Judiciary Committee - Senate

We get those folks out here two minute bills it and not on the Committee of if it's not a two minute bill we will hold it against you for ever. So of representative no I'm sorry Senator Bledsoe I believe you were here first. What bill are we looking at senator. House Bill fifteen eleven committee. You may. Senator Bledsoe you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr chairman of. I have brought the drugs or from the governor's office Kirk lane and he's going to explain the bill. Everyone of you would recognize so for the record yes Sir my name is Kirk lane on the state drug director. The only to proceed. Mr chairman members of committee this bill is in regards to the victim impact panel which is a educational program that's required when somebody gets a DWI or DUI conviction along with the drug alcohol safety education programs of the I. P. panel is a presentation by people or families or persons that have been affected by DWI. During March and through June of two thousand twenty one we found that the legislative intent of the bill or excuse me the legislative requirement at the end of the bill is ten dollars per person we found that the contractor which was mothers against drunk drivers was charging sixty five dollars during those COVID months and when confronted with that An appropriate the requirement of charging sixty five dollars they quickly pulled out of Arkansas leading us without that victim impact panel to be provided to our Kansans almost a backlog of three months we resolved it and in that resolves found that we were charging ten dollars a month where states around us were charging on the average forty dollars a month forty dollars in Missouri forty dollars in Oklahoma forty dollars in the Louisiana and fifty dollars and the City it's important that we provide this program and have the funding that is needed to provide that that victim impact panel usually have to be contracted buyer providers of getting people to come in and teach that and so this bill changes that a requirement from ten dollars to forty dollars to be in parity with the other states around us and also to streamline the process in case we have a now the problem with a vendor on that on that on this victim impact panel. Questions from the committee. Seeing no questions is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. Seeing none of Senator Bledsoe would your clothes your bill. Ladies and gentleman I think you've heard how important this is and I would appreciate a good. Do pass from center Ross second from Senator Hendren any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations center what's so you pass your bill thank you so much. Representative Boyd I believe your next. That house bill sixteen nineteen. Yes Sir Mr chair give us a moment to fund it. Representative Boyd you're recognized president house bill sixteen nineteen thank you Mr chair thanks for the opportunity to present this bill schedule six as a category that's kind of unique to Arkansas and it's a category which historically was thought to be a category with an unexpected medical use for medication what this bill does is there's a a prescription one or more prescription drugs on the high on the horizon which are likely to fit into Arkansas schedule six and so if it does that then it would and again we're only talking about FDA approved prescription drugs not anything else just specifically FDA approved prescription drug so if you came in Arkansas as a schedule six then that would make it illegal for physicians to prescribe and pharmacies to dispense it so this gives the FDA approved prescription drug the benefit of the doubt so the state still retains the authority to put something in the schedule six if the secretary of health decides it belongs there. Questions from the committee. See no questions is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. See no one representa Boyd would you like to close for your bill I'm close and appreciate someone give me an do pass motion thank you senator Johnson of the motion to pass second from Senator Hendren any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried congratulations representative for your pastor bill Senator Rapert. Thank you Mr chairman of these as the chair of like more quick more with Arkansas Association counties join me okay SP three forty six. Sure. Give us a moment upon the Senate. Senator Rapert you're recognized president SP three forty six thank you Mr chairman members as B. three forty six actually has been discussed and debated amongst those that are interested in forty issues for your task force's her this bill press association has been at work and trying to come to agreement with all the stakeholders involved with this it primarily addresses the law for retaining cost of storage of audio video and audio visual media and tries to play some what we think a reasonable safeguards on that and I'd like to ask the chair if we could mark with more to put put on the table some points that they've come to agreement with west what more if you will identify yourself for the record yes Sir Clark with more association Arkansas counties of we have several people testify for the bill there's no known on opposition what we come to is in order for sheriffs and law enforcement nine one dispatchers jailers to proceed with getting body cameras that currently under the law people can abuse that that's why you to death an asked him that medium bodied a visual and audio visual it takes hours and hours to review those redacted copy on so what we're doing is at this point but it's free of charge for the first three hours of of personal time to quit my time except for the cost of reproduction medium which is like a flash drive or other medium to transported past three hours the law enforcement agency jailers of right now one dispatchers will have the ability to charge personal time and equipment time so what happens is are people that abusing ask for twenty four days worth of jail video or you know how we can of nine one calls and things like that so this would get rid of the X. or reduce the number and scope of extensive FY request of those medium would allow people. A law enforcement to go forward with getting body cameras without the slam to wear all their resources their their personnel are having to deal with instead of public safety having to do with apple I request so this is a reasonable accommodation it's a good first step you know a couple years four years without a come back look at some changes but this protects provide safeguards as Senator Rapert says for our going forward without body cameras we've got sheriff Helder the chiefs of police lots of folks here to testify for no known composition. Is there of. A time limit. Upon which someone can ask for three hours again yes it in the bill it says within after thirty days you get your three hours free but if you or your entity sale law firm or or some of that nature of a newspaper if you ask for something again within thirty days after the counts against your three hours so if you make a request within thirty days you don't get that three forty hours but after thirty days tranice three medic to be honest we would not have to come back revisit if people get their best friend asking you know but that this point we feel like this is a good. What addressed the matter. Other questions from the committee. C. none of. We have four of. Tim holder Washington County sheriff here to speak for. Yeah. There is. Good morning. The sheriff's office. What is this speech thanks for going away I don't see much opposition soft. March. Read on eight hundred seventy seven. Right of course. Questions from the committee Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman is sure is there any kind of physical impact at all to the county's. All of the request on the question currently I have one full time. That does nothing but you are. Videos based on FOR class preparation my goodness thank you. Hey do I need to start over I don't remember what I said we got old how much is it so if you just took the average salary of a deputy and equipment and all it be about seventy grand a year but this is a senior deputy so it's probably a little higher than that we are we are in the process of getting body cameras for the first time I've intentionally avoided that process because of the F. four I requested the redaction requirements that we're going to face but then when I was appointed to the governor's task force it became apparent that within the next four to five years that will probably be a requirement for all agencies to have body cams so we're moving in that direction full well knowing that we're going to get slammed and that's another reason I think this is a is a great option but when we get the body cameras it'll be another full time position that I'll have to have to go over those and do read actions and review all those do you understand the the sensitivity with a lot of body cams are seen juveniles and different things going on that nobody has a right to see. Our house is going to affect some of the smaller counties smaller county jails and. I mean. There are some of those some of those facilities are already short on revenue how's it going to affect them are you talking about the manpower the committee it we all share the same problems is just some of us have bigger agencies and more personnel that we can pull from one assignment to another are smaller sheriff's offices will really be hampered if if we don't do something they already are hampered I can't speak on behalf for specifics of small towns but or sheriff's offices but I know of one just recently that a request was made for I think it was twenty four hours of jail video basically depicting when this in might move from one displace to another and there really wasn't any reasonable nice to the request but due to FY unless we can specifically pinpoint a reason not to do it we just got to do it source small rural sheriffs offices will probably feel a huge impact now. Thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee. Say none thank you Cheryl thank you we have of C. J. Ingle with Arkansas nine one one four signed up to speak. Thank you Mr see Jane go at the Arkansas executive director of Arkansas no one board I'm gonna keep this short head testimony here together but because of the main points is currently in the landscape nine one we've got centers across the state of Arkansas other staff of one to three people the time of we've got centers that have over twenty recorded lines twenty four seven three sixty five so we're talking nine one one lines non emergency lines radio traffic radio audio for fire police EMS so all of these responsibilities fall on nine one centers across the state. And a lot of times that these FOR requests come in they're going to come in for large you know in our small incidents when we're talking press media even some individuals when they're looking for something specific but when we get these burdensome FY request of. Hello C. one example was a every day for twenty four hours the previous twenty four hours of dispatch audio for months on end also an individual in a community complaining about fireworks in their community comes in ask for twenty eight days of audio phone dispatch traffic all the above for new year's eve in fourth of July basically holidays for several years in a row and and a lot of these incidents many times these individuals a law firms that request these FOR as may not even come to pick up the full field request when it's done so I think with this bill that assisting in preventing some of these unnecessary burdensome request that that could take hours of the time it's not we just pick one call and everything associated with that is there hi it's picking through all of the audio individually so anyways I'll cut that short there if you guys have any questions on the one. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Thank your for me just one short question. If the environment we're living in today in our society is that's what prompted this. I don't know if I could answer that a hundred percent but I would say that the expectations could be a problem with with what we are asked to perform and do without any type of recollection of what's going on so you feel like you have to be much more careful correct did you have in the past sure absolutely all right thank you. Other questions. Sam Nunn. We have one more witness signed up to speak Gerry sops Arkansas social once you were done. Senator you can stay there we normally have witnesses come to the side so. He. I'll be very quick I'm Gary sipes Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police we're just here in support of this bill I have a Chief Hotchkiss you're from lake view police department needed to mandatory mint should he get the should he get a lengthly FOR request he would have to pull off the streets and that's in the department in New small agency they would just have to pull man all for women off the street to to fulfill these obligations it's not that the the don't want to be transparent as just. It just takes a lot of time and effort. Any questions I'll be happy to answer. The questions from the committee. Seeing none of Senator Rapert you're close your bill yes Sir members you can see it is rare that we get a bill like this where you get agreement and not only from the press association the for you task force but all the stakeholders involved this is an attempt to make things more reasonable and not with that I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Ballinger second from Senator Garner any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations center Rapert you have passed your bill. Okay representative Ross. We're gonna go to. House Bill fifteen oh seven if you're ready. Of. I thank Mr. Sure I state center not have. Secretary graves join me. This. Senator Rapert you're recognized for senate bill thank you House Bill fifteen oh seven. Collins a representative will Williams the bill is. Pretty simple the German sex and ability to reside with a minor or what to the sector. Gravers thirty seven on the. You'll then for yourself for the record. Sullivan