the Little Rock been here on the river which is clearly a monument but another rock over on the others other end up here maybe is probably not but that's why we need an organization made up of historians to clarify that I hope that answers your question. Recognized. Of more promulgation on this one is this going to actually go through. sales A. L. C. yes okay so as we're going along we can ensure we can ensure that the voices of local folks are being heard about how they want this administered in their town yes Sir okay that's all right that's what I wanted and and in it also would not As a wooden prohibited actually it facilitates an agreement with within local people say you have an entity that put up a monument hundred years ago and somebody civil we really we need to do this wide mystery whatever the local consideration is as long as it isn't done in a respectful manner this would recognize the the fact that people reached a compromise on how to to deal with an issue and that compromise would could I would hope would be ratified by the history commission. Thank you thank you Sir representative love you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I'm on page three of your bill starting with nine twenty two twenty two dash three dash twenty one zero four. Summation of historical monuments yes in this is a historical monument shall not be relocated vandalized damaged destroyed removed altered renamed rededicated or otherwise to stay so. With this being stated let me ask you because I know when the Confederate monument was from was removed in in Little Rock you were pretty testy about that so are we trying to say that that. The Confederate monuments if we decide to move them we could not remove them in this bill is this is this what this is stating ordinance in are we putting the penalty on removing those well he he let me point out to you if if you're talking about online on page three this section that's that's twenty two three twenty one oh for a one. Okay if you go to page four and look under starting line twenty eight. It says that there they can have a petition for a waiver authorized by the B. one two and it will state the reason for the waiver and L. nine thirty two it starts on three the Arkansas history mission Commission make. Grant a petition for a waiver by a majority vote basically what that is you never want to say never you want to protect the monuments but there is a process of due process where petition could be made to the history commission to review the the decision to move it and and and with their approval it could be moved but that's your I guess what I'm trying to point out represent love that the intent of the bills preserve monuments but recognized or needs to be a due process manner to deal with. Contingencies desires of of things to be relocated and the process is the history commission not of one or two individuals or anybody like that would be in making that decision okay thank you thank you Sir. Any further questions from committee members. Say none I've got two people signed up to speak against the bill senator you would just. from the end of the table will that against. Big against the bill the first one is Alan Scott Mr Scott. You would just have stated in the table. Did it by yourself to the Committee and you're recognized speak against the bill thank you Mr chairman my name is Alan Scott I'm the mayor Brian Arkansas I'm here to speak in opposition for this bill mainly because let me first mention the fact that senator Whitaker asked some very valid questions and those are a lot of concerns of city and cities across the state I'm here in opposition to this bill because it does seem to take away some local control. Whether maybe monuments in place in the city. It's my understanding that there's already laws that protect monuments this bill as expressed by the senator seems to be a reaction from the vandalism. Of the state capitol monuments which is a horrible thing nobody ever wants that however there are laws against vandalism things like that in place already I'm a firm believer in passing laws that are valid necessary but if there's already a law in place there's no reason to have an additional log doing the same thing as far as removal of monuments I think the Arkansas history commission or he has control of removal of monuments and altering those so I see no reason for this bill to be in place I had a prepared statement but most your questions ask those questions are raised with regard to that I will say this I think that this passage of this bill will actually result in the creation of fewer monuments because states and other local entities will look at this and say. Do we really want to do this and give up control of a part of our city to a. Commission that we have no control over well we have to ask permission for that and go at a regularly scheduled meeting of that commission which my understanding meets only every three months which could potentially delay projects the if you've been around city government like I have which I've not been around very long but there's always an emergency that happens and we have to move something we never try to destroy anything especially monument so with that I would just like to say I'm in opposition to that thank you for allowing me to speak. Ladyman you're recognized Mister chair if there's someone from the Municipal League association of counties in the room and like to have some questions. Is an expected. Okay. Well I'll let you talk before asking a question that thank you representative. My name is Lenny Richmond I'm legal counsel with the Arkansas Municipal League I have been legal counsel for five going on six years my primary job is just answering the legal questions of your cities this call me say Hey are we are we doing this right and I usually say. DO a better mixed results. all the points may have been ones that that were our concerns the primary one for our municipalities is that we are putting power over city property in an unelected group in Little Rock and the cities across the state are not thrilled about that sort of