Judiciary Committee- House

You say were recognized to present that a yes are you going to present representative well of Senator Ballinger was going to as just make is I I could hear well I'm sorry yes shall recognize okay thank you manager. Thank you Committee Senate bill thirty thirty three thirty five is is almost exactly the same and form as three thirty four was which we heard previously there is obviously more discussion concern over because instead of applying to state agencies implies to the counties municipalities I you know I would like there to to be able to just say this bill has no opposition and in there shouldn't be seriously this is basically exactly what we're doing today what is best practices of if somebody is not doing this then they're probably they're doing it wrong frankly so. I'm happy to answer any questions but essentially the this is just setting forth the prank framework putting into our code the the jurisprudence the good jurisprudence we have in Arkansas in order to be able to protect the rights of our citizens and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Represent Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and and Senator Ballinger kind of wanted to expand on the conversation you and I were having earlier so in answer to that the argument that this. Disallows some flexibility that officials would like to have by not having this caught a five what is what's the response to some of the concerns that you're sharing with me that some of these elected officials have yes so so what I would say is that on some things we do need to provide them with with flexibility the whole concept of of a local rule is is an important thing and we need to be able to that some things it when we're talking about the the kind of fundamental rights of our citizens we need to make sure that we're putting in protections to protect them and I don't think that this really takes away much of their their flexibility the the problem the flexibility that I think that they want is is the possibility of gaining more and that's what I think the point of the the bill is to prohibit that right we we don't want them to be able to do more and take more property with the and and interpret the public use more broadly than what it is today and and that's the the point of the legislation not to not to punish them or make things any harder and and that's what you know the the gentleman I spoke with the the Municipal League who made the comment in two thousand nineteen sand you know there are they they understand it's basically the same but they want to have the law changed well I your ad from a legislative perspective and from what I think is best policy I don't want the law changed I wanted to be the rights of property to be protected at a very high level and that's what the the point is not to go further than what what we are been leased his or where we're at. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thanks could you just explain the amendment there on page four starting line twenty three which is subsection D. it's a eighteen fifteen two of four D. explained I'm sorry ninety at C. four C. for is really what I was wondering about just tell me why that amendment was made and and what that amendment does to change the bill. And starting line twenty on page four okay and so we're and one Senate bill three thirty five. Yep. Okay so the same one okay so so it's the same language that we had in the in the other amendment and so the whole point of that was in order to be able to allow them to. Yeah well I'll let them representatives also. So that wasn't an issue that the satiation of counties had when the language was in there that didn't know that allow the taking on unless you had the consent of another property owner and the concern was that if you were taking property for a new county road and you had you were trying to go on one path with the joining property owner would consent to selling their property that you're road with zigzag because you had to follow the consent so we added that amendment in there that says unless it it's on reasonable increase in cost or or delay so you have to do that will be. Unreasonable so that's why we have that amendment thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we do have a number of people who have signed up. A we have he ward. Mr ward is signed up to speak against the bill your. Come on to the table. Press the button and that you are recognized. Thank you very much for having me today I'm heath ward I'm the executive director Springdale water utilities I'm also representing this city of Springdale today I'm also the president of the Arkansas water wastewater manager so she ation which represent senior managers from across the state. First of all I would respectfully disagree with the good Senator Ballinger of that there already is flexibility under our current system and there's already protections in place for the citizens in our current system of condemnation land acquisition is is actually. Very fair and very straightforward in fact I'll repeat this again that in the almost one decade I've been with Springdale water utilities ninety eight percent of the time we usually don't deposit money with the court because we see we can strike a deal with the landowner and we make these deals and the couple times we've had to go to court we won when we lost one. And and and those are the two instances where we really not been able to come together with the landowner we feel the current system and service well for many decades. And allows for fair valuation of property it offers legal remedies and protections to property owners and landowners. We cannot and have not condemned in Springdale anyway most utilities don't for private use our constitution already does not allow for it and I'm sure other people will elaborate on that later there are court cases from fifty years ago that basically said that you can't take property from someone even for economic development this and constitutional and that's pretty much did over the years now let the attorneys talk more about that. Specific reasons we oppose this bill one thing in here it says that if you end up going to court property tissue court there's some there's some things that you have to prove and the local government bears the burden of proof on that. First of all what seems difficult this is proof of funding requirements now most of us being a public service long enough we know that sometimes you will acquire land. Or you will require a route wait before you get a money to build a pipeline or road usually you acquire the right of way easements whatever you wanna call it ahead of time she can find a competent engineer in the state two way that project out that way you as an elected or appointed official can assess what that project going to cost you. So to prove that you can find this entire project from beginning to end is a bit onerous in my opinion. The benefits to the taxpayers when if you had to wait for all the funding to be in place the cost of the project may escalate in the taxpayers and ratepayers of the community do not benefit from that. There is a huge variable in this it has to do with planning and timing of planning. One of the other most concerning is is on line fourteen page four and I'm going to read it. Actually line sixteen public use you have to prove public use cannot be accomplished by using requiring other property within the consent of the owner of the property. In this last requirement is most problematic for many reasons if I go to person a. And I have tried to acquire this land I've got approve these other things of invested in this engineering I've invested in this time. And all of a sudden I have to prove that there's no other route well that's pretty subjective. Now let's say for a moment a jury decides that I could find another route and all that public expense of money. Is Ben for not because now we got to find another way. Do we run into a property owner beach who feels the same way you end up going to court a jury decides yep there's another route they could have followed and so we go through the whole conundrum again in the meantime not only is money being taken to so it's time so was the time for development for that community and it may come at a price of losing economic development or transportation dollars they're made available by state or federal government because we don't have this thing on the shelf and shovel ready. Preparation site designer very expensive it hinges on the geographic part of of of the planet is most fundamental to that plan so one thing people have asked me. About this is so why would a water utility or utility be concerned what appears to utilities are not defined as local government no they're not exempted in here but they're not defined as local government and there's a difference. Even though I'm not designated as local government as a water utility. A lot of my projects are done in conjunction with highway department will pull up city bond projects that are done. And road widening other improvements in the community. Now if I'm not delayed and putting in a water sewer line but yet the city is delayed on improving the road. Then what happens is I'm either forced to delay that. To perhaps some kind of enforcement action because I couldn't build a big enough sewer or development doesn't happen because I can get water there because the city of Springdale or City XYZ is tied up trying to establish whatever the route