grace to corrections in the morning mist Mr members of the committee all House Bill fifteen oh seven does it is online requirements for sex offenders on probation with sex offenders on parole there is an existing statute that says if a sex offender with minor victims is released from the Division of correction on parole they cannot reside in a home with minors with minors absent approval of the parole board however when previous when a previous General Assembly attempted to codify that same standard for probationers it was codified in a cold six send that applies to first time offenders only so there was some confusion there is now some confusion on the part of some some chords and that that office that that standard does not apply to additional offenders who fall outside of that first time offender statute authorization always be fifteen oh seven says is if a sex offender with minor victims is placed on probation for that offense then they have to find another place to live absent approval of the court. Questions from the committee. Soon the questions from the committee is there anyone here does five four against. I no one here to test what Senator us would you like to. Close your bill disclosing in this this clarifies this the situation in the it can happen if they had authorization but otherwise it gives it to additional safety that we feels a ward so I would appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass motion motion of pet center rights second from center Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolution center Russia pastor bill because. Okay we'll come back to. we got a lot of people here for senate bill four fifty five. Of which has an amendment to a minus Senator Hendren to take the chair. He noted that we this Senator Flippo had something he wanted to run early but contacted him and he has a contact me back. So members should have copied Amendment Senator Clark okay you're recognized to explain the amendment of. Mr on wesco Bills to will to come to help president amendment in the bill. That's okay yep. You state your name for the record bill. Thank you thank you Mr bill Stobo WST consultant you're recognized. I was actually prepared to just go straight to the bill could card since the the amendment takes care of Some objections to the bill. Not all by any means of and with that I would just make a motion do pass. The move production of the amendment second by second current senator garner any discussion all in favor say aye. M. as adopted you're recognized explained the bill. Mr will thank you members Mister chair Preciado let me take this opportunity to thank you for your service center in a difficult time in a compromise situation is maybe the only opportunity I get to formally thank you for for what your work of this session Senate bill four fifty five is a bill that repeals fines and fees three specific fines delinquency find truancy finding the in a fine in eight different fees the primary reason for this bill is to try to further the efforts of the two thousand nineteen General Assembly in the passage of act one eighty nine which is a comprehensive juvenile justice reform bill it's very simple how are our angle it will bring you this bill is because we believe that these fines and fees actually communicate in the punishment and not rehabilitation and I believe that's the mission of the of what our culture to be doing we are sure that that you want to hear more about the fiscal impact I did hear Senator Stubblefield curiosity about that earlier and we have made an effort to try to determine that for you and bring it to you my hope is that possibly when the judges come to testify in opposition we get a better handle on exactly what the fiscal impact is but just to be very very simple and and brief there again we believe that these are of punishment rather than rehabilitation we would like to see of the court so use other tools like community based services the version restrictive programs and things that we know is showing six significant benefit there's complications in the COVID nineteen environment I could talk about but honestly we're all hoping that that's a temporary and ending in the near future but this is a long term reform in the juvenile justice system. Okay thank you are you finished explain the bill Senator Clark. We are would be happy to take any questions with any questions from members of the committee. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized for a question. I of all thank you. Of Senator Clark what is the cost I mean how much these fees amount to every year. Of this. The former Speaker Stovall said we have not been able to determine. We haven't been able to find any information on the on the face or are they not keeping records we I would assume that the judges when they testify against will give us some numbers but we two of. We can't find any records on how they're collected it how much are collected or what there's been four or any of these fees being waved. Many of them are discretionary by the judges and some of them are mandatory of the some of the discussion simple of the discretionary the cost of parent programs and the amount is discretionary of in the end just so that the ministry of Office of the Courts has told us they don't track this data so that's not a place we can go to to learn about the fiscal impact center and I'm hopeful that the judges can give us some some insight on that okay okay one more question Mister chairman. Can you give an example of of a how you distinguish between punishment and rehabilitation. Results just results yes Sir well it studies have shown that that these fees are punitive a wind up being a collection problem approximately five to six percent in most states where they do track it is only because all this collected it reminds me of my time on the quorum court when I was working with the municipal judge at that time assessed versus actual collections I was trying to find ways to increase our revenue without tax increases for my constituents and it was five to one assess fines for his collection so we spent a lot of time trying to collecting fees that never never get collected and that's effort and resources it should could be better spent in other areas but for timely the juvenile's not financially capable of paying the fees or fines and they're waived how is that. There are always ways that there again is discretionary its discretion of the judge so and many of them are mandatory and they do fall to from the the juvenile to the family a family that's already in a difficult situation compromised to circumstances where the the juvenile is gotten into some type of trouble and we just believe the community based services in other ways show to be more proven in rehabilitating the offender. Okay thank you Mr. At Senator Clark fixed overall I'm obviously like many have been contacted by several judges and I'm concerned because we don't have a fiscal impact we don't know what the cost is that the judges are saying these dollars are used to pay. For many of these diversionary programs or rehabilitation programs. Or for supervision of community services projects. What dollars are going to be used to pay for those if they're right and the use of the funds that are necessary for those programs. With the collection rate being approximately five six percent most a to do track it senator we'd be interested in hearing what the judges say aye well we've made some fairly exhaustive efforts trying to get to the bottom that knowing that that would be at the forefront of years and other members mind and and we're anxious to hear the testimony today as well okay Senator Ballinger recognized. Thank you Mr it It I kind of I feel like it I'm of a bit of a broken record because I mean I agree with with you a lot of times it's fine and fees are what what a waste of time because they're they're not going to get collected or for some people who are trying to go on the the the straight now and get their life back together and their place financial burdens this could end up being a bigger hurdle the problem though is that that's not always the case right so in some of the circumstances these are parents with means and have the ability to it I realized you find a parent and not the child however if all the sudden it's costs in the parent so money maybe they'll get back more engaged with the kids and so I I hate to just do away with that all together with this could be a tool that is being used by some judges effectively to defray the cost of associated with with these folks individual's actions but also to be a little bit of a deterrent to engage parents or or individuals who who actually have means and so the one thing that I may with suggested just ask you what whether that's a possibility maybe we'll see after this but that you know I don't like the fact that some of these are mandatory. You know would you all be willing to to amended to make you aware all of them are discretionary because if it's mandatory T. and it's not ever going to get collected it just gives more of a burden on society we're we're here with with what we thank Sasol proposal senator and we certainly understand everything that you just shared with us we don't want to be responsible for assisting legislation that disproportionately impacts us some families over others but conversations is why we're here we'll I'm I'm anxious to hear about the fiscal impact because we we just had been able to determine that so certainly conversations can can lead to solutions that's what we're here for thank you. Any other members have questions. Anybody here to speak we have. Okay do we have anybody here for I have a couple signed up against okay judge rise well you've come to the table. Judges state your name for the record and you're recognized speak against Bill. I couldn't pull that Mike little closer there we go yeah it's been a couple years thank you again Senator Hendren and judge Troy Braswell from the twentieth judicial district on the juvenile court judge that covers Faulkner Van Buren and Searcy County I really appreciate the opportunity to come in and a voice the judge's concerns with this bill just to give some backgrounds heard former Speaker Stovall talk about juvenile justice reform efforts I was the chair of the juvenile justice Reform Board when it was initiated and we've worked very hard with center with that judge Smith from your jurisdiction to reform juvenile justice and through our efforts in partnering with different agencies we have seen a drastic reduction in the number of kids in youth that are coming through our courts specifically in Faulkner County we've seen a seventy nine percent decrease in the number of youth going into our local detention center we've also seen a seventy nine percent reduction in African American youth going into our local detention center if that same time we've seen at fifty four percent decrease in the number of kids that are coming into court through the filing of a delinquency petition and Senators what that tells us is we're not being soft on families we're being smart with the kids that come before us we have to be innovative in the way that we approach to dealing with our youth part of our reform efforts included reform at DYS if you remember the governor ordered one or two of those facilities to shut down in the reason that he was able to do that is because he understood the reform efforts taking place in the successes that we were having since two thousand and fifteen when we started making these reform efforts to today there has been a state wide decrease in the number of you've committed to D. Y. S. in the amount of fifty three point five percent think about that fifty. Three percent fewer you've been committed to D. Y. S. why is that we instituted a new risk assessment tool that requires us to evaluate to interview families and kids and find out what areas of risk do they have what areas of need do they have we cannot have a cookie cutter approach in handling juvenile justice we have to happen for the informative and initiated programs for instance we have a girl scout troop in our court we have a civil rights class in our court we have a girls book club in our court those are things that are vital to reaching our youth there may be a young girl that comes for a court that's been a sexual sexually abused or physically abused we have to have something in place to meet her specific areas of need we can't just say everybody does community service everybody goes to jail and it's through so what is it what all these things matter in terms of this bill that this bill does not further juvenile justice reform it throws a hand grenade in the middle of juvenile justice reform it and uh and dues as you will undo a lot of the progress that we've made specifically in what ways in Faulkner County there's a discussion about not having that understanding with the fiscal impact is it would eliminate the ability of course throughout the state to offer any of these diversion programs Senator Hendren you mention that across our state we have been asking the juvenile justice a group has been asking for years to fully fund juvenile courts what would it look like for judges and to show a county then County Faulkner County class county to be able to have juvenile probation officers they get a good salary they have good benefits it is just it's uneven. Right now and so we've brought that to the table several times and that's to the tune of nine million dollars that's a lot of money that's a ton of money is we're gonna be serious about doing away with fines fees and courts and we're gonna be serious about eliminating court's ability to offer the services that we need to have a serious discussion where the money's going to come from because without certain fines fees and costs you're not gonna have these diversion programs in Polk County you're not going to have the community service work in Benton County and so in Faulkner county I can show you this from a financial impact perspective before we started our reform efforts our court was bringing in about a hundred and forty seven thousand dollars a year through fines fees and court costs pursuant to