outcome I think you've all seen the bill we certainly appreciate senator Johnson putting and amendments to make it a better bill but we still have to be opposed to this bill just because of the removal of the local control from the small cities across the state to the. History commission I will only add one more thing a bit of history and if the good senator wants to correct me if I get something wrong I would I would yield to him or if the history commission needs to correct me I would just like to know if the Arkansas constitution which was drafted and passed I believe in eighteen seventy five it did a lot of things for the state and made sure we would always be constitutionally fiscally conservative state it insured property rights will always be protected and honestly it's for power away from carpet bagging governors and the first thing the legislature did in eighteen seventy five the very first act was to pass all the laws relating to municipalities to say we need municipalities to effectuate government the first act of a pass after our constitution was for municipalities and part of that act act one of eighteen seventy five said the following the city council shall possess and shall have the management control of finances and of all the property real and personal belonging to the corporation for over a hundred and forty years municipalities have control their own property and for the first time this is going to remove that control and put in an unelected body and for that reason we oppose the bill I'll be happy to try to answer your questions thank you. Further questions from committee members. Twenty nine thank you Sir for your time thank you. Senator you're in. You're ready to close with your bill yes Sir I am thank you enough first I think the mayor for coming in and and may I appreciate your comments specially the one about the commission meeting every three months that's specifically why we put rulemaking authority to give them they can come in and and by rule put in some procedures that would not require you have to wait ninety days to have anything review of. I hear the argument local control frankly I hear a little bit too much and I respect our our localities for their what they do and the a job that they do on getting taking care of our cities and Castro dead correct you eighteen seventy four as the date of our constitution eighteen seventy five was probably first time the legislature made under that constitution so we're really you're you're really work almost right but This bill is specifically to protect our heritage and this is a it's been under attack in many ways and this is the response to it I think it's a responsible one that sets up proper due process allows localities with the if you have a eight member city council that just came in and they want to destroy a monument from some previous city council paid to have put in and wanted it there still has to be a process before you can go back and negate your entire heritage so I'm I think the bill is needed and I'm very grateful especially grateful for representative Payton co sponsored in my other house co sponsors and so I will be now close Mr chairman thank you. Hodges close with the bill what's pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion for a representative paid number do pass any discussion on the motion we have discussion on the motion representative later when you're recognized for discussion. Thank you Mr chairman I'm a little conflicted on this because I like local control I understand the mayor and and the Municipal League their concerns about another step in outside people outside of the city making a decision for them but but also if monuments or national or state monuments I believe it's good to have a second opinion on what happens to those and I I think Senator that's what you're trying to do here there's no perfect bill out there this was not perfect in my mind but I think it's a good bill I'll be supporting. Any further discussion on the motion. We have a motion of a do pass all in favor say aye. All opposed say no seven your bill is passed. Thanks total today's agenda committee is Senate bill five thirty five. We do have an amendment. The representative right you're going to present this bill for Senator Davis is that correct yes Sir Mr okay this gives a seconded the amendment ended out. What is. Representative ro you're recognized to present the amendment. Okay thank you colleagues the amendment just simply adds a little bit of language that the securities department requested we add to the bill and not all if if you are gracious enough to adopt the amendment I'll just explain the bills hall after that. Any questions on the adoption of the amendment representative Ladyman did you have a question. Okay we had a couple motions here to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion to adopt. Say none all in favor say aye All opposed say no the amendment has been adopted you present the bill as amended as adopted okay thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee Senate bill five thirty five this bill is is designed to really put an added layer of security or an added layer of protection on the private information or private data of nonprofit entities the information that we're protecting here with the bill is in anything that would identify a person as a member or supporter volunteer or donor of any five oh one C. groups the Bill provide some transparency by providing that that any new requirements on non profits be deliberated here by the legislature it doesn't allow for for any sort of backdoor method where an attorney general or or some state agency can start mandating this information you see on page one it says an ex except where specifically required or authorized by federal law no state agency or state official shall impose annual filing reporting requirement on a nonprofit organization that is more stringent restrictive or expansive in the requirements authorized by state statute so it says that that we as a legislature gonna have that power and then the rest of the bill just provide some definitions