is. So I'm either forced to do it and then they come back later when the city or other governing entity County whoever they may be now a taxpayer expense a ratepayer expense again they may have to move those water and sewer lines for that project so there's really no advantage to utility for counties it could be things like broadband. And then there's monies out there. And I'm I'm I'm a conservative person becomes the spending that is moneys become available for local projects from federal government do we really want to **** a system that has worked well for us for almost seventy years plus. I also disagree that this just codifies what we do now it's it's a profoundly different our pinion and the reason it utility is concerned with this it's why everyone's concerned legal costs go up engineering costs go up acquisition time becomes a will be a planning and coordination of projects becomes very difficult it's already difficult today if you've ever worked with the highway department or the federal government pending in an interchange these days is a nightmare it's a seven year process at best. So currently condemnation uses you sparingly our current system works very well the people have a way to challenge a taking and they do so from time to time but most of the time we can come to a fair deal with our citizens. So at the end of the day. But who wins will maybe litigators may in this case. But the loser ends up being possibly the community possibly the rate payer possibly the taxpayer in when communities lose in Arkansas Arkansas loses and one Arkansas loses we all lose. I urge you do not pass vote on this bill. In I I respectfully ask for that vote and I thank you in we'll take any questions you may have. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so the presenters just told us that this does reflect existing case law you're saying that it doesn't would you tell me where specifically you've identified that it does not well if you go through here when it requires local government do these requirements to to prove these things in court a lot this the burden on the court right now I can deposit the money with the court and then if the landowner still is not happy with that are we still can't strike a deal they have the option to go to court but I don't necessarily have to prove that I had the funding available I don't necessarily have to prove I could I would I would have testimony there is that this was the best route for the rate payers. And it also I know we've talked about schedules but when you talk about leaving it up to a jury to decide what is a reasonable schedule I think I think that's a little open ended and very subjective following. You're recognized for a follow up so let's put aside the burden of proof would you set it existing case law in Arkansas exempt you from having to have a public use I have a reasonable schedule to complete the public use after you take ownership it would exempt you from having to have access to funding tell me it just seems like you would have all of the stuff in place Your before you do any kind of attack I'll I'll give you a specific example Sir right now Springdale water is looking at a twenty nine million dollar project. I think extending a third sewer line to our water plant due to the growth in Northwest Arkansas. Right now I don't have the money to pay for that line. I do have the money to acquire the right of way and easements but as far as the whole project at my engineer is laid out for me I don't have the money. It's going to take a few years would figure out where to get that money if I'm lucky I may not have to bond there may be with you monies available there may be other loan programs and our C. available I don't have the answers to that right now the despair the expense of that project I need to acquire the right away and easements now at today's prices or will be paying much higher prices in the speed of development Northwest Arkansas for example instead of going through a goalie or forest for example I may have to now go through a subdivision we've seen it with highway projects subdivision goes then all of a sudden the public cast by separate houses. In those are the kinds of things I'm talking about that funding may not be in place one more for our please. Recognized thank you the bill doesn't say that you have to have the funding says you have to have access to funding and if you don't have access to funding do you think that's a something that would warrant taking someone's property rights no I don't think you're taking the property rights thank you going through the process of the current law in other words I don't believe this laws necessarily needed of basically I have to go through the condemnation process and give them due process and like I said in ninety eight percent of the cases. Most of the takings we do our appreciated by property owners why because sewer on property that was previously a pastor might make your property a heck of a lot more valuable in certain parts of the state so in a I'm very fortunate in that sense but for me to get up in a court and swear that I had access to all that funding I couldn't do that. Seeing no other questions thank you Mr ward for your test thank you ma'am chairman. The next individual is signed up to speak for the bill is Ryan Norris Mr Norse feed come forward identify yourself for the record and then you may make your state. Madam chair and committee my name is Ryan nor state director for Americans for prosperity and here to speak on behalf of Senate bill three thirty five the reason that we would choose to speak on behalf of bill three thirty five is this that we believe it's the role of government to protect people in to secure equal rights and when you have local government has resources has access to legal counsel and you have individuals who do not that at any moment the state or the local government could step in and say we believe your property would be more valuable used for the community in a new in a different way. We are a state that highly values property rights and any speed bumps that we put in place of government taking private property is actually a good thing that's a feature and it's not a bug I understand the complexities of utilities I understand the complexities of planning that cities have have plans that they want to do to grow and expand the usefulness of their city to the people that that live there and the people they want to attract but at the end of the day one of the things that makes me feel as a citizen someone that wants to live in this particular place is the security that I would feel that should I be opposed to my government that I have the opportunity to be protected and that there would be a process that's understandable to me as a citizen. That would allow me to defend my my my personal property so we believe that they're it is a strong. Low already here in the state V. of the constitution and that it protects the private property in that we have recognized as a state the private property rights or Supreme. We also have Supreme Court decisions in aged a jeep opinions that in Arkansas her or sharp contrast to kilo versus New London and in a positive way that it said we now understand that when there's a conflict between the private citizen and the government that that we really need to weigh in on what that private citizens needs are. As against private citizens do not have lobbyist or government access in general to where they can fully and robustly defend their personal property rights and we believe that Senate bill three thirty five is taking what is in our constitution and in legal opinion and in Supreme Court decisions and putting it in a place that is that the people understand it in the statute they would pull that up they would be able to look at that they can. I can pull that up on even our websites here and they can find out what some of the property rights are so we would just ask that the the rights of the citizen be considered that the government's of the role is properly framed in securing and of equal rights and protecting people and I ask for a for a vote a positive vote on Senate bill three thirty five without him open to any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr Norris for your testimony thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Next individually have signed up to speak against the bill is Jerry Martin. Sir Martin. You'll come forward identify yourself you'll be recognized. You had is counter intuitive when the red lights on it you're on there you go awesome thank you thank you madam chair for allowing me to speak today my name is Jerry Martin I'm a project manager with Garber engineering and I'm here today representing the American council of engineering companies for the state of Arkansas this is a group of engineering firms and architectural firms throughout the state today we are here to speak against the SB three thirty five We are part organization with a reporter a lot with the local organizations on key projects throughout the state of Arkansas ACC units members stand against this bill as of right now the way is remitted that's unnecessary financial burdens to the local governments to be able to complete critical infrastructure projects by tying them up in lengthy court battles this can be done to the course of property owners I think Mr ward explained very very well and how he described that if you have property a you have a project he talked about his big sewer line project