Arkansas Law those monies go into a separate account. Through our efforts in the reduction of kids coming to court that fund is down down to thirty four thousand dollars. In other words it's not from spending it that's from fewer kids coming into court shorter terms of probation fewer fines fewer fees fewer cost. And that's the impacting Sebastian County they only brought in eight thousand dollars in that fund judge Smith out of Benton County has been and is very good at recordkeeping and and stats and based on his collection of fines fees and court costs and a number of folks that come to his court averages to be about seventy eight dollars a family and that's assessed fines fees and cost center several field you brought up an excellent point about or some of these ways. Fines court finds by the way the maximum in Arkansas laws five hundred dollars okay so we're not talking about thousands of dollars in five hundred dollars. We can use that as an incentive so if I have a low risk kids coming into court I'm not gonna put him in the high risk programming I don't want to mix my low risk and high risk I want to keep those separate so that we can provide the specific services to those used sometimes for the low risk family Senator Ballinger you mentioned families are able to to pay those fines fees and costs it may be for that low risk youth right instead of tons of community service tons of programs maybe the appropriate thing is that you pay a hundred dollar fine you pay your mandatory court cost and you do an online class it cost fifty dollars right we can provide those services because we know you're low risk of coming back your low risk of violence we're going to handle that case differently we have families that come in all the time that and have a hard time paying fines fees and costs and we work with them and I to L. routinely cut kids offer probation early routinely waive finds is an incentive for kids to get back on the right path into well incentivizes incentivizes the families to make sure that they're taking their kids to the programs that we're able to afford and they were able to offer to these families so we may have a kit comes in a Cessna two hundred fifty dollar fine but I tell him if you complete the programs are asking you to do you'll stay out of trouble all wave all of that hundred fifty dollars of it again it just depends because again we are taking each case on its individual facts on the ability to pay what's going on with that kid what's going on that family it's not some blanket cookie cutter approach that we know does not work Senator Hendren not that's probably best spoken too long but that I'm very passionate about this issue because we've been working so hard to help families and kids throughout our state and it's working so does the concerns on behalf of the juvenile judges okay thank god we. A couple questions Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. Thank you judge for common and speaking with us today. these fines and fees help fund those diversion programs and without that funding. Would more of these children made into the DYS state facilities and and what kind of rehabilitation programs that they have Senator Johnson that's a that's a great question if we're not able to provide those unique services at the local level what's going to happen is we're going to see an increase of cases filed by prosecutors we're gonna see an increase in youth being detained and then that's going to lead to an increase in commitments to DYS so that that's why I mentioned we're we're going backwards with this and so it is a absolute funding at the local level issue there are some communities it's going to impact more than others but it's gonna have a debt is devastating impact overall and per in providing the services to keep kids out of court. Thank you thank you senator tenderize you're recognized for a question. Thank you and did wrestle up. The appreciate your work On what to reform is being done the stats that you. Referred to fifty three percent and and some others what time periods that yes Sir so now I'm for DYS in fiscal year two thousand fifteen if I may refer to my notes real quick I believe in fiscal year two thousand and fifteen there were January two thousand fifteen there were four hundred and twenty six you've at a DYS facility today there hundred ninety eight. And I'm not a math major and I'm honestly not very good at it but I think that's a fifty three. The point percent and we know that the the head of I have a facility in my district and have been permit along top of that facility in my district who had. Low level. Use concerns totally changed because we took those out yes Sir and and I appreciate a program that that we can do to keep the kitchen in there the it it's going to a different level of kids although they had places like that across the state My concern is what everyone is asking timeline was is some of this COVID related change what I what I have had paid back on. Is some of our law enforcement is basically the demoralized and the fact they can't do their job they're told back off. We're let we're letting people get by with stuff that before we didn't. Because of code within because of the current climate there are any and I was wondering if those stats had anything to do with that although they didn't have maybe from that detention and I appreciate your techniques. How much can you assure me that your passion and what I feel like you have a great program. How uniforms that across the state of Arkansas yes Sir Senator Rice great great questions so I'm trying to get January of two thousand and twenty numbers from DYS as we speak I know that for our community and I can speak for several juvenile judges across the state that while COVID obviously present some unique issues I'm not going to make a decision that impacts a specific you for family and more importantly my community because of code if a juvenile come see the court that's charged with something so number one we have a and I stole this from the judge Smith and it set a nationally used detention assessment tool and it's something that we put into place and so it's a uniform invalidated tool that helps us identify a point of contact with law enforcement who should or should not be detained if they are detained they come in front of the judge within forty eight hours for a detention hearing in certain evidence is put on for me to decide whether or not they should remain in custody will be released at no time since. The COVID pandemic started have I ever made a decision based on that pandemic I'm I can't speak to a DYS and who they're coming to get from facilities and who they're not I know that I've had I'll tell you what the impact of code has been honestly with the impact of COVID has been is highlighted the disparity in the lack of family support the kids have at home. Kids are struggling right now. Kids are not going to school they're not logging on to do their virtual work. They are there are people home that flight out don't care. And so what is the impact on the courts has not necessarily been Looking the other way but it's calls more kids to come in the court threw stands petitions. And schools saying we've got problems with kids not doing any work. And we are going to be devastated as a state when we look back in a couple of years and see what the impact this has had on our youth they are struggling in so I can speak for my judicial district that the seventy nine percent reduction in the use going into jail was through to two thousand and but years is two thousand and nineteen and so I'm leaving out that COVID year to be able to present those numbers to you so the numbers I presented from a local level and are not impacted by covid and the last question you asked was about my passion throughout the state I certainly am each juvenile judge has to make the best decisions for their community I'm proud to work shoulder to shoulder with some of the best judges around who understand and how we treat use is gonna have a big impact on something I know that supporting this committee that's prison reform what we do now what we do at the front lines is gonna have the biggest impact on reduce the number of people that end up in our jail prisons. Thank you thank you Mr thank you Sir have Senator Stubblefield you're recognized for a question. Thank you thank you Mr chairman. Judge it sounds to me like that the. You have learned. That every child is uniquely different they come from a uniquely different home. And that you're you're treating them with different punitive measures and you're getting good results yes Sir so you're saying this bill. We put a barrier up to that yes Sir senator. Okay. Thank you Mr chairman. Any other questions Senator Clark you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. The. Judge up appreciate you of. Bring us to the point that you made and also appreciate your work on the. Form of we're like minded a lot of that appreciate what you had to say about the affect of. Kids not being the school. from your position as an expert something I had predicted as a former youth pastor and as I said I see happening but you certainly see it happening up close and personal. and I appreciate the governor's efforts to try to make sure we have kids in school although some schools are very resistant to that. At. One of my questions was how much money is being raised but you answered you said Faulkner County thirty four thousand yes Sebastian County eight thousand yes Sir so as far as money goes these are not numbers that would be. Hard to replace if we if we tried. Would you agree with that. No Sir. I think and It would be easy to replace forty two thousand dollars in the grand scheme of things sure. Absolutely but the the scope of this is so much more significant than fees and costs and and one area. I'm thankful to have community partnerships with centennial bank local churches that come in and donate funds to run our team court and so we've developed a lot of community partnerships a local churches that spend money for our girls book club is other things that we're able to do that maybe other areas are not because of our community partnerships there are some areas of the state that are required to pay probation officers I'm out of these accounts the required up until last year I was paying to keep the lights on in my courthouse out of fines fees and costs. And so it is much more significant than taking out forty two thousand dollars and saying that's that's all it is. Well I wasn't Senate was forty two thousand dollars with any five counties and that's to they happen to be two major counties not to smaller counties so I was just saying that that amount of money multiplied times three seven and the budget is not. If it was not a significant amount to replace. Is there a lasting amount is coming here and and tell Senators what's what amount of money is significant or insignificant again with I had a hard time getting those numbers and you also brought out that there's a lot of. Folks in the community that have made up whatever's not coming in through cost except for so there are other avenues but the other important point that you made though of that I respect very much is that you sometimes use this. R. as a tool yes or something that you can reduce of somebody cooperate so I routinely do that so and honor and I recall respect that does thank you thank you senator Clark. Any other questions members committee. Okay judge thank you thank you Sir Hendren thanks Sir or do we have anyone to speak for okay against we have Greg parish you wanna come on down. Your state your name for the record you are recognized thank you Mister chair Greg parish with the Arkansas public defender commission mine is not from a financial aspect on this bill and maybe the amendment is taking care of it but if not I will point out is the definition. Includes. Under eighteen and adult circuit court not just juvenile court. We look at the bill. And the one thing I think we need to keep in mind is that the judges and juvenile court handle three types of cases. They handle dependent to collect which has nothing to do with my public defenders they have fraternal alliance parent council for that. They handle delinquency cases which is a juvenile accused of committing a crime and they handle friends cases and that's a family in need of services case. Or as may be the. Juvenile is not going to school something like along those lines. A perfect example of this is I got a phone call last week from one of my public defenders had a seventeen year old in juvenile court. Whose mother was a medical doctor. And there were no points public defender to represent him the juvenile because the mother would not. Before the turn. And so that worked itself out but that's what we're talking about when we presume. That we don't have to go through the indigency process with these people and what that means is. Every case comes to the public defender it's easier for the judge to say. Go talk to the public defender one hundred percent of cases. And if that's the intent the we're going to have to amend the public defender statute which is sixteen eighty seven to thirteen which requires an indigency determination so you got conflicting statutes if this comes through. It's not a money situation for us. So I just want to put that out there for buy to consider free by asking questions I'll be glad to answer those okay any questions members the committee. Okay thank you anybody else here to speak for against all right Senator Clark you want to close your bill. What a passcode for Speaker Stovall to come if you don't mind Mr that's fine. Did not get to use that here that title so much again today thank you membership per se Greg is correct that we do that define Juvenile eighty in a criminal court even though they may be tried as an adult for the fines and fees there is some clarity to that be anxious for him to see the amendment and and and and see what that does regarding his concern. We told you that we didn't know the fiscal impact and we still really don't know all we know that that. Thirty four thousand dollars in Faulkner county in eight thousand sebacic and we we don't