provides that if you're in violation of this it's a Class C. misdemeanor. And I've got somebody that site gonna testify on behalf of the bill miss rose mountains from Arkansas right to life they'll give you some more practical perspective on how this is needed why would work out of work and what's needed. Representative Whitaker you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman represent rate thanks for bringing the bill If you could give us the you know. Fact situation that led to the feed them the feel that there is a need for this bill sure well I'll give you I give you one example you know when our current vice president went when she was governor of our sorry not not governor when she was Attorney General of California she got particularly aggressive in going after nonprofit groups that she happened disagree with their political agenda groups to the the identity of their donors and key supporters were big were were not publicly disclosed information and really sort of went on kind of a crusade to make that data publicly known and the reason that we would want to protect that is because we you know unfortunately we live in a climate where politics for people on both sides of the political spectrum has kind of become a blood sport and people have a mentality sometimes that is win at all costs and unfortunately you know people get subjected to threats and harassment intimidation they fear losing their jobs just because they are associated publicly with a cause that they believe in and so that's that's why I feel something like this is necessary it's just a if the legislature comes back and decides you know Hey we the will of our body is that this information be disclosed that's certainly a different thing but this just provides that there's no back door method to make that information available. Other questions from committee members. We've got someone signed up to speak for the bill. Page ma'am to your in room yes ma'am you would just have stated in the table you're recognized identify yourself to the committee then you're recognized speak of. For the bill. Thank you Mr chairman I am rose Mimms executive director of Arkansas right to life thank you committee members you all know the important work that Arkansas right to life does and how contentious our policy positions can seem in today's political climate the work we do requires the support of thousands of our Kansans who give of their resources and lend their voices to the voiceless. But we are in an environment where opponents will attempt to win by any means necessary. You're probably feeling it or know someone who is experiencing it people are being harassed intimidated and canceled for exercising their first amendment rights businesses are being targeted because of causes that their owners or employees support. Activist arcs aggressively seeking to shut down debate and eliminate voices they disagree with from public policy discussions and using the government to do this. Many Americans are self censoring in keeping their opinions to themselves because they are afraid of retribution. Privately supporting causes in the organizations advancing those causes is a fundamental freedom that is protected by the first amendment. But opponents understand that free speech only becomes useful when independent voices come together in an organized way to have their opinions heard. No one deserves to have their private information exposed and to be threatened because of their opinions in this charged and highly partisan political atmosphere it is more important than ever that we protect indemnity. Otherwise we will lose the market place of ideas because every day people will be too afraid to speak to donate to volunteer or engage with causes they believe in. I am asking for your support of this B. five thirty five this bill will prevent the government from publicizing private information about the volunteers and supporters of non profit organizations and if the government is in possession of such a list it cannot be released to the public. Government is not a benign at entity it is made of people and those people have opinions and sometimes these people try to help their personal causes by misusing. Information that they are responsible to guard on behalf of the public they are supposed to serve. SP five thirty five will be an enforcement mechanism to ensure that guardianship a private information is a top priority in our state. Arkansas right to life believes that all voices should be heard and no voice should be intimidated into silence so again I ask for your vote in support of SB thirty five thirty five thank you thank you questions from committee members. J. Nunn thanks so much for your testimony. Representative ray are you ready to close for your bill I'll close the bill thank you Mr chairman thank you for your time and attention committee. The representative wrote his clothes with these but. What's the what's pleasure of the Committee remember it's motion do pass as amended. I have a motion representative Richmond of do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no graduations the bill is passed thank you Committee. That objections were we're gonna of now called house bill nineteen sixteen representative McCollum. Should. Representative Cozart you have a question. Mr chairman I'd like to see this bill held over to Monday white people that would like to come speak on this bill and I'd like to make make a motion that we held over the money. Committee members we have a motion from representative to co Cozart to postpone to a certain day he specified that day until Monday stated the reasons why this is a debatable issue. is there any discussion on the motion. Representative of speech you're recognized for discussion on the motion I also have people coming down Monday. Okay privileges speeches also spoken on the motion representative. McCollum you're recognized speak on the motion. Yeah I'm I mean for interested in bringing people here to create a ruckus to put pressure on individuals I don't think that would be in the best interest of the members here I'd