that is currently working on during the process if you have property a owner that does not want to have that come across as a file litigation goes to litigation it comes back around again you find a different route at another cost an additional cost to the city which in turn is cost to the ratepayers entered cost of the tax base which is the citizens of the State. You go to property B. property does the same thing unical litigation again where is the end of site for that to happen at what point does it become allowable that the movement has to be done for the betterment of the community and that this service provides betterment for the community. the cost of litigation again would be borne by the citizens and the rate payers This call is projects across the schedules to inflate these projects a lot of times are very limited in scope and the timeline no these we identify these projects early on with this it isn't with the local governments and try to mitigate these so that there isn't a delight there are several communities across the state special Northwest Arkansas that as populations are growing consistently and constantly they're having to chase themselves to find the ways to get the right amount of infrastructure in place to have equal access to water and sewer services roadway services for emergency services that can be provided. The. this could also negate funding since several of federal programs have strict scheduling requirements EDA grant USDA grants they all come with schedule requirements all if we're tied up in litigation and constantly trying to fight the battles to get these projects moving forward then we're not gonna be able to meet those schedules in the city's gonna lose out on these funding sources outside of the state government or local funds miss or hit on that as well but this is something we see constantly there's also specific rules within those that prevent you from using condemnation certain cases or having different things that we can go through litigation or have those kind of court battles so we the gate all federal funding them comment on that point. this also Yes sorry to mention that part Again ACC stands against this bill as it attempts to rectify perceived problem but as an unintended consequence delaying potentially indefinitely delaying projects that provide for community betterment overall you know ACCS that you do not vote to pass this bill without all of their to any questions. Members are there any questions for Mr Martin. Seeing no questions thank you Mr Martin thank you senator today. The next individual is signed up to speak against the bill is James Walton Mr Walton comportment in a fire so to be recognized. We'll pass Mr Walden we have next up Blake Gary. Mr Gary come forward to be recognized. Thank you madam chair members of the committee Blake Gary's legal counsel with Arkansas Municipal League and I do first off one to show appreciation for Senator Ballinger and representative Gonzales released taking the time to discuss this bill with me and I know of several others and think well there's a fundamental disagreement about what this bill does And implications of this bill I think we can agree on what we've heard from those who has spoken for the bill and against the bill is that we have excellent private property protections in the state of Arkansas in fact or Arkansas constitution article two section twenty two. States that the right of properties before and higher than any constitutional sanction and private property shall not be taken appropriated or damaged for public use without just compensation there up and they G. actually applying to two thousand five it was a post a kilo V. city of New London case which has been discussed previously and it won they G. was asked to upon whether kilo style taking could happen state of Arkansas and AG applied no we actually have one the strictest constitutions and regards the takings clause out of all fifty states. And I really just want to be opened bay made available for any questions but address a couple of things the it has been said that last year the Municipal League what does this bill because we are open for the law to be changed I was not here I've only been a disbelief for sixteen months so I don't know what was said the truth is we don't deal with eminent domain that Austin it's just not a tool that cities use very often actually the mayor of Clinton stopped by yesterday and I just pose a question to him just how many times he's used it and it was zero times in the seven years he's been in office and I've talked to some other city attorney just ask and how often you off to use eminent domain and just another example Cave Springs I used it twice in seventeen years and one was just because of property owner was unable to be located. So. but to that I have don't know whether I'm proud or ashamed of how much time I've spent looking and the eminent domain laws in the past couple weeks and months but I'm under the impression that the only way we would ever or that the law could be changed to allow private property to be taken and just handed over to a private individual or industry would be through a constitutional amendment we actually had our own kilo style case in the state of Arkansas in nineteen sixty seven in Little Rock severe rains case. And in that case the City of Little Rock took or tried to condemn good agricultural property for the purposes of building of industrial development park and the court set that down they said we cannot use cannot condemn private property for private use and the court said in that case. without the consent of the owner private property cannot be taken for private use even under the authority of the ledge legislature saw that can be interpreted I guess different ways but I read that is even if the legislator gave us that directed toward expressive forty that it couldn't happen. I don't want to belabor the point on what is kind of been the biggest issues that we've heard with this bill in its This bill provides a private cause of action that's never been made available Just in the history of eminent domain and that's having the property owner to have determine whether their property was necessary to achieve the public use and not only that but it also shifts the burden onto the city as we've heard to prove that public use cannot be accomplished by using requiring other property with the consent of the owner without a reasonable increase in costs and delay that's almost proving a negative condition that we have to prove that we couldn't have used or taking any other route wine location period that's almost a process elimination and even within a reasonable increase and cost or delay. That's going to be decisions made by our made by adjudicated by judge don't know what the outcome I don't know what and reserve what it would be in a reasonable costs I don't know what would be an unreasonable delay but the question was posed so this was different from the current law. And the Supreme Court of pined in nineteen forty three in the State State Highway Commission versus allowing counting stating that discretion is necessarily. Vested in those to whom the power of eminent domain is delegated in determining. Excuse me in determining what properties necessary for the public use use with respect to a particular route wine or location of the proposed worker improvement in the general rule is that the court will not substitute its discretion for that of local government absent bad faith fraud or abuse of discretion. Furthermore the landowner may not object merely because some other location might have been made or some other property detained which would have been more suitable for the purpose and what I was from nineteen forty three it was reiterated in the five for the city's Little Rock case and two thousand one so there is a clear distinguish men here from current case law that we are moving that discretion from the local government and we have the discretion because we have people like heath ward we have people like Jerry Martin we go on the front in and showing while we're taking this route while we're taking this line while we're taking this location and that is good practice I will hundred percent admit to that the issue is a difference between what we do on the front in and what we get sued on on the backend and what we have to prove having the burden of proof of proving that on the backend but I'll leave my comments of that and I'm no expert in this area or have learned a lot in the last like I said last month so I'll try to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr Gary Friedman chairman chair thank you Committee. The next individual signed up as mark with more. Afternoon madam chair members of the committee mark Whitmore association of counties I had. From nineteen eighty nine two thousand two at the honor and privilege to represent the State Highway Commission and and the domain cases hundreds of cases over seventy jury trials. I have a saying this change of jobs I went to the county judges I want to association of counties. And began teaching them eminent domain law so the way it works and county government and actually we condemn on secondary roads and county court orders for easements for the highway department to. Is that we acquire easement county court that's by the Arkansas constitution article seven section twenty eight. So that's what we do we do imminent death domain for public roads and bridges. I ask the sponsors. At what point