know for sure how much of that is collected versus assessed and we I suspect that eight thousand dollars and Sebastian County juvenile court is a fraction of their overall but not told you also that we did do some exhaustive work in trying to determine it as a former legislator I recognize that's a senior will house we submitted for your request all juvenile courts and detention facilities last fall. We received limited information and here's what we got. We received information from Carroll County circuit court Ashley County circuit court fourteenth judicial district in Baxter County share that's it. AOC does attract this. So for for this to be an important tool in these programs I would think that we do a better job of knowing exactly how much money it is I don't think a thousand dollars is going to connect grenade at Sebastian County juvenile court. Thank you members I appreciate your time. Members appreciate a good vote no make a motion to pass. motion by Senator Clark. Their second. A second by Senator Rice. Any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye All opposed. Sorry motions failed thank you Mr thank you members appointed. Senator Ballinger would you like to run a house bill sixteen forty eight. Reporter representative McKenzie is here but you said you were on that bills or. Thank you Mr chairman. This is a significant bill I think I'm probably prepared to answer questions but nobody knows it as well as represent McKenzie and so I'm going to definitely let her take the more difficult aspect of this so the the idea of this legislation is it is to codify the rights of awards award to somebody who's been adjudicated incompetent they can't take care of themselves now this is just just adults not children but who would have to have a guardian appointed for them on their behalf so this does a couple different things one is that it gives them a little more flexibility to the guardian to protect the the rights of assets in the person of the ward it also codifies a lot of the protections and rights that a that a award would have to have access to information one thing that's important to remember is. All of these people are truly you know completely out of it and they are unaware their search surroundings but that's not all that always the case sometimes our people have lucid moments they still need somebody who can take care of them but then they're not always to the point where they don't understand the nature of their state but I'll let represent McKenzie probably going to more detail. Thank you Mr chair that's pretty good summary that did the judicial council's work significantly with us on this they've helped craft a lot of this language AOC DHS all been involved in this and and and and provided cement but it's there's no known opposition but the goal here is the bulk of the guardianships go well it's a labor of love fees guardian's they're investing their time and often their own resources but there's a small percentage of these guardianships when things go wrong it tends to be in the area of the visitation so that's why this adult wards bill of rights has and focus on that area visitation just pretty much put on the bottom shelf there for folks to understand that the guardian feels that they need to limit access to the adult ward they just need a little common sense here go ahead and let the person know that you're restricting that that they can ask for hearing from the court and also that the ward knows well that you're choosing to restrict their access to with our family member or a loved one and also let them know that they can request a hearing before the court and that state that that board needs to help them with that since August thing they're limited they've been real to have some limited capacity so it's just really a common sense approach to try to make sure that our adult wards when they're placed under guardianship we want them to have a full life and we want to enhance the quality of life as best we can so I appreciate again that help with judicial council the other folks to try to make sure we get this in the code a little bit more clear for the parties. Three we're happy to answer any questions questions from the committee Senator Garner. Thank you so I have a brother that's Not under guardianship of very easily could and. I have a toxic member of my family that I would want no where near you. Assuming that's a guardianship for him with my dad passed away if I want to limit that I would have to ride out. What exactly would have to do to stop that person for me to see my my brother. So all this is written requiring here is that they that you would put it out there in writing let the person know the cost of your there was absolutely define writing what was the lease or legal process is me now is sign notarized is just me right now because these are matters in probate so everything's a bit more loosey goosey here so to speak as far as so it's just a reasonable manner so no no require admin of official notification just let me know when writing and AOC has already agreed that they will provide a packet so when with the guardianship order still provide a packet for some instructions that folks can use the guardians can use because we want to make it easy for them to what the courts also saying here is what they can do in these type of situations when there is perhaps a toxic person they can even be if the person now that's a real bad actor chances are they're not gonna want to go before the court request a hearing but if they do and it's a bad actor the court can actually be a support system for that guardian and even adjust the order if needed to help be a back up to to block off that person if it's a if it's a troublesome but to be clear I have to write the limitation prohibition deliver the information and then at deliver the information by reasonable means to the person who's being limited correct so I have to interact with that toxic family member well you could even says by reasonable means hearing the court is intensely we're trying to be broad and reasonable here so if it's best to send them a letter right it delivered and whatever reason one means that the guardian believes is reasonable. It one thing I would say Senator Garner if you go to the bottom of page three where to start section to. There are within our existing codes there are a lot of things that in that situation but essentially would be hurdles to overcome before you'd be able to keep that toxic person from having access to your son and and a lot of times what what we've seen is situations where their people are using that relationship in order to basically to abuse and and take funds away from the family or to over utilize some so this case the court appointed ward would have the ability to to step in and and do it and and one thing that's that's important I think a lot of people don't realize is when you open these cases they stay open you have an annual reporting requirements and so the person feels like the ward is being abusive but not letting them get access it's not a matter filing a new lawsuit they just need to file a petition with the court to be able to get a hearing on that. Okay follow up a may so the section the work we're taking out Rights of relatives as well correct what can you explain in more detail as a final cut a big part of the we are we are and so this is essentially a lot of this is is what is is the it or the whole rules that the ward who's got a job of protecting the or the I'm sorry that the guardian has got a job of protecting the ward our hat will have difficulty overcoming so so a lot of this language is modified it in order to and encompassed in other places to make words a little more streamlined to give a little more ability for the the guardian to be able to protect the ward. Thank. Sir Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman the language in this bill also provides for. Possibly eventually terminating the garbage guardianship of the ward correct. That's correct is that goals the set out in this bill or that just to another. Possibility of. I've been in the guardianship of the ward as the center mentioned these cases always by definition stay open before the court and so the vast majority of these will well the guardianship of continue but there are some cases for instance when an elderly person has surgery and they don't come out in anesthesia as quickly as a younger person does and therefore there's a need for guardianship but after a couple of months with therapy and time they may come they may be where they can regain some of their and Independence and so this recognizes that it's it's it's not common but we want we all want that ability for the court to come back and review it so these cases do sale stay open until the death of the ward or Intel the guardianship is removed. Okay thank you Mr gym Senator Stubblefield if you if you look there is a section and currently you can get a a a E. image you Burch ordered guardianship of their temporary guardianships in the code but all of that is represented on on page seven and one thing that's of an I mean essentially by by appointing a war a guardian over a ward and and and educating somebody incompetent so they can't take care of their own the state you make your taking a really big step courts don't do it if you could have a guardian sitting down there saying hold on a second yeah I do understand what's going on I don't want this person to be in in charge me right so whether there's a whether there's a case already open as soon as they have their competency the court is going to use as well and will terminate the guardianship so it doesn't happen a lot because usually what we're talking about people were entering into dementia towards the end of their life for or they have a disability that's permanent disability but there is examples like that where somebody you may even be appeared appear to go down that path because of the surgery or something like that and a full recovery and as soon as they have their competency that nothing in a court will you know they're just like any other citizen of their full rights. Other questions from the committee. See non is there anyone here to testify for against. Saying no one sent. I'm. Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill I would I I appreciate this I think this is a is great piece legislation I know it's not really easy to deal with and short short time frame but it really is well thought through it's been handled by basically all the individuals who would have some stake in this and and frankly represent McKenzie is a yeoman's work to get this get this to this point and I do appreciate a good vote on what move do pass. What do pass from Senator Ballinger second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Ballinger your pastor bill. Of Senator Dismang. We have center this brings in the hallway. Or his office. His main. Senate SP three hundred. You Sir thank you Mr chairman. It was just a moment to fund the bill. Senator Dismang you're recognized for president SP three hundred thank you Mr chairman members I'm gonna be very brief and makes the nation other we've got some folks that would like to speak on the bill speak for the bill and there they asked expert in this field and understand more than I could ever it how how impactful this legislation could be for them in our communities that's so with that what it what this bill does it just allows or eliminate the parole eligibility has a Class B. felony for someone that has a prior about violent felony conviction the person's current position of arm Baltz a commission of another crime or if that person's been previously convicted under this section or similar provision from another jurisdiction so essentially you have to be utilizing a weapon a gun to be able to receive that Class B. felony if you do then you no longer eligible for pull of parole if convicted. You're ready for questions Senator Dismang outright yes Sir. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr and I I'm sure I'm probably fine with this ultimately but my my concern is that that parole having hit eligibility for parole is one of the things that often is used to keep people in line to present you know it's the with the care at that if they behave they get engaged to get educated but a lot more likely to to be able to take game that parole and I wonder if you know I I don't know if you've visited with the department of corrections like how many people are we talking about that this would apply to there is number. Let's see if I've got it here of what they estimated leased. I want them out at I'm not sure on the exact number it's a fairly low number and and these are individuals that. We should be scared of and folks that are willing to use a gun in the commission of a crime or folks that we don't need out in the public I mean this is not sure or a person's been caught with a little marijuana or whatever it may be these are folks that are utilizing weapons with the intent to do something and do some harm And so with that I mean it's I think it's a little bit different on the parole side because of that. And we want to make sure that we have enforcement mechanism in place that they're afraid of right now and have to go back and look see at I apologize to that run over from state insurance and commerce inside unless my notes actually sitting on the floor there but with the these folks right now our five year or just serving a very minimal amount of their sentence and then getting let back out there there is not enough punitive measures in place to to really prevent the recidivism that's occurring. Senator Johnson you're recognized. On the other side this could be a deterrent. To keep that from happening rather than a care correct again and there's going to be individuals get a lot better examples than I do but I've my understanding you know they used to throw their guns out of the car because they didn't want to get caught with a weapon and have those additional charges at this point now the punitive the penalties are so little that that's no longer occurring there there can actually be stand offs and that sort of thing that you know that that