rather just move forward as we originally scheduled to. He per discussion on the motion representative because I was you you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you Mr chair of this. This bill has been on the agenda as far as I know nobody's has. Brought up anything about it being delayed before or ask for special data we've we've been running bills all session of set on on the calendar for eighteen hours and the somewhat controversial bills and and we random you know within within that eighteen hour or we have immediately after that eighteen hour period I think we ought to go ahead and hear this bill today and move along with our agenda Senator while you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you Mr the this body supposed to take in public comment went public comment is offered and if we have members of the committee that I've had folks contact them with public that want to comment on a bill before us I think we are to honor that I don't have anybody's contacted me but hearing from two members of the committee I would call that significance and I would speak in favor of the motion for that reason. Representation did you have a traditional comment. Thank you Mr chair exactly what he said I mean we I think that that the we say Senate yesterday and so people didn't have time to. To come down here. So I appreciate if we would want. Okay any favors question on the motion. Richard you have further comment on the motion I do I mean just as representive Wardlaw mentions. There are also members who feel comfortable with moving forward and so out of respect for those members on the committee an act I guess I just said we we filed it with all the rules the same way on any other bill I think you know if there are folks that want to come comments they'll have plenty of availability to do that between now and the normal process if this movie if this bill moves forward including on the Senate side any further discussion on the motion representative Cozart you're recognized. This is the only place that those people have to make comment and this bill without about it out about last night that it was on the agenda and they could not make it today one of the call me ask if we could probably postpone this to Monday and I said I would make that motion to do that and I one of these guys is the former member of this chamber and I think we should give him the respect to come down here B. R.. Representative badging you're recognized speak on the motion. Thank you Mr chair I could be wrong on this but I'm just looking at the agenda and it was last revised at nine thirty AM yesterday since it has been on the agenda for twenty four hours as far as what I'm. Reading I. Stand to be corrected if that's wrong but that's what it says here no that's correct any further discussion on the motion. Did you let's let somebody else goes on a motion of it represents McCollum representative Payton you're recognized. Thank you Mr I mean I understand what we're saying about. Making sure we can have a. Civil war in here amongst the ones that are forward or the ones that are not for it but were elected to represent people we don't always need them here and tell you truth I mean. I don't I don't see why we couldn't go ahead in here there will be opportunity on the Senate and if if they want to that like to let the Senate enjoy that if they can. Any further discussion on the motion. Representative McCollum you're recognized now I just wanted to comment in response to this is the only place that you know members of the public would be able to come in talk to the bill at I guess representative Payton covered in the the Senate side that place exist as well. He per the discussion on the motion. Say none committee members I remind you will but voting on the motion to to postpone to a certain date which that day would be Monday. A yes vote you're voting to postpone until Monday November ten you're voting to here today so all in favor of postponing till Monday say aye. All opposed say no. The knows that it will hear the bill today representative McCollum you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee thank you for your patience I guess I'll just start with that. This bill is about not being reactionary we have a an exciting opportunity in front of us to promote our state on what we value I know for many of you and what you're hearing from your constituents in your emails is that this is about the flag for me this is opportunity to say who we are as a state I don't want to suggest that it's clean up language but I'll get to that get to what I mean about that in just a moment. I understand their different views here on the flag which is usually attention point any time we're talking about that issue but and I've I've I have visited with many of you almost all of you on that very issue. I think it's important for me to note I had a time before I get into the actual build that individuals rights to keep displayed celebrate the flag you know those remain untouched in fact Robert E. Lee day still exist in the book and the books and statute it says that is the day that we have in Arkansas to memorialize those I individuals who have fallen our Kansans in the civil war. My main interest and running this bill after a similar bill was filed earlier in the session on I was approached by some of our colleagues has to do with the history of how this bill came into place and that is specifically looking at some of the years and dates and what was going on at the time when my talking about. Well the Little Rock Nine and integration in nineteen fifty seven in direct response to that the governor at the time Democrats or Phomicinda Democrat led legislature. Put into place Confederate flag holiday why would I say that my main point is we're not a racing history we're not. Getting rid of anyone's ability to celebrates our memorialize the Confederate soldiers the main point in doing this is the call out. One what happened at that time and it's really an opportunity for us and I'm this is more of an appeal to folks my party to say we're the party of Lincoln. It's