in time and do you have any complaints whatsoever of the county judges of the county's abusing eminent domain. And I've not heard of any instance. And reason that's true is that county judges that condemn for county roads and bridges it's a law that's existed since the turn of the century. I'm Tom at eighteen ninety nine. And so we take for public roads and bridges we don't take for dog parks we don't take for shopping malls. There is no conceivable world in which a county judge uses the road eminent domain law and take somebody's farm to build a shopping mall does not exist. And so currently the way the law works I happen to Clerk for a chancery judge in plastic County if the government is about to do something a legal. You've got the absolute right to go into a circuit court east be chancery court in and join the government from acting illegally. With the city what you do is you would and join them. And make them filed an eminent domain in circuit court right where you get due process what the constitution says under the Fifth Amendment due process you get the right to a jury trial you get the fair market value property. And county government under article seven section twenty of the constitution original jurisdiction is in County Cork. And so we do run Chinese don't do eminent domain hardly at all. Most county judges of never used. In widening have it's pretty simple you just try to widen the road in asphalt. There's not a debate over for a better a better widen over here because this landowner wants to do it freely and consistently. They're willing to take for market value or even donate. But I don't have to actually go to a circuit court to prove I could have gotten over here. We always wiping on the east side of the way Esther with the landowners are more agreeable. This is a totally different world. As it sits today. If a county judge even comes near refusal to remit domain which is unfathomable to may you go to it's. Circuit court and joining from doing an illegal act. Or making. Follow. Claimsfiler in a domain and county court and appellate circuit court. Like the gentleman said before us. There is no. Circuit court case about whether nothing legal action was legal not. And most trying to legalize would you say the word cause of action. Most train legalize say four does that cause of action include. Just a declaratory judgment or just an injunction or does it actually mean monetary damages. So when I say there is another call to action circuit court. We're getting away from county court where there's in that domain. For market value actually having a totally different lawsuits. In circuit court about whether or not the cases proper law. I noticed there was an amendment. but I'll try to answer represent Collins question same time there's an amendment about pursuing this within eighteen months of eminent domain. The way you do have a right of way for example five thirty. Reading for forty around here in Little Rock their share wouldn't Jacksonville I was there we we acquired the right of way for five thirty. Years before we had the money to build the tunnel on five thirty. Do you want this to go to seventy seventy one oh US seventy one you want a few miles over Crawford County we started getting the eminent domain and areas where was remote. Years before had the hundreds of millions of dollars it took to build five thirty and. In the tunnel forty four million for the time. trying thing with the round here on five forty four forty. When Jacksonville keel or national chair where there's a solid waste Russia Allen lantern northrock arms. That landfill had a sale. Which was getting bigger and we require the right of way for that if you notice it's got two months now it's got a hope on the other side of the of the Interstate. You don't wait until you have the money to build the entire project to do then that domain. From county standpoint I don't know if you noticed that they exempt city water. Water is just as important role people. Water Sumer they live within the road right of way the county is required. By the way guess who does them that domain for water server. Can the judges and county court. So this bill exempt city water. And if you would surely represent your people you realize that. Land value has a lot to do with water. Perfect I so ratings that fireman talk about as locked of access to water. So if you make it to where a water line has just six ACT and circuitous we go based upon who's willing to donate or who wants one times fair market value or two times for market value you're gonna impede water. Lanny Fite use eminent domain selling County three times Salim county is a very robust large County most are counties don't do it. But this bill. Makes it to were. Your calls in which the candidate to be trepidations about use that and they're liable to end up circuit court debate whether or not that was proper law. When as it stands today. You've got the right to get an injunction to the county somehow take your property for shopping mall. It's just not when you ask when Miseducation counties which is we're just about a football field to help me down the hill here. If you've got a problem with eminent domain come say yes and we'll find this particular law that you thanks broken and work on. But these laws have been in existence since eighteen ninety nine. And to date I don't know of a single complaint or a county judge miss used eminent domain and as we said already the constitution. Provide you due process. I mean I haven't however bills interstate system. It didn't zigzag. You didn't have to get to the free time to get consent from all the property owners to go from West Memphis to Chicago on I. fifty five. How long would that have taken the bill by fifty five if you had to give everybody's consent or. God forbid you had by two three times property owners values. This bill completely comports very stable constantly based law that we have. And if it was broken would be here to help fix it but you've got city five county judges that have not heard a complaint about abuse of eminent domain. And the bill's been filed for six weeks. To date we still don't have a single compliant with the the counties of abused imminent demise. So that's that's our position on this bill would respectfully request your vote against this bill represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr with more I hear you saying the the system is not broken the judges are views in that domain in that I understand that and so therefore if this is locking an existing case law what's the problem you know because we we've got a system right now the judges are doing everything right for the most part and you can get an injunction here you have a private right of action either way you can stop abuse if it happens it's not I don't think the bill saying that there's abuse is happening but it does put up guardrails that my missing something yes of what this bill is trying to say the first three pages is about what is public use or not. And in our world building for road and bridge is not the case when I was at the highway department building of a road bridges properties and only friends as we ever got to empower department was that includes rest areas that includes Mr center that includes looked outside the place were eighteen whether to have the road or drainage easements in both worlds in the United States into the highway department and three thirty four. In both worlds roads and bridges are not a debatable public use it's not a Clinton library or a shopping mall. So you're trying to muddy and put a whole different cause of action in the work because of action is a part of our it means you get sued. The core when the candies in chemical. And as I said before to the legal community. An injunction is different because it stops you before you do something what if they can start building the road. In eighteen months later somebody saying something about whether or not it's proper not do they stop the whole building of a road. And so in my mind if there's something wrong with our eminent domain laws to start building or imminent domain Lawson deal with that I'm not familiar with that we don't have a public decency. This call is a whole different layers of litigation. Would would put a cloud over Matt. And it will impede water and sewer why do roads because act like your county judge like thank Craighead County here's a civil engineer is owned asphalt construction companies all of life. And he used to be we build roads in a very efficient manner based on engineering and. Somebody owns on one side and the other now you're going to build the right of way based upon. Well not some people donated or if I could get to route different why you're not which just absolutely going to live in absolutely don't make things complex. Represent Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair thank you Mr what more for being here I just want to clarify for my understanding because you've talked a lot about the right to an injunction under current law and how this bill proposes changing that system and moving us from the county judges to the to the circuit court in your view and based on your prior experience in working on these issues do you think that this law will eliminate the right to go in for an injunction or just complicate that the issues at play complicates because. Currently if the county builds have let's say you lived in New York the county had to do in that dumb people like Mr Gary said sometimes