are happening because there's just not enough punishment in place for this type of crime. Senator Dismang if I'm reading this correctly and I'm not sure I am this is only for somebody who's. Then come been convicted before of a. A felony with possession of a firearm that's correct this is a part where they've had previous felony with a firearm or just previous felony But if they're caught again for the second attempting to commit a crime with a gun possession of firearm been found so this is this is about okay I'm sorry yeah this is the danger second type folks might have handled questions but this is this is somebody who is already a felon who is not supposed to be in possession of a firearm at all committing a crime a felony with a firearm right and this is not the guy that's going out to church we would to someone that's got to be in the ACT or the intent to correct you know to to to commit a crime. And it's not just so what you just said is not just in possession of the gun it's been possession of the gun committing a felony. Other questions from committee. If anybody has the these guys again I'm not the expert there's gonna be some clarification I think they can provide insight misstated anything I'm I'm not too proud to be corrected thank you. Okay we've got if we got this correct we've got four to testify for and none against. Is this is this correct. No that's not right Jennifer was. Okay so we do have an again so let's start with the four. Of Scott Bradley executive director Arkansas sheriff's association. You're recognized if you identify yourself for the record thank you Mr chairman Scott Bradley in the Director of the Arkansas share social ation. Your day talk to you about Senate bill three hundred I've made a few notes here I'd like to go over. This bill targets violent offenders repeat criminals not weapons. We're after violent repeat criminals not the guns at that end the only the bill only amends the sentencing to existing possession by possession by certain persons a baseless felony possession statutes it does nothing to change actual crime is so. Currently the parole eligibility issues too lax in provides little a different effect for these types of criminals the Bill impacts violent repeat criminals by making possession of firearm by certain persons in eligible for parole in other words five to ten years will mean they do five to ten years no pro. to qualify for no Perot syncing under this bill the defendant possession of firearm must meet one of the following requirements the person has a prior violent felony conviction the person current it the person's current possession of a firearm involved the commission of another crime or the person has been previously convicted under this section of a similar provision from another jurisdiction. It's target specifically of violent repeat offenders not someone receiving a felony conviction years ago the gets caught going to the deer king so that's what we're trying to focus on if you watch TV it's not hard to figure out what's going on in our communities if you done any research it all started hard to tell where we rank and file a crime here in Arkansas per capita. It's modeled after the the federal project safe neighborhoods program no parole in the there's no parole in the federal system. That seeks to remove the dangerous felons from our communities by keeping them behind bars a program that is proven to reduce violent crime. Again if you're watching TV you know what's happening every single night I mean it's literally every night we've got someone shot and killed this includes police officers. We strongly feel that this bill will keep police officer save and we're going to walk away the right people the people that were scared to. I just that one more thing I that can we really afford not to have violent violent repeat offenders removed from our communities financial cost to the system of allowing revolving door catch release policy for these type of criminals is significant. Having to catch them again and again the damage done to our communities before we catch them again having to prosecute them again I'm placing our officers in danger again is unacceptable and entirely avoidable. I've got some other people that's going to speak behind me that'll go in more detail than that I have but I just want to I want to set that that part of it make sure it was said today. Any questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. Hi Mister I I don't have a question for this witness but could I get asked Mister graves to come up either after this witness or some point to talk about the impact on prisons. Let's do it now after. Thank you Sir. And my question Mr for Mister graves is I look at the fiscal impact and I agree absolutely we we gotta protect our law enforcement take everybody from people who are repeat offenders the firearms but I think we also just need to know what the cost of that's going to be and as I look at ten years from now that's twenty four hundred. More people in prison does that mean we're going to have to build another president in addition to the fifty four to fifty one million dollars that include the cost of the prison I I would assume is that correct. He Sir soon Senator hands Hendren and I'm sorry Sullivan great state terror of corrections first want to this state clearly that neither the board of corrections no or the governor has take get a position on this bill and assets nothing I say in terms of my responses should be viewed as opposition to the bill also want to make the committee aware that I did meet with Senator Dismang and the state code is involved in this legislation and they are also aware of the comments that I'm going to make this morning also Senator to your point the compounded increase in our population is you actually have to add everything from twenty two down to twenty thirty one so the net increase over ten years due to this stacking affect on all my population will actually be twelve thousand five hundred and eighteen inmates assuming no change in behavior over the ten year projects can provided by our state sentencing commission the and the projected impact of two hundred and fifty two million is just is the average cost of operation so it takes into a affect everything from manpower food service utilities it does not take into affect the cost of adding one additional capacity to the system and that is what I want to make sure this committee is aware of as you consider this legislation the. Reduction in population that we have seen over the last year year and a half is purely artificial it is due solely to the fact that many courts in this state have shut down during the pandemic it should not be viewed as we will sustain below capacity population Shinn's once our courts begin to open up this spring summer and and pick up their normal flow of work we cannot sustain a population a projected population impact to this level without additional capacity so number wise it would be this plus the cost of construction in order to sustain an impact of the scope. So. When you say twelve thousand that's not in twenty thirty one they're gonna be twelve thousand more at that time that's cumulative over the correct some will be coming and some will be going out but that in twenty thirty one there would be twenty four hundred more at that year point then we would have otherwise is that what that means over the ten year projects and we're looking at twelve years of girls it would depend on the to Senate slams as to whether or not by twenty thirty one only twenty four thirteen of those are left or it's twenty seven hundred it just depends on what that individual would get internal sentence so what would you. Estimate it would take an additional present capacity to deal with this because of what it take at least three four years to build a prison. So what would we need. to at twenty thirty one to one present one to jail what based on where our current population is trending now which necessitates the need for additional capacity we'd be looking at this place where we are probably somewhere the neighborhood of three to four thousand new bits. And any idea of the cost of that. When we looked at several years ago of adding five hundred new bids at a at an existing facility we were looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of forty million dollars in just construction per five hundred yes Sir and he said we need three thousand yes Sir. Okay secretary gross. You said three to four thousand beds yes Sir so you estimator three four thousand people that are felons of that are likely to pull a gun I have a gun and commit a felony. No Sir what well with that estimate was based on our normal population growth. Which as what has nothing to do with this bill as it as it stands now we're going to need somewhere in the neighborhood of two thousand new business within the next decade if we don't do anything different so this is for your association one to two thousand with this bill specific to this bill you after as our of impact does consider a feedback loop of individuals who are going to come back on a parole violation come back on for a criminal activity on related to this bill just a rough ballpark estimate we would need three to four thousand new beds to address growth related to this bill in just normal growth based on increased population. I'm not sure I got an answer. Use this bill and then you said. Increasing or popularity the estimate of roughly four thousand beds over the next decade assumes normal population growth normal I'm sorry normal population growth within my system on top of the impact of this bill okay SO four thousand. because I heard your first testimony before thousand with this bill you're saying we're gonna have four thousand regardless of what we do so how about this bill. This bill is projected over the ten years to increase our population by twelve thousand to sustain that growth looking at the average increase year to year we would need somewhere in the neighborhood of two thousand beds just to address the projections in this bill. Okay and so the additional two thousand for the year to year for those who are convicted felons Bolland felons that are gonna use of firearms in conjunction with a felony again is what you're telling yes Sir and and I want to be clear the department is not opposed to this bill my board is not opposed to this bill the governor's office has not taken a position my testimony here is simply to make the committee where as the policy makers for this state that this this conversation cannot solely be what do we do in terms of parole eligibility for this pool of individuals that were there also has to be a discussion about additional capacity for the system long term I'm trying to trying to determine number so that we can look at that the the second thing is of those. Following felons which is what's described by with felons who are going to commit another felony with a firearm. As we're looking at what we're going to do I mean. There will be much less likely to be in my neighborhood in. Then they are to be in a poor neighborhood our state. I'll likely to be in my neighborhood and they are to be in a poor minority neighborhoods center I'm not I'm I wouldn't be the best person to quip to determine where they would become from I apologize I'm not dodging I simply can't use it and so I would expect you to know that secretary grades I have a great deal respect for you because the numbers are good volatilities are committed much more often in poor neighborhoods and much more often in minority neighborhoods which tend to be poor so but. This is something I don't have to worry about very much I don't see it very much but if I'm in the right neighborhood I have to worry about it a great deal so again as we have looked at. Other bills this year that we were supposed to that we were warned would have an impact. All people this one would have a whatever cost of our the state in cost of prisons would have a positive impact it seems of on those folks. I'm up remeron. Center I'm I'm not going to I guess as as ascertain why right or wrong in terms of your statement because that's beyond the scope of while I'm here this morning my my dentist is doing sector one to set nature. Head on the center and an office you get to answer questions at an island and I understand that completely I however I'm not a quitter to answer that statement I understand completely what Senator Dismang is getting at with this bill and what our partners in law enforcement are getting out with this bill and as I've told them personally neither myself nor my department opposes what they're trying to get to Senator Stubblefield. Sure. I'm sorry I missed you Senator Ross will go to you first and then Senator still provide. We've got almost all of you on the list thank you. Secretary graves. In the COVID release you know we hear things across the country but in Arkansas. The prisoners that were released. Per call with concerns. Do you have something that shows what. Percentage of already re offended and whether you or somebody else here can answer the other question is overall what percentage of recidivism are we having. That this bill would directly pertain to center we have we we lease. Right in nineteen hundred individuals through our modified EPA releases of by rules set by the governor and the board of corrections all of those have had a statutorily nonviolent conviction I don't I don't have the number of how many of those have come back but I will get with my research staff and follow back up with Alison and get that to her so she can provide that to the committee in terms of our average recidivism rate system wide the last report we looked at we had a fifty six percent recidivism rate among individuals release from the division of corrections over a three year cycle do you have a breakdown of those that have used to. Farm. In their felony yes that information I apologize I don't have the number of the top of my head but it is contained in our recidivism report which is available online okay. Thank you thank you Mr secretary stole thank you Mr Sullivan how many of them in non violent offenders are currently incarcerated in the