pretty obvious what happened I'm happy to you know go back and look at the history with all of you if you know if there's any foster confusion of what happened or why and then hit the pause button to and say I understand parties change over time so for me to you know say at a certain point of time you know there's a party title next to a certain governor I get it let me get to the main point of the bill. What are we doing with this what are we doing with this bill we're creating Arkansas day. I don't think I need to read line by line what is within Arkansas day. but I do think it's important for me to know that. Feedback from members. I heard. There are a number of folks and not just on this committee but that we serve with that have reenactments that take place on this day and I would say changing this this bill are changing the wording to Arkansas day from Confederate flag day doesn't change anyone's ability to do re enactments in fact that's one of the reasons that we listed in the description of Arkansas day rich history we didn't want to move it to another day and time to match you know what Arkansas became a state because we understand from again feedback from members in this committee that that's a specific day that Hi there are reenactments and so we didn't want within one a challenge that so we want to make sure we gave a nod in the description to a rich history you also see a mention to our national treasures and the bill I mean really we just want to list all the things we really treasure in this state what we want to celebrate what we want to value what we want to promote which is why the state chambers for this they see this is something to promote on specifically that will the long list of things were saying we're proud of we want to bring people open arms hospitality to these to these different areas of the state I understand from visiting with with many of you that a lot if you want to discuss this bill so I just kind of stopped talking for now. Any questions from committee members represent your Richmond you're recognized. What you and you may have said this I miss that if you do and I apologize but was there a specific event there in the late sixties that. The governor and the politicians to be at that time responded to to come up with this particular. Confederate flag day. Nineteen fifty four was the Supreme Court ruling brown versus board of education I. When I studied the history of this I saw number of what I would say reactionary Reactionary bills be put into place but to your point on the the specific governor party who is in power I mean yeah I was a Democrat governor oral fathers who sent the Arkansas National Guard to block the Little Rock Nine from entering into Little Rock Central High School and was the Democrat led legislature. That decide to put in metes reaction might and again my main focus there is. Is this a. I. I in no way I have I have P. rich. In my district love you are familiar with the battle of peerage. I wouldn't do anything read any type of bill. That wouldn't anyway specifically try to take away honoring our Confederate soldiers. Our folks who grew up in Arkansas at the time that went and died for fighting for Arkansas the time. I'm pointing out that Confederate flag day was not created after the civil war. It was specifically in reaction to some of that stuff that was going on in the late fifties. Representative Paul you're recognized for a question. Representative spoke you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. My question is you know we can't change history and I don't want to I think history is something we've we've learned from. So I wondered Flynt you did not choose another day to have an Arkansas day because I'm proud of Arkansas I would have been happy to have voted for another bill to just celebrate Arkansas. I talked with a number of members in detail about just that thinking about maybe another day that would be more appropriate S. the timing is you know going up right into Easter that feels strange the answer is we we decided just leave it the same day based off of feedback of members who felt like just changing that. We're getting would send the wrong message to those that like to do re enactments on that day so we want to say okay well Arkansas day. Rich history we want to respect those on both sides want to respect what happened and we want to do it on the same day so that's why we ended up not changing the date that you mentioned. Any further questions from committee members. Say none representative McCollum you ready to close per your bill no one signed up to speak for against the bill. I guess all I'm close for the bill I I appreciate a good vote a good vote committee so you're making a motion for a do pass as a motion to pass we have a motion refuge McCollum produ pass any discussion on the motion. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr chair of to think it's important to preserve history and the that's one reason I just voted for for the monument bill that just passed out of here because I think it is very important that we we preserve history Also had a little bit issue that a local control those and others Senate but back to this bill and then this motion of do pass when I first saw this when I first heard of this I was completely against changing this at all. It's just another form of of racing history but then after talking representative McCollum what I come and thank. What I found out. Where this day came from and how it came about this isn't a reflection of history this is a reflection of racism that was rampant in that day so therefore I think it's important that we do change this and that we. We should make every effort to. I guess not reflect the racism of our past and not continue to honor that going going forward so I'll be voting for this bill and I ask that you join me. Representative Whitaker discussion on the motion. Thank you Mr shares one of the few Democrats in the room I I the bill whose need to address a dark part of our own history. yes indeed the times of governor Faubus were fraught. With. Difficulty