there's eight. Rampolla Bazalgette sixteen kids they're all applies to you have to do not know my. Well that's the county court some people in your senate so basically we have to find a way to provide due process you've got a period of time to claiming county court. And what if you thought which is unimaginable it somehow but sandy wood Mabel to. DO in that domain for a reason you always have the right to get an injunction to prevent. That's what chancery circuit court date they restrain the government bus at before they have to legally. So with the following Canaccord Bester due process. This would create a. Eighteen months later check on the system the. It even legal it's. My beats and Constitutional because of separation of powers. We are the exercise of eminent on my. So it might be easier to have that right thank you. Seeing no other questions thank you Mister what we're reading here we have no one else was signed up to speak for against representative Gonzalez Senator Ballenger you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you ma'am chair out of his clothes real quickly because I know represent Gonzalez would say nothing so. The. But I don't want to waste it anymore of your time obviously let me say the thing the kind of frustrates me right you know the guy who who said look I I we we we understand this basically codifies a law but we we want the law changed I appreciate that that's honesty. What's not honesty is to just throw everything against the wall and hope that something he says convinces you of something right and that's what you've seen using a whole lot of the habs coming here the people who got the resources to the county got the attorneys who can got the power they have the money they have the resources come in here and say no no no we don't want you to empower people. We don't want you to pass to this we don't want you to quip property owners. Which by the way they've also all said Hey our system is fine and that we we we have strong property rights which we do and and and if you but I I love represent Collins your question was dead on if they go in and they have to go to court which they do now if they're going to take a personal property they have to go to court that for just compensation that's with constitution requires both US and especially our state constitution they're going to have to prove some reasonableness factor. They'll have to go in and if they had another method that was easily accessible what's going to cost of taxpayers a whole lot more money that they could have taken then they'll they'll be wrong they'll have to have to pay more they'll be cut off and they won't be able to take personal property. It It each one of these things that are put down in here a good attorney and a good court would take all of those things into consideration. What we're saying here is real clear. Yeah you better on the front end go out there and make sure the user you you have a a method a reasonable access to funding before you just take property and decide to sit and wait on it especially it. I don't think any of our finest values are doing this but what if they're just taking money because I know the property value is going up and that they just take it now even though they may not have any plan in the future. I think that if they did and all that information came out through depositions and court they would be able to take money all this says is you better have a plan for how you're going to fund the project in the end and guess what. Ninety nine point nine percent of time they're doing if they're doing it right that's what they're doing. Hi I'm a I'll let represent Gonzalez you know close but from my standpoint you know I I think that it's it is almost embarrassing how much opposition that that we're seeing from this that frankly seems like it's just absolutely not warranted and and the and I think it's unreasonable. I just like to address one other quick point because it was brought up the about eighteen months been able to bring a cause of action in eighteen months and that is not the case if you look on page three starting a line thirty four talks with cause of action unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the court of law so you can have an agreement ahead of time or determined by law ahead of time and if you can't accomplish that the cause of action. On page four starting on line twenty three through twenty five it gives you a hundred and eighty days that's not not eighteen months it's a hundred eighty days roughly six months time so just wanted to address that. Members represented Gonzalez is close for the bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The nose haven't the bills failed. Thank you members next bill to look at I believe Senate representative concerns back over there members let's turn to House Bill fifteen fifty four your amendment is still on the desk. And there is a fiscal impact statement. Senate representative so you're recognized to present your amendment thank you Jr. I've got a Amendment here that the strikes a we we pretty much had blanket blanket immunity in this bill and we have an amendment we worked with the prosecutors on kinda narrowed it down to a few specific items if your open to adopting the amendment I'll go ahead and present the bill we have a motion to adopt the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye any opposed amendments adopted you're recognized to present your bill is amended thank you chair of good someone here that I'd like to bring the table I don't know if you want me to do it now or when it's there signed up to speak what you go ahead and just present your bill and then we'll bring have five however on our list okay thank you very much many of you will have heard the name Paul Peterson this is you know continuation of legislation that I have worked on for for several years down here Pretty much there's an issue with. Women willing to come forward to testify against people lack Peter Senator trafficking women some of my concern the deal the face of the conviction charges if they're involved in any. Anything so pretty much what we've done is we've provided if the if a victim of of track fifteen is engaged in entities offenses it it provides them with the. The. Some munity so they've got to forgery of defrauding. Active adoptive parents prostitution charges of or drug charges that are involved with the trafficking then. Then there's the affirmative defense that can be had. If you've got questions like I said I've got somebody that can come to the table and answer questions for you. Represent Clowney you're recognized. Representive Penzo M.. More on the process of writing this bill in the substance of it because I know the answer to it so I can you talk a little bit about folks that you worked with in the drafting of this bill and and different by and because I know that you got some good by and in some good help so I'm sorry to tell the committee a little bit about where that came from. Yeah the man of of got the. Meshullam Monty here with the shared beginnings there's several people that were involved in in this legislation any. Smith I believe with the University of Arkansas helped us out quite a bit with the the language you know worked with the prosecutors on this and came up with something that they felt was. You know a good bill so. Never seen no other questions we do have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill this Monty you like to come forward she identified yourself. And you'll be recognized. Hello Committee hello madam chair thank you for allowing me this opportunity to test us speak on. more to how this bill came to pass so as representative representative Penzo Began to speak about the issue of Mister Peters and then the adoption trafficking. Arkansas has previously hide affirmative defense in simply the cases of sex trafficking and prostitution so human trafficking is more broad than that it also covers labor trafficking so this bill is an opportunity to strengthen Arkansas law regarding human trafficking making it easier to enforce and better to protect victims of this serious crime I think everyone here and across the state in the nation can agree that human trafficking is a serious concern and that we don't want to further victimize trafficking victims. We also don't want to use the limited law enforcement resources that we have to prosecute and incarcerate victims and further traumatize them. And. This bill helps protect trafficking victims from being unfairly prosecuted by providing them an affirmative defense to certain crimes which is specified in the amendment as representative Penzo mentioned Dr any Smith who is not a nationally recognized as a labor trafficking experts did provide a lot of insights and content for the bill that you see in front of you. And. So this bill essentially does three things in section one we're making good on Arkansas legislature's two thousand thirteen commitments to human trafficking victims by ensuring that they are not prosecuted for things they are compelled to do as part of their victimization. Section two clarifies existing protections created by that two thousand thirteen human trafficking act so that law enforcement in courts can be sure that victims get justice and traffickers are the ones held accountable. it in section two ads definitions of terms that are ready are used in law regarding the crime of trafficking of persons so abuse or threaten to use of the law of legal process and serious harm. and then section three essentially helps birth mothers who have faced coercion to give up their child for adoption by making sure when they have experienced human trafficking they have the full protection of the law. And so the personal side of this where the rubber meets the road and what this looks like in my organization is it Mister Peterson was arrested we now have a trafficking victims assistance program through the U. S. state department and we have hot independent immigration attorneys qualify over a hundred and twenty victims of adoption human trafficking that exist in Northwest Arkansas so to my knowledge we have the largest labor trafficking victims assistance program throughout the entire state but what this looks like is that program to US state department is set up to allow these victims to work to reach that next level of citizenship however in order to do that they need to go and report the crime That they were a victim of however. The judicial system could charge them with adoption fraud although they are also recognized as the victim of human trafficking so essentially what that provides for me is a very and working with the judicial arm of government to bring witnesses forward that could testify against traffickers because they have a fear of prosecution. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions no one else is signed up to speak for against the bill representative Penzo you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you I would just like to ask everybody for good vote I mean this is something we need to help prosecute the some of the some of the bad guys in Arkansas so I appreciate a good vote. Favors representative Penzo is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee motion do pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no ayes have it the motion has been adopted congratulations you've passed your bill thank you Committee. Senate calling you're recognized president Senate bill five thirteen. Sir because we have some amendments that need to be signed. Members you also have a. Impact statement a legislative impact statement on your desk so you can take a look at that what we get these amendment signed. Per se because you're not on the bill yet are you. And I think we're gonna have to pass over you because we're gonna have to have a a sponsor to come Sino. He texted me and said he was wanting you to run it. A. Well hold. Is there anyone here to run Senate bill five forty four. Are you ready to run it now okay. Represent Richmond let's turn to Senate bill five forty four Senate bill five forty four members. Per se Richmond you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and thank you representative Collins for Allen that would also go ahead and get up and get this going. Senate bill five forty four this is a Senator Rice as bill and realize I was actually gonna be running today but it's here so we might as well get it done. But what this one does is that. Federal funds that has been presented or given to inmates. Stimulus money or something that's related to COVID in some way. That that money is first going to be used to pay any court finds restitution so. And there's a list of different things that it would be used to take care of those outstanding debts. That those inmates have as a result of going to trial. Now. If they don't have any outstanding debts then what will happen then is that that money will be used to Go ahead and go into a couple of funds and I'm looking for here is down on Page two line sixteen four starts if a person who is in the custody of the department receives any federally or stainless funds from the United States government but has no known existing court fines fees costs or restitution the federal relief or seamless funds shall be distributed in equal parts to the following an inmate welfare fund established under the code and the Division of correction inmate care and custody fund account. Now this money cannot be determined we're in originated from another words. You know they can't decide that it was stimulus or anything like that even if there is court finds whatever money that they have we'll go into the inmate's bank account. But the the way it's going to happen is court finds get paid. Then these funds that are at the corrections will be funded. And then if there's no connection no fines or anything else an inmate the money will actually be put in to their account. And that is again basically what this bill does. I'm ready for any questions and right because I know if I can instrument out but I'll I'll try representative Richmond you're recognized for a question okay I'll ask myself the question was that Richard said okay. I keep using this representative. Of the in it did you was there any thought given to potentially paying outstanding child support. That's subject did not come up in the thirty second conversation I had with the Senator Rice okay so I do not know what they talk about down there the. It might be something that and I talked to Senator Rice but if it does come out of the house something that goes back to the Senate because it will have to go back to the Senate because I I did some amendments on it today when I was down in the and on the floor and so has to go back down and that might be something that that he would consider adding okay I'll talk about it I can't I can't say yes or no all right I don't know thank you. Members I see no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Richmond you're recognized to close for your bill market sure I understand the the confusion with the representative Richardson and myself I mean it it's it's it's an easy thing to do even when I hear it myself it sounds like my name's been call. but I apologize for jumping in however guys out you know I think that this is probably a good way the uses tax money that the people are are that have that are providing is used in a lot of different ways. If you use this to pay these courts and stuff I see the families not having to step up at some point and do it themselves. And I see that you know that the benefits would be sure to all the different people that that really is not punishing someone because you know it's taxpayer money is just allowing them to take care of some of these issues that otherwise the family might have to pick up on and I would be in again I'll be happy to talk to senator rice about adding childcare outstanding childcare debts to to this particular bill to see if that's something they'd be willing to do but I appreciate a good vote and I move do pass. Staff tells me that we will take up your motion to do pass but will have to take it up on Thursday because we found the members of. And we have to wait that time so we will just postponement will will just. Keep you on the dock on the agenda but we can't vote so we'll we'll that's fine and again I appreciate your time and procedure consideration give me time little bit time talked to Senator Rice by thank you very much thank you senator garner. You will come for the president Senate bill one seventy one. The. Senator Garner you are recognized thank you madam chair members committee this bill is showing appreciation for our veterans and their those sold service service overseas waiving the fee they have to pay for conceal carry permit under Arkansas law through multiple court cases an axe employee six there is a strong warmers apartment I believe that we're constitutional carry state which means you do not have to have a permit to carry but there are still restrictions on where you have to carry even under that status or if you were required to go out of state or in certain areas you need to conceal carry the only thing this would do is waive the actual the other paid Arkansas state police it wouldn't change your training you have to receive it wouldn't change the fee had paid the person when a change in the requirements for background check or anything else just wanna go pay that fee a veteran who has a DD two fourteen or other some good identification board wave that fifty dollar fee you know we're one the Arkansas ranks fourth in the nation for veterans living in poverty we have a high unemployment rate in our veterans population every dollar they can save is important and I think this is a good way for the state to say Hey thanks for your service you can get this concealed carry fee and you want to pay a fee on it without take any questions. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair senator garner thank you for this bill I'm. I remember last year talking about concealed carry fees state police were concerned about their revenue can you just address that for me please yes and they could exploit they'll speak to it in more detail. They can't really determine a fiscal impact for two reasons one this is special revenue so D. F. and I doesn't do a fiscal impact on it and to it's kind of how many veterans actually because he's still care they can't collect that data now also could be one veteran in the state or all of them you can still carry next time what we think is they're probably going to be hit two home of at least eighty thousand I think an eighty two two hundred thousand million Senator Solomon has committed to try to get general revenue to address that before the problem we need to think of not just this bill bill in general we need to get Arkansas state police L. the concealed carry handgun game one they're vital to us let's just pay in general revenue they hate come to deal with these kind of bills they are important concealed carry fees go up and down let's get him out there can General Revenue move away and I'm I'm dedicated to working with Senator Solomon on that I think we got five hundred fifty million dollars in surplus right now I think we can for two three hundred thousand dollars or for its one point five we got rid of all the way but for our dedicated Arkansas state police does good question thank you. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question I think M. senator Clowney I mean representative Clowney and take care of the ocean I know senator garner surprise surprise that I'm in support of this bill I was just trying to figure out how we were going to pay for it because I think we should be fully funding our state police they do a great job and I'm a thank you know other funds or yes ma'am and I ran a bill that was a controversial to try to get them some additional funds they went down in Senate tax in red so I did try to get a revenue stream that would take your that for so that they will buy still things good bill and we had some veterans behind us who are here to speak in support of it I understand the will it the committee has a long day you've had a long week I will say that we see Jan Morgan with the lane we have Pamela who had to step out these are veterans of people who deal with with with guns there is support of it and I will. For for brevity of time this is either a supportive and we cannot move on after the so happy to ensure that they just give. They're going. The whole. I think you really get a list so much out of in the first time around and he ran a controversial bill which is a surprise to all of his yes you're recognized for a fall I'm gonna be nice manager if it does exceed the anticipated number that you're thinking about how are we going to figure that out if we allow this out today what I hope to do is just completely replace conceal carry fees I think it's one point five million so that way they don't have to worry about at all and and they'll be out of that game and then we can potentially in the future look at getting rather that the altogether just make it a processing fee do it thank you. Represent Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair senator garner what are you hearing from the veterans and in the state of Arkansas regarding your bill how they're excited about it I mean any time you have to pay an additional fee as you know most veterans have military training they went to basic training the panel firearms pretty much their whole career whether their truck driver green or like I was in for the state to come back and say Hey you still have to get the training that's a separate port on Jan is actually offering free classes and putting together a you know resource for veterans to go for free instructors will do it we're not mandate as a state but to have the state's Hey you want to pay fifty dollars you can have this conceal very fee you can move on from it I think it's a great way to say thank you to him and you know one of things is when you military you're used to you know protect yourself and your your fellow comrades so have the ability to do that legally in the state of Arkansas with a concealed carry permit is a very good step to saying thank you. Representive Richmond you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair center Garner first of all I'd like to say thank you to the veterans and and everybody set behind to come and sport this again and I appreciate you bringing this bill do you think that passage of this bill and and the fact that there's going to be a change in revenue potentially with the state police might help motivate the General Assembly to address this issue about funding for the state police instead of allowing this this constant up and down and they never required have the knowledge that they need to be able to plan for the funding housing helpful thank you very helpful like I said there's court cases that could always change things in the future people have less weapons where they less likely to conceal carry estate in balance in funding source that we need to fix and like last time I took away from a hundred dollars a fifty dollars bill I ran I ran a supplement build us to supplement that income in that they actually look has a recoup as much as they thought they were going to from that so just created general revenue stream that Bills their budget we don't have to mess with the next best way to address. Thank you senator thank you madam chair. Representative Richardson you're recognized thank you managers so. I don't I don't know what it DD two fourteen so I don't understand that but does this also cover veterans that have not had that have what's the word of dishonorably discharged. it shouldn't because. D. two fourteen is a document basically shows your military correct record. To have that veteran status technically I think you can't be does this often discharged I'm not a hundred percent sure about that I think to have the veteran status of not your kind of scripted that through December this charge or other kind of dish charges I don't think they would be covered but I'm not a person about that as amended mislead you that's a good question actually. Members I see no other questions we do have colonel Bryant here who may be able to answer some of the questions you signed up to speak against along with very clear Clarence. So I will come forward from the Arkansas state police. Colonel bright you're recognized. Thank you Matt thank you madam. Bill Bryant director the Arkansas state police. I feel like a bill and come up here to oppose the bill but the reason is that we could totally agree with the concept are active military and our veterans or just heroes but unfortunately the way the General Assembly back in nineteen ninety five going to set up a budget with concealed handgun license is is a special revenue we're spin state places so dependent upon special revenue. So but again we worked with Senator Garner from the very beginning and he was right he did try to find a revenue source it did not come through but you know the the hard part for us the data we have you know we we rester concealed handgun license we don't ask if you're better than or not so it's hard to dig into the data and say actually how many veterans we do have you also there's a lot because of veterans usually follow the law and and if they're gonna carry a handgun that we get a concealed handgun license just some rough figures to kind of to run by you real quick these are just estimates you over eighteen years of age or population Arkansas is two million three hundred seventeen thousand six hundred seventy three we got with the department of finance their veterans and active military in Arkansas there's two hundred thirty thousand vets and active military if you can look at the number license that we I think last year we had thirteen thousand six hundred ninety seven license. This is about zero point six percent so we're looking on the low end of a loss around sixty eight thousand dollars just just or percentage but we do have two hundred thirty that thirty thousand veterans times fifty that's worst case scenario that you'll probably never see that's over eleven million dollars so we just wanna make the General Assembly where that will be a fiscal impact on us and and we also are retirement this year the legislature was very kind as we move from thirty to twenty eight years for our state police but we had to take seven hundred thousand dollars of budget to accomplish that that we we did ourselves what we **** General Assembly is look at this you know it's a process a difficult situation because we want support of veterans but it is a fiscal impact upon us though that's that's the reason that we're proposing to build this time just because the fiscal impact. Current right we take a question. We have one representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you thank you for being here of the I can imagine the impact to your to your budget on this but what is the what will be paying one of the fees for a a regular gun license. Okay right now it's a fifty dollar registration fee and then we have other fees for your FBI background check in your AC I see background check this bill would only address the fifty dollar fee if you're more last session we did reduce it you Hendren reduces the fifty we ran a driver's record bill word increased a dollar fifty four like with insurance companies ran your driver's license for insurers in different purpose is like that and we estimated we hope that was gonna bring in one point eight million only brought about one point one the but it took awhile to get that going I think we're starting to meet those goals had it that way but those those are the the the normal fees we have to do it back to that hundred would they would that cover the gap that we're getting if we give this benefit to the veterans. I would think you know that would it would come and bring us back hold again or get the other thought is you know that shall discuss if you just go general revenue But I'll leave that up to the General Assembly just to plug the hole if not then we have to make that hard decision state police what's services are going to cut and we hope we don't have to do that. I see no other questions thank you colonel Brian for being here thank you madam chairman. Members we have no one else who has signed up. To speak senator garner you're recognized close for your