apartment correct it trends fifty five percent of I guess such a purposes by saying there is a statutory there is a statute poorly defined list of violent offenses so when I'm giving this number is based on that is five four five oh one the two I believe and on any given year where about fifty five percent violent under that definition forty five percent nonviolent it forty five percent of people incarcerated they've committed a nonviolent felony based on that statutorily based on that definition in statute how many of those on average released every year violent. I don't have the non violent violent number we annually release about ten thousand. Ten thousand nonviolent to figure it. Period so if you look at where our population is shin trans you could reasonably ascertained that somewhere between fifty to fifty five percent would fall in that statutorily defined violent bucket the balance would fall in that statutorily defined nonviolent book or how many how many individuals who fall under the category that's this bill addresses are released every year I'd have to look at our release numbers I apologize sincerely to build I couldn't project timing individuals we are released on an annual basis for felon in possession. On average what I would like to know that I would like to know how many individuals would fall into this this build category this bill says Ford are released on our streets every year yes Sir I can I can that is very important number to follow back up with you on that I can tell you based on current parole eligibility laws they'll do somewhere between fourteen months to two years under current parole volatility for felony possession. At the end then I saw what I want to be clear I'm not speaking in opposition to the bill I believe in this state for thirty eight years and I understand what this bill is trying to get to that's not why I'm here this morning my testimony here this morning is simply based on if this bill passes there cannot just be a conversation about this bill there has to be an understanding by you and the remaining members of the General Assembly that long term this bill will necessitate a conversation about capacity in the same way the General Assembly determined in the nineties and early two thousands there was a need to pass seventy percent laws and fifty percent laws to protect the communities that the server course on what I'm getting at is we've got a huge disparity in and individuals who have been arrested and sentenced to ten years for an ounce of marijuana in and they were releasing individuals have taken a gun and committed a robbery. Something that a ballot to. Bat out of balance we need to take a long look at our justice system and try to bring it back into balance I think this bill does it goes a long way to do that but we need to look at the other half yes Sir of these non violent individuals or incarcerated who are costing the state just as much. Who really should be paroled much quicker. Then these individuals committed a violent felony would you agree though that would be a fair conversation said send half or thank you Mr chairman. Senator Johnson. Thank you senator the secretary Grady the The I have had this conversation back past you if you previous to this date. If we build as a body if we build larger common areas in the facilities we have now and lockers for their for for their bankrolls prisoners we have now and House lows in twelve hour ships like the navy does. How much would that increase our complete current capacity in the presence of so commonly referred to as high marking that. Is not a viable option for the entirety of my population because that is based on an assumption that. The same we're doing the same amount of work in the first twelve hours as we're doing in the second twelve hours and there's send. We are not the availability of what we call twenty four hour job assignments that would offset the that would that would allow for that type of housing assignment to meet the needs of the population we would have to have hello one to one bit assignment as we currently have now. So you're saying that is not possible anywhere we do we do it would be a option in for instance a work release setting where conceivably we do have individuals who work third shift and so they're not you don't you don't have individuals in the same space at the same time but in a traditional correctional setting as we currently operate no Sir. So the inmate's. Can't be. Locked into the housing our our or locked into the common areas for twelve hours and change out those books and put them in lockers and then. Introduce those back into the resting area that is not a possibility under our current accreditation shin standards no and that would likely also be challenged in court. Thank you for. Senator Garner. Thanks so if be clear the people under this. They will. Sorry I was having some issue let's go back so looking number DF and they gave it a fiscal impact and I'm just local views about those numbers is that a compounding amount they get to that I just confused about the calculation because this goes from like ninety one over five hundred in one year is it just the numbers you're saying Nicks about how much to call per inmate is at the end in ten years and twenty thirty one how many people additional people will be in jail that date just based on this database on population growth not based on anything else how many inmates will be in jail that would not be in jail if we did not that Senate senator garner with the permission of the chair I'd like to have one of our staff staff attorney with the sentencing commission who worked on this impact come up because she's going to have that additional detail beyond the summary that I have in front of me I apologize soon Senator Garner no worries I just when I'm reading is look if you're that's compounding then the numbers I got for two hundred fifty million I just try to do quick map on I just don't I'm not account is I don't see where that comes from the it is it is a compounded impact mean and is it looks at what happened previously and then you have to add on what happens in that year and you keep sending the domino effect but ms shall come up and assist me with that question okay. As Mike on okay so I'm Tony Ryall and the staff attorney with the Arkansas sentencing commission and to answer your question that two thousand four hundred thirteen is going to be Jasper two thousand thirty one. because the reason it goes from ninety one to five twenty eight is just because we're going to see. a stacking effect because right now they're serving about a six and that is going to increase and stock up on itself it's kind of based on different lengths of sentence and they are being released a little bit of time there's around four hundred a year so. Okay so at the end of twenty thirty one there will be additional twenty four thirteen based on your projections now inmates that are in jail that weren't in jail if we don't pass this thank you all right but that's the number one No seem like we're talking back and forth and a lot. If if I understand centers be clear is it's twenty four thirteen is what's going to be new that year there's gonna be some that would arise from our previous years plus plus make sure that's what I'm asking. All right which one is it because if you're saying we got twenty three ninety one ninety one plus twenty three unit and we have a ten thousand people addition that's one thing you're saying twenty four hundred that's the confusion I have twenty four hundred is just for the year of twenty thirty one that's the bed space impact so it doesn't so we will be in twenty thirty one only well at two twenty four hundred new inmates just that yes it is just for that year I don't understand how that works. Yeah I'm going to get into the math of the Senator Ballinger do you have a question is not math related. At. No Senator Stubblefield in questions of okay so. They're serving one six other. This one six other. Senate Trudden. Yes on it so they would serve five times longer exactly brought so at what point are we starting here we see two thousand twenty two doesn't look like it two thousand twenty three it looks like we're starting at two thousand twenty four am I correct yes so the reason that I'm two thousand twenty two and two thousand twenty three or lower is just because those folks would not be getting out in those years regardless of parole eligibility so. When we when we say four hundred a year we have a wide range of sentences and able to second so those people don't be getting out regardless of parole what does that mean okay so if we have four hundred a year some of them are gonna have sentences there long enough that they would still be in prison in two thousand twenty two a large majority of them are still going to be in prison in two thousand two hundred but they're not affected by this bill so they wouldn't be in two thousand twenty two right so they would be still down there but it's because of the length of their sentence even at one six they're still gonna be down there in two thousand twenty two you see that it gets bigger and two thousand twenty three because this is more individuals who would be released okay and then you can really see the full impact starting to pick up in two thousand twenty four so two thousand twenty four one year two thousand twenty five two years two thousand twenty six three years two thousand twenty seven four years two thousand twenty eight five years. Okay so now we've hit five times. Right yes so why did we go beyond two thousand twenty eight. Because at that point we put the maximum. Of. The of what we would have hit. Of for the number that that are staying longer everything else has got to be distinct released. The number of prisoners you expect to come into the system that that have nothing to do with this bill am I wrong well so you have to account for the people that are coming in in subsequent years as well but the people coming in in subsequent years I have to do with growth. That we talked about earlier the the five years seems to be though the effect of the bill what we're saying five years like we're saying five times in five years I think that we're treating those the same but it's not necessarily five years this is a B. felony so you can have a sentence of up to twenty years is this a dynamic number I'm so. I think it depends on what sentencing looks like and if there were any changes in sentencing practices resulting from this but how about as a deterrent is it a dynamic number. So it is it is certainly something that if we had it at the end has any calculation been made for the fact. That less people may be doing this or or do we believe that this will have no deterrent effect is Senator can sentencing were. The tar behavior yes. Is it possible to add that potential into this impact no this impact assumes all things being the same based on a current snapshot of our population this is where will be but if we're going to have that discussion should we not be having this discussion about deterrent and about crime going down about people not putting a gun in somebody else's for ages and and that's why I want to be clear that the department's position is solely based on where our population is now all things being the same where would we be. That's it that's it this is not a what what I look at numbers though I like I like to have numbers that are that I think are really realistic and not just worst case of and this looks to me like worst case So. Of. Up for the. Do you have anybody else under the questions. Yes yes I think Senator Ballinger past. So this one would you like to chime in. Yes Sir because we share a lot of the same questions concerns trying to understand how something it's a ten year average continues to increase after the you know the ten years there's there's some of this that I don't really understand and some of it I think that we need to look at and I pulled this when I had after have the bill drafted have this statement come back you know when we when we talk about the sentencing commission I mean we're we're taking a report that an out of state company prepares for us is that fair yes that is correct it we're not the sentencing commission itself. Is it doing any of this work on their own they're not providing statements or recommendations or really some of that additional information that you're seeking in the determination the report I think their charge to by law but I don't believe it's happening because orders pretty much adopting report as is provided for by the out of state company I'm I'm I don't know that that's a fair assessment and we we are for so but but what I think we should do to your point is we do need to look at how this information is collected and gathered I would argue that. You know we say fifty six percent I've heard as high as eighty percent recidivism rate for these individuals committing these crimes is very crimes which means. Sure it would they may be getting out in fourteen months and I hope you heard that fourteen months on a ten year sentence let me get in fourteen months but gets way they're eighty percent likely to do it all over again which means they go where right back into the prison population for another fourteen or twenty four months and right back in the prison population for another fourteen or twenty four months but they they are actually part of the cost that should be backed off of this and I got some I ask them to do that I'll tell you the numbers we got back based even on the fifty percent fifty six percent receivers it recidivism rate doesn't make sense to me I think we really need to take a look at what the sentencing commission is doing what they're charge for any information that providing an. A good point the center is made with a high recidivism rate there there anyway with a temporary vacation So yeah I would I would be very interested in seeing the detail on these numbers The. Okay any other questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. Yeah thank you Mr I guess I just like to ask you start to say that it wasn't quite a fair way why why do you think there's what what was an act enacted about that what do