in disagreement. our party. In those days had evolved out of the southern democratic Democrats. Who had done. Supported. Secession. And slavery. And through difficult times of the late fifties and sixties. We as party had to come to terms with that. And in nineteen sixty four. Someone statements to our political detriment later. We confronted those. The dark shadows of our past. And we repented and rejected. Racism. And slavery. I am a son of the south I it is it the Confederate cemetery in families in my district and we care for it with respect that's due to the fallen. It is. Volunteers keep it clean and keep it safe. And it's on the slopes amounts appointed so. Nobody's trying to race that history. Represent Collins bill. With. Widely encompassing concept of all of Arkansas still leaves room for those people that wish to use that day to commemorate the sacrifices made in the. Civil war. But it doesn't make in about nineteen fifty seven it doesn't make it about oral problems it doesn't make in about. What we called in the history books you can Google this one massive resistance is desegregation and that's what this holiday was the new one says let's celebrate all of Arkansas part of that is your reverence for your ancestors who fought and died in the civil war will so be it that's a legitimate part of celebrating Arkansas and it will still be that's why I'm going to be a yes thank you Mr representative Richmond you're recognized. Thank you Mr right. Normally. Anything that. Comes up that removes holidays that type stuff I'm usually very conflicted about that. But just like represent Whitaker said here this this was not done to honor the Confederate dead this was done as just a poke in the eye. The people that at that time the political leadership wanted to to poke in the eye. This is not going to help our race relations is not going to help anything else is going on in our state. And so to think that it will I think that's kind of folly. frankly the government more the government gets out of the way the better I think people will be able to learn to treat each other. However. What this will do and the reason why I'm voting for is those men that I served with the United States Marine Corps of all colors. I'm gonna vote for because of them. They deserve better than what this holiday reflected at the time that it was created thank you. Any further discussion on the motion. Representative Ladyman you're recognized prescription on the motion. I'm very hesitant to say this but I think it needs to be said. You know. My party is often framed as racist. I'm not a racist many of members of our party that I know or not racist. But we are continually. Viewed or put in a box as racist and there and I hope that my other friends in the other party. Listen to what I say. It is not a party thing racism is not a party to a. And I would hope that we can get away from that and I think this proves that if we look at history it was a Republican president a Republican Congress that ended slavery. This was a democratic governor and a democratic party that set the state up do you know that Arkansas had more people killed in the revolutionary war than any other state. Some you might not know that but that's a fact. In the civil war. Britain. It's difficult then the civil war so we definitely need to you know look at that history and and people had relatives that died in we don't want to forget that. but I think this is a bill that may be shows us that there's racism and both parties and there's members of both parties that are not racist so I hope this ends this battle of who's the most racist so I'll be voting for it thank you those questions on the motion. J. nine representative McCollum is already close with this bill he's made a motion for a do pass all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it to bill is passed C. one hand of C. two hands madam Clark Madam Clark call the roll. Representative Hawks yes. Representative Johnson. Representative McCollum yes. Representative Richmond yes. Representative speaks. Representative back. Representative gray. Representative gray. Representative Ladyman yes. Representative Payton. Representative Payton yes. Representative Whitaker hi. Representative Miller. All. Representive Dotson yes. Representative Cozart. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw yes. Representative Deffenbaugh. Representative Deffenbaugh. Representative love. Representative love. Representative gene. Representative gene. Representative Meeks. Representative Gonzalez. Graduations the bill is passed. Representative voted you care if we put your bill off till Monday. Are you know we're a vision to it. What. All right let's go in here the last bill on the day's agenda. It's Senate bill five forty nine. Represent all you're recognized this Senate bill five forty nine. All right thank you Mr chair thank Committee I'll be quick I know that I'm standing between you and lunch this is a an election bill and all it does is it requires a County Board of election commissioners to prepare a report a provisional ballots absentee provisional in person provisional and rejected ballots there's to turn that back over to the state board of election commissioners within sixty days of each election I've spoken to them everybody's in agreement with the bill it's been filed I've not seen any opposition but I'm open for any questions. Read you're recognized for a question. President fox thank you for bringing the bill. It's actually election bill that even the Democrats could vote for would you agree. I would completely agree with that thank you Mr chair okay. It further questions from committee members. None no one signed up to speak for against the bill RepresentativeHouse you're recognized closing your bill I'm close make a motion to pass president jokes is close to the day you got a motion for a new pass any discussion on the motion. Shea none all in favor say aye All opposed say no congradulations the bill is passed a Mister thank committee have a great life thank you for a long day we got to get to rules is meeting is adjourned.