I. think I'm close let's see more questions committee thank you manager saying no more questions percent the Smith. Your motion. We have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. Members we have time for one more bill today represent Gazaway you're prepared to present Senate bill five sixty one. Senate bill five sixty one. Represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair colleagues Senate bill five sixty one concerns when a person's name may be removed from the child maltreatment registry. I can tell you how it works now is when DHS makes removal for abuse will or for abuse or neglect of a child and they there's a finding of abuse or neglect by an adult that adults name is submitted for let being listed on the child maltreatment registry. Of adults can appeal those their name being placed on that registry but if they don't appeal it many of them don't or if they appeal it they're appeals not successful then their name is listed on the child maltreatment registry. And currently the way the law works is there is a bar to removal if the offender pleads guilty no contest or is convicted of a criminal offense that relates to the abuse or neglect for the for why they were put on that Or registry and the issue is with that many of these cases where parents are getting their names listed on most the time as parents committee can be any adult but most of the time why people are getting their name put on that list is because they have a substance abuse problem. And the inadequate supervision of a child things like that and if there is a such a criminal conviction that accompanies that is a permanent bar from ever having their name removed from that child maltreatment registry and being on the child maltreatment registry carries a lot of consequences with it and so Senator Clark brought this bill to help people who whose names may be on that list for neglect or things that we might ultimately not think would be the most serious offense that should require the name to be on that registry forever and. Allow them a means to be able to get their names taken off the registry in cases of what would be kind of simple neglect. What the bill does also though is it says it does define when a person's name will be permanently placed on the list and and will there will be a permanent bar and that is in the instance of severe maltreatment and severe maltreatment as defined and you will see this in the bill but severe maltreatment as defined as sexual abuse sexual exploitation acts or omissions that may or do result in death abuse involving the use of a deadly weapon as defined in five one one of two bone fracture internal injuries burns immersion suffocation abandonment medical diagnosis of failure to thrive were causing a substantial one observable change in the behavior of the demeanor of a child. And that's from Arkansas Code twelve eighteen one oh three subsection nineteen so the point is. If you engaged in that type of conduct and there's a criminal offense that accompanies that that will continue to be a permanent bar from having your name removed. If you've committed other types of what might be considered neglect or abuse that permanent bar will no longer be there you can you be you'll be able to petition to have your name removed and my understanding is there's a committee that will evaluate that evaluates those requests and if the offender has demonstrated that they've been rehabilitated or that they no longer pose a risk to a vulnerable population and that's one of the things that are that is actually added recently when if you appeal these types of cases not handle these appeals before and even actually can fairly recently one of the things that the administrative law just looks at is whether or not the offender poses a risk to a vulnerable population and so if the offender is rehabilitated and they no longer pose a risk to vulnerable population they can submit a request to the committee to have their name removed it doesn't mean that it's going to be removed doesn't mean that request will be granted that allows them the opportunity to do that where they currently do not have that opportunity to realize that's a long explanation but that's what the bill does I have in a member here from the Department of Human Services who I think can also help to answer any questions and I'm happy to answer those this to represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representing Gazaway I'm sorry I missed this in your presentation but can you just talk about the impact that being on that registry has for the registrant's. And the and miss amber may be able to address that better than I can but I will say my understanding is that you can't and hold a job where you interact with children you can't you know work at a daycare you can't be a teacher there are lots of implications for the types of jobs that you can have the types of contact you can have with children if your name is listed on that registry again that registry right now we're putting people on it for. Essentially sub having a substance abuse problem you know while having custody of a child and we want to get away from that sort of thing but it and if I could add to that I am an attorney with DHS and I staff this committee that hears these requests and give them legal advice about whether the the person requesting removal is eligible which is what this bill will really clean up and give the committee more flexibility but I can just give you some examples some of the request that we see our parents who may have been the offender in the cell treatment their child but they've done everything that we would want them to do but there was a conviction that was a bar to removal but in that request that they're making that we end up denying they can't go on school field trips with their own kids it's even stuff like that that it is an impacting on that registry. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question thank thank you representative Gazaway I'm I'm very familiar with the registry because I have to do it for work for working with kids and so what I have seen is even when someone's personal life if they'd been investigated for something dealing with the sibling or something like that is there a way and you see just all kinds of stuff I mean when you're when you're running these backgrounds so I've seen some situations where Maybe if a brother was investigated for doing something as a minor if that makes sense with the sibling or I guess I'm just wondering if there is an investigation but there was no no nothing came of the investigation like a sound ruling that the person actually did whatever K.. The case was but that's still on there when we do the research on that person. and I think that impacts their job I mean that impacts to me if I'm going to hire you to work with the kids and it should but I'm just wondering like how this bill impact people who for whatever reason whatever the case they might have been investigated for something but not just necessarily that they committed something. So I would think that if we're releasing this information and that someone is on the child maltreatment registry that means there has been investigation and there's been a finding to substantiate whatever the allegation was so if the the child maltreatment checks is what they would be called to the school's request those and the response that they get back from the representative from the red central registry would be there was a record found and they would send that to the person who is named in the registry and then they would have this opportunity to petition for removal if you're talking about a situation where there's not a true finding but there was just an investigation they're not going to be on the registry there may be another way thank you and that we need to talk off line about this you if there's another way that there's some notice that's being provided that there is an investigation they're the statute does provide that there are certain limited like if that the person whose name doesn't offender has access to kids currently we have to provide that information to make sure that we're those kids are protected that they're around that's a little bit different than this okay. Seeing no other questions we have no one else was signed up to speak for against the bill represent guess what you're recognized closed the Bill. The manager I think in summation really the purpose of the bill is to allow people who have engaged in conduct that is not defined as severe maltreatment to have a path to having their name removed from this registry I which and that path currently does not exist if there's a criminal conviction involved if there's severe maltreatment and a criminal conviction I read you the definition of of severe maltreatment those are the types of things I think we would all agree that if you've done those things you don't need to have your name removed from the child maltreatment list but nothing short of that we need to allow folks a path to having their name removed that's what this bill does And I would make a motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion on the motion all in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you manager but members told you would be out by five o'clock going to be out by five o'clock and we will pick up with the bills to do that left on this agenda will pick those up on Thursday morning ten o'clock we will be running House bills first and then we'll come