you all do besides taking the numbers from this contracted corporation I guess and then maybe a little bit about is there any input or addressing of the repeat offenders and the impact that has on population you know are they at are they doing both sides of the question yes Sir soon Senator Hendren and that in two parts the first is yes the diseases is where probably give some background are sentencing commission staff is a three person job director staff attorney and then they have a IT analyst position I'll call it that the commission itself it which is a good which is good mentally appointed representing judges our prosecutors a criminal defense bar and then at large citizens they is that they contract out for of the. Per dose tion of a impact report I'm sorry a departure report I'll call it that and also for the compilation shin of impacts the commission sets out in that procurement how impacts are to be done so yes the actual number crunching and all of that is done by a consultant procured by the commission but the commission itself is the one that sets out the standards on how those impacts our symbol the second point is we did have after I met with Senator Dismang and the stakeholders supporting this bill at their request of revise an initial draft impact to in to include was referred to as a feedback loop which accounts for those recidivist that did reduce the initial projection that we provided to Senator Dismang Thank you will probably say it didn't reduce it as much as he expected but we did build that feedback loop into account for the return of recidivists which gets us to the number that died you have in front of you today so it is included in this report that we have. It is it that feedback is included in this reporter was our yes Sir is included in the report that was presented to you today okay and again I just want to I think all of us here agree that policy wise this is good policy but I think it's very the Secretary saying for us to understand that the cost it on down the road for this and and and that's what I stress was Senator dis dis DISMANG and that's what I hope the committee understands the department is not opposed to this concept we simply want to make sure that this committee and and the entire General Assembly knows that long term in the same way and soon Senator Hendren you were lied. In the House during some of those conversations about the seventy percent laws and fifty percent loss. We know what's going to happen to some extent there will be an increase in capacity and if that's the will of this General Assembly that's fine but I just wanna make sure everybody understands on the front in there's going to have to be a conversation on the back in about capacity what that conversation will be long term mate could be less than a two hundred million impact if there is a deterrent yes but even if you take a third. We do read a third wood ducks shin off this impact at this size that's only eighty million dollars. So there's I just wanna make sure everybody stands long term that will have to be a conversation about capacity if that's the will of this body that's fine. But need everybody then I understand on the front end that there will be a conversation on the back and about additional and I appreciate that the point Senator Stubblefield brought up I hope with some it It part of that discussion has to be why we got so many non violent offenders and building more prisons for for these types thanks that's a fair balance. Other questions from the committee. Sam Nunn we have Jeff Rosenzweig signed up to testify against. Jefferson's five Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers the bill is overkill the has this been said you want to the bill if passed would have a no parole for a B. felony which would be five to twenty years in other words someone who got a twenty year sentence would have to do every day of that twenty no matter what his health turned out to be no matter how will he behaved there were some concerns about the carrots there's a way to solve some of that problem which is there are plenty of we have. As a Mr grave said we have fifty percent rules we have seventy percent rules there's no need for this to be a one hundred percent role secondly you also have the fact that it is that this is more of more than just pulling a gun on someone where you had a prior conviction it includes the way the the statute is written to make it a B. felony you go to the bank to pass before check in the you get stop patted down you have a gun on you the gun doesn't have to be pulled it just has to have been another crime would have to have been committed doesn't necessarily have to be in a violent crime so there are if if the legislature is concerned about it there are ways to step in a penalty without taking away the carrot that the department of correction has to get to ask for and try to get good behavior out of an inmate. I'm happy to answer any questions. You're recognized thank you Mr chairman Mr of like I don't believe this is an over kill let me tell you why I don't think it's an overkill I was on the phone this morning with a relative of mine who lives in southern California you tell me the county's lived there all his life he's a teacher by the way the educator says he's lived there all his life. The the violent crime rate. Has doubled in the last two months. In that county and cal for this is that one county California you know and I ask him why do you want to. Not everyone on the phone call so I don't know I'm just asking you for. The board the board has been opened the border has been opened most of these crimes are committed by illegal immigrants that are coming and gangs coming into drugs coming in and I asked him I said. He said I would move to Arkansas but he said this is all coming to Arkansas it's coming to the middle of the country so I don't foresee this getting any better in the near future I don't see a societal change as long as we have that type of situation. Coming. So this is not going to get a better this is not an over kill this is actually protecting citizens against violent felons. What we have easily I mean that's the judgment that each member of the panel each member of the legislature will have to make and the question is you need you would need to take into account of the shall we say the behavioral incentive incentives of people who are you know who are sentenced sentenced to prison if their toll if you're told doesn't matter how will you behave you're not going to get out under any circumstances that's not an incentive to good behavior which is one of the things that are one of the things there they're trying to do but it's fifty percent of them are going out and read reads president of the business fifty percent they're going out and doing the same thing again. Our system to get that they're not going to change the right here well I you know I I don't know whether that recidivism is merely just accused of violating parole or whether it involves could knit conviction of another offense I simply don't know what that statistic represents so I wouldn't be able to answer that. Well thank you Mr. Miss rose what what percentage of change would you recommend. Well I will hire if you're going to put a floor on it I would say put make up to fifty percent we already have there's already legislative experience with the fifty percent this statute you have some that are fifty of some that are seventy as you know about seventy percent rule but I don't think you need to go to a hundred percent. Okay thank you Sir for. Motion for committee consideration of a motion for me to consideration of. Second that is non debatable motion of all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried of. The motion to pass motion to pass. Second. Any discussion. Hearing none offer the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried resolutions introduced when your pastor bill thank you Mr chairman. US senator garner you've got one. Bill that you've got somebody if you're as a house bill twelve thirteen yes Sir I will get you in for house bill twelve thirteen. We apologize Senator Flippo indicated earlier that we had somebody here but did indicate to a minute ago that you were carrying it. I return if have loud election judge of Pendergrass for Baxter County committee with me as well. And I'm ready when you are Sir. All right. We'll we're still fighting the judge if you will identify yourself for the record. Making the Pendergrass Baxter County judge. Your Senator Garner you're recognized present your bill thank you chairman committee this bill by better defining what indigent is and more clearly look at that and make the judge looked at somebody's actually qualified we make sure the system isn't abusing the system is solvent and available for those who truly do need this service how we did we had a requirement for a substantial financial hardship in added a definition for what that means we also put a requirement for the court to review a person certification at digit and if they are found not to have the certification the court can still qualify them based on a number of factors as you can see on page three with that I will take any questions or if the judge has anything to add to the testimony. Judge. I'll be glad to entertain any questions concerning this since I've been looking and pushing for this as county judge exact of the county budgets in CMS a statewide problem an appreciate to staffers were current center going to for president it and I think it's a good start for this committee to to look at this situation continue to studies that we go forward. With that I'd. Be glad to address questions questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield thank you Mr chairman. The judge or forgot your last name and address and rest. We have a problem with finding public defender. In some areas of the state nothing to do the public defender's Commission and the directors here but there's some other State yes they are so we've got we've got a ton of people sitting around one the plea and there's no public defenders correct but that is not the text of what this right on the sand and I was just reading through the problem you have a what I what I learned through this process of getting to the point to bring in a bill to you was there are areas of the state or the the Mr perish in others it's and and with public defenders Commission have to travel great miles to that area this state to present offender because there's none there. Latin sobbing from the time you senator. Senator Hendren thank you Mr so are we just making it. Less likely or more difficult to make sure that this not abused at the somebody who can pay for their defense does pay for their defense yes Sir there's been if they are going to claim to certification they have to meet the requirements of either be on public assistance our form below the poverty line and like I said there's always a catch all that if they still want to claim it and they're not certified by the court the court can look at that and base it off of the determine factors so they have a million dollars in the bank account they're never going to get this but if there's some other conditions that could do that the court to look at that still certify them as having this if needed. So. Do they have to be a recipient of public assistance to qualify under this recipient's public systems for earning less than two hundred percent of the federal poverty guidelines as these as of January first two thousand twenty one one being incarcerated or amendment to a residential mental health facility are the factors report No so anyone who's on earning less than two percent then is eligible for indigent they're automatically qualified or through public assistance or you don't meet those other two requirements to automatically be certified or in this if not to have to go to court the court will have a hearing and they can determine whether they are going to given that certification or not thank. So there is no. No requirements. Now. I'm looking for what this amends. The indigent person means a person who is a time as his or her need to determine is without sufficient funds or assistant to employed an attorney or for other necessary expenses incidental that's what the current law is and we're putting in what this actually should mean is they have a substantial financial hardship as defined and if they don't meet that then they can go through the process to set to explain to the court while they are rather than kind of minutes catch all within claim does not matter what they're assistance are also allow for the courts to look at there are a statement to see how much money they actually made and different factors like to. Okay in the having several quorum court I know that this is always a bar in the saddle of for county budgets that we arrest him and then we defendant of. But the if I might take delivery Senator Clark doesn't address a little bit of why this came to my attention a few years ago. When you have a court circuit or District and and your public defenders is taking eighty to ninety percent of the same number of cases the prosecutor you got a problem in that those who were required to determine indigency didn't have a law as to deal with the Senator Hendren question didn't have a law re referred to to set down so at some a defendant who came into court. Turns out to be the smartest person in the room because he knows if he pleaded not guilty and came without an attorney about the fourth time the judge would assigned a public defender and they had no where to turn to give them some to put the burden back on those who can afford an attorney **** mates and mentioned in a previous bill discussing and you're on the go. Other questions from the committee. I see no one signed up to speak against but that may be a misnomer. Because because the public defender might need less people and be less taxed the trial attorneys may get more business so they wouldn't be as worried about people's rights prosecutors is coming after your regardless so. Senator Clark yes. Doing a great job make sure someone can those businesses bill. And the. The taxpayers don't have to pay for it so. Of. Senator Garner would you like close your bill I'm close for the bill Sir. Do pass from Senator Ballinger. Second from center Johnson any discussion. All for the motion signify by saying aye hi all against. Congradulations Senator Garner your bill passed thank you Committee. Senator Hammer. What bill Senator Hammer shares house bill ten ninety able if you have an amendment that's up putting me on the Senate sponsor radius on behalf of representative will be with you who's had just stepped away suddenly while ago some run the bill for him. House bill ten ninety eight. We have a motion to adopt the amendment from senator garner second from Senator Ballenger any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Hammer you have amended the bill. Party ratio present the amended bill so I'll try to make it two for two Sir. Ready for me personally we're ready thank you this comes of a real life example of something that representative wouldn't had personal experience with involved a daycare center where a family member of an immediate member that was owner working at the daycare center had their family member come the family member was a registered sex offender and was coming on to the premises on the property of the day care center and so what this bill does is if that family member and it list out who that involves is going to be coming on the property while the kids are there that they have to notify all the family they have to notify all the pairs that that individual will be coming on the property during the time of which the day care centers operating. And to the best cannot take questions. Senator Ross. I'm for the bill if you. That mindset thought there was already. Rules in place for sex offenders that they cannot go to those is that not right I was under the impression when I talked to the staff attorney that helped draft this one can get a hold represent wooden evidently if it involves an immediate family member there's a loophole in this is closed that loophole they can live within AT and I even presented this question I said well what if what if it's a daycare center where their residences attached to the day care center and they live on the backside of the daycare center family member could live there but. Strangely enough could come there just for them quirky little things that he's trying to close a loophole on. Okay I'm surprised thank you. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr but so there's I'm not reading this the way that you presented it so I want to make sure that you're that either either I'm I'm wrong or you're wrong one or the other thank you the way that I see this is that it's not a question that the the person may be coming on there so if if there if a daycare facility has an employee who has an immediate family member who is a level two three for sex offender then they automatically have to provide notice whether or not that person's going to is going to come on the property. If that is the case I don't know I'm I'm missing that part. What are you looking on the backs of the bill yeah but well so submitted so we it is there I don't see anywhere in here that only limits it the if the person is actually I mean to me it seems like a no brainer is easy if that if this level Freeport sex offender section becoming on the property then okay fine we need to notify the parents of that's going to happen in this case if you have somebody who has an immediate family member who is a registered sex offender. Then then it automatically is required that the daycare center provide that notice. One respond on the initial I don't know that either one is. A bad thing but as it was explained to me. That if. H. the individual is a registered sex offender related directly to the owner or related directly to someone that is working there and is coming on the property that the family members whose children are there would have to be notified that they're coming there now if it's if it's after hours and say for example that person's going to mow the lawn and the kids aren't there it's okay it's just when the kids are there and and I think that that bill would be a good bill but I don't think that's what this bill is I think this bill actually requires the notification period so if the person has it has an employee who has a family member who is a sex offender than that notification has to be provided and I don't I mean that may be that may be okay this committee may be fine with that I don't know how big a number that is that could be a really large number and the level two sex offenders is one that's not likely to to re offend in it and I know it says only if it's been made public the question is how do you define made public I don't know you know what the what the limitation of that would be the I mean I'm not in the business of trying to make life easier Richard sex offenders but I'm also not in the business of making making putting a burden on child care facilities that that is not necessary okay. Senator Rice that I recognize you. Senator Garner. I agree not a reading with Senator Ballinger. What you want to do is create and I support that what we're doing is if I hire somebody and say they have a someone they don't have anything to do with anymore who's a sex offender then I have to as the owner that day care facility let every parent know there there's somebody associated with the as a writer sex offender that to me is grossly unfair that employee I would if I had a car would hire anybody has that because. If I get an email saying there's a sex offender anything of my child day care I'm losing my and I know that's not what you're intended to that's what this is mandated we do I think that you're if they come there they have to I was just banter coming there actually is making a crime if they get close to it then they are automatically put in prison I don't care about that but the employee who's the meat family member. Has nothing to do with that assuming they're gonna be punished because of this and it's gonna put that burden on on that day care I think that's our agree with Senator Ballinger point on their fixture. Recommendation I'm doing this on behalf of the favor represent wouldn't who would have been here had it not been for medical situation occurred what I like to and in respect to time let me just pull it down let me get him with the two attorneys and see if we can't you know tweak a little bit and then I'll be back he'll be back to run House at that okay this without objection yes you are thank you. The Senator Ballinger were twelve minutes to one did you will run the bill you're the last one the last run a bill. house bill fifty. House Bill fifteen what. House Bill fifteen eighty eight not the last one that had a bill on the agenda but the last one who asked personally to run a bill. So I have fifty fifteen eighty eight and I'm I hope that we'll get through this quickly. Mister chair I have somebody who comes to I'm a hold you up just a moment Senator Ballinger in case we don't get through it quickly because we're going to get through it two minutes to one one way or the other of. The I guess the committee a question before you proceed of. Do you all want to meet Monday or wait till Wednesday. Senator ras. If we meet Monday it will have to be an afternoon Nailsea is meeting eight has blocked out eight to noon for any committees okay then because we're getting late in the session I would suggest that will meet Wednesday morning of if a I know that I or you may have bills running and committees Wednesday afternoon but be for warned. That if we're not finished Wednesday morning we may meet Wednesday afternoon. Because again that's the twenty ninth I think of no no that may be the that may be the thirty first I think twenty not this Monday so that's the thirty first of and so we have bills we don't get to Wednesday morning we may try to meet Wednesday afternoon so anyway Senator Ballinger you're recognized thank you Mr buy a house bill fifteen eighty eight is the bill that we dealt with before dealing with the it creating the basically adding a four year old if you're if you're reckless to second degree battery so there's a little bit of a at which they came up with dealing with the the age of four year old with that age of four year old was has been in the code section for first degree battery if you intentionally or knowingly engage in activity that leaves the apartment what this would do is this would say if you if you recklessly or or. Negligent it is I'm I'm so sorry recklessly that's right if you recklessly engages agent James a mental state then the secondary battery I think it's pretty straightforward not it I don't think it's nearly as complicated as we made it last time but I'm happy to try to answer questions on that and course Mr shoes here to answer questions as well. Questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here to speak for against. I see no US secretary Johnson is that the the promotion. Of Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill I'm come close. The motion do pass from center Johnson second from senator garner. Any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye aye All opposed. Motion carried congratulates mentor Ballinger you have passed your bill. Of. Anything that we just had to do today yes if we can afford and and not I hate I hate to rush it through but I do have somebody who's been sitting in the holding room all committee waiting for to hear these goals I did tell you actually Mr of what the bill is. House Bill fourteen fifty eight and also house bill thirteen seventy nine the both those bills and and if it is something that gets complicated we can we can pick it up later. What we'll start with okay so so fourteen fifty eight is the easier of the two bills it's easier to just take a look at and it basically what it does is it deals with withdrawing the consent it would benefit them if it's a minor and it removes the age from ten to twelve these were amendments a lot of this maybe you all may remember back in two thousand nineteen we had adoption bills that came before us and wind up really basically got that getting a lot of the adoption reform stuff and end up passing a bill to deal with child trafficking and this is the work of represent Penzo over working over that time period with adoption attorneys there's no opposition to this now and actually putting together some really solid reforms the first bills really easy it just changes that too from from ten to twelve and if there are no questions I'll make a motion do pass. Questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. So it I mean we're just making it work kids it's ten or eleven can't just say I want this and it's all good it has to have the lease twelve years old that's right and it's only for for waving the that waiting period for the troop withdrawal it just makes it less likely that you're gonna be engaged in child trafficking the older the child okay thanks. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none anyone to speak for against. I see somebody looking at this. But you are welcome to the table and introduce yourself. And I. Yeah my name is John trouble I'm an attorney here in Little Rock your years speak for against for you may kill the bill because we're going to adjourn here in just a minute go ahead. I I would just like to be available if there any questions. Okay. there are no questions I don't believe. The motion to pass motion to pass from Senator Ballinger. Second from Senator Ross any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion Kerry regulations Senator Ballenger your past representative pencils bill. Of fourteen fifty eight yep so this one is actually thirteen seventy nine so forty today is what we just pass okay thirteen seventy nine so thirty seven nine obviously probably did he really deserves more time for this but what I can tell you is this is represented does work with the the adoption bar and and has incorporated some of these things what it basically does that requires the the parents to have separate counsel to not have the same council as adoption tourney in less with some exceptions if it's a step parent adoption or adoption from a family member close family member to second degree of consanguinity then it also has the requirement that if their English is not their primary language today before provided with a an interpreter and the it also requires an accounting of the expenses so it I'm happy to try to answer any questions that a person has but this is there's no opposition and this is created a good balance for adoption reform which and in particular Northwest Arkansas with the problem that the seriously all over the state we're seeing some fairly abuse of process when it comes to adoption. So Senator Ballinger we had a lot of attorneys into the process well the answer is it actually has a requirement for another term in the process that would be paid for by the the topic parents or petitioning but I also believe that the accounting that is required to be in this is likely also to save adoptive parents money so in the end it may actually make for but less expensive adoption process for Arkansas. Trying to keep from smiling. But I don't do much adoption although I enjoy what I do is a lot of the territories were we're saving everybody money. The any questions from the committee. Senator Garner thank you I'd be that guy yeah you are that guy but this is seems pretty extensive seven pages of new law I'm kind of reading through its got some stuff about the qualified interpreter how that's going to happen who's paying for things like that I'd like some more time to get digest this beautiful if that's the case that's fine I just wanted at least give the opportunity because having the gentleman here if you had a specific question for him that's fine I'm definitely not going to go over this committee to get this done but I apologize to the gentleman we tried to catch everybody and we just didn't but I know this they've taken months on this bill in the house so I think it would be better we can't do it in two minutes would be better if we bring it back yep